@philokalia saidPaul said that the gospel of Christ was already preached all over the world, during his time
There's no knowing Christ without the Bible; there is also no approaching Christ without approaching through the Church, though surely those who are prevented from Church membership are not cut off from Christ. Christ will work with them how He can.
St. Paul's epistles are in the Bible because they are the inspired word of God. St. Paul was chosen by God ...[text shortened]... an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.[/quote]
(1 Tim. 1:12-16)
... the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23 KJV)
The bible as we know it was only produced about 400 years ago. Therefore this statement you made : There's no knowing Christ without the Bible.. is foolishness.
This one ..there is also no approaching Christ without approaching through the Church,... , shows an incredible level of ignorance. The church was condemned at the time of Christ who warned people to stay away from the church and the church fathers at that time. Paul and the Apostles, brought back some decency and credibility to the church but over the centuries the church has degenerated into a abyss of evil, greed, sexual permissiveness and is now even worse than at the time of Christ.
This next statement, St. Paul is simply an inspired New Testament author who faithfully recorded God's words and interpreted God's message at the behest of God. .. shows that you cannot read. Paul himself stated that NOT everything he wrote came from God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Cornelius was a Roman living in ISRAEL, among the JEWS. Got it ? The Gospel of Christ was being preached all over the world. Are you saying that Cornelius was the only one converted at this time?
It is not that significant WHERE Cornelius lived. Christ's instructions were to the disciples that His gospel should go to the uttermost parts of the earth. They started near and went far.
To not regard the Gentiles as receiving the new covenant and the Holy Spirit as hugely significant is ridiculous. Even the book of Acts itself makes it a momentous event.
Am I saying Cornelius was the only Gentile converted at this time?
No, I am not erecting that strawman for you to heroically knock down.
The Ethiopian servant eunuch of the African queen I believe received Jesus before this under the preaching of Phillip (Acts 8:26-41)
Revelation is in the Bible. Double check. And that book speaks of those saved from every tongue and tribe and people and nation.
17 Mar 21
@sonship saidThe bible represents God dealings with the Jews. Cornelius lived among the Jews and he was baptised, hence he was included in the bible. Paul preached to the Gentiles but he was JEW preaching to the Gentiles. There were many apostles sent out to preach all over the world. Paul was just one of many.
@Rajk999Cornelius was a Roman living in ISRAEL, among the JEWS. Got it ? The Gospel of Christ was being preached all over the world. Are you saying that Cornelius was the only one converted at this time?
It is not that significant WHERE Cornelius lived. Christ's instructions were to the disciples that His gospel should go to the uttermost parts of the ear ...[text shortened]... Double check. And that book speaks of those saved from every tongue and tribe and people and nation.
You are simply supporting my point.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 Mar 21
@Rajk999
So the book of Daniel about the Jews being in Babylon and not in Israel is not important?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The bible represents God dealings with the Jews.
What is revealed about the one new man where there cannot be Greek and Jew is a vital part of the Bible's complete revelation.
"And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all." (Col. 3:10,11)
"For He Himself is our peace, He who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity, abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace." (Eph. 2:14,15)
"And put on the new man, which was created according to God, in righteousness and holiness of the reality."(Eph.4:24)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 Mar 21
4 edits
@rajk999 saidThis statement is nonsense.
Did I say anything about not being important ?
The bible only represents Gods dealings with the Jews.
Genesis is in the Bible. Check me on that.
It talks about the creation of MAN. It is not just about the creation of Israel.
It is not just about the creation of the Jews.
Up to chapter 12 mankind before the calling of Abraham is revealed.
God's promises to Abraham are not solely for his decedents. They are also a promise that all the families of the earth would be blessed.
"And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." (Gen. 12:3b)
Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament the whole earth and mankind as a whole are talked about as to God dealing with us.
This statement of yours is quackery.
The bible only represents Gods dealings with the Jews.
17 Mar 21
@sonship saidLet me rephrase then. The bible tells the story of the Jews, It starts off with the creation, continues with the history of the Jews up until the birth of Christ. The writings of the prophets are included. These writings are mostly about Gods dealings past, present and future, with the Jews. Then we have the New Testament which tells of the life of Christ who preached ONLY to the JEWS, and the disciples were told to go and preach ONLY TO THE JEWS. After Christ left then the Apostles were sent out the preach to the rest of the world.
This statement is nonsense.The bible only represents Gods dealings with the Jews.
Genesis is in the Bible. Check me on that.
It talks about the creation of MAN. It is not just about the creation of Israel.
It is not just about the creation of the Jews.
Up to chapter 12 mankind before the calling of Abraham is revealed.
God's promises to Abr ...[text shortened]... of yours is quackery.
The bible only represents Gods dealings with the Jews.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 Mar 21
Let me rephrase then.
That's allowed. Go ahead.
The bible tells the story of the Jews, It starts off with the creation, continues with the history of the Jews up until the birth of Christ. The writings of the prophets are included. These writings are mostly about Gods dealings past, present and future, with the Jews. Then we have the New Testament which tells of the life of Christ who preached ONLY to the JEWS, and the disciples were told to go and preach ONLY TO THE JEWS. After Christ left then the Apostles were sent out the preach to the rest of the world.
"ONLY TO THE JEWS" ? That's interesting. My New Testament has Matthew 28:19 which says -
"Go therefore and disciple ALL THE NATIONS . . . "
Check and see if Matthew 28:19 is in your New Testament.
17 Mar 21
1 edit
@sonship saidYou very well know that that reference refers to the last batch of disciples Jesus sent out before he ascended to heaven. All others [the 12 and the 70] were warned to go to the Jews only and not to go to the Gentiles [likened to dogs]Let me rephrase then.
That's allowed. Go ahead.
[quote]
The bible tells the story of the Jews, It starts off with the creation, continues with the history of the Jews up until the birth of Christ. The writings of the prophets are included. These writings are mostly about Gods dealings past, present and future, with the Jews. Then we have the New Testame ...[text shortened]... iple ALL THE NATIONS . . . "[/b]
Check and see if Matthew 28:19 is in your New Testament.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. (Matthew 15:24-26 KJV)
17 Mar 21
@fmf saidNot necessarily.
They never met, though.
So, when you boil it down to its deal-breaker essence, the punishment meted out by your God figure ~ according to your beliefs ~ for those [like me] who simply do not believe Acts 9:3–9 [and all that is said to have happened in the wake of the event those verses claim happened] ~ is eternal damnation?
Christ is the only guaranteed, known way into the Kingdom of God, and those that consciously reject Christ do go to hell, but I am not sure to what extent this is absolutely universal or how it occurs.
But look -- we are on the second page of a thread about St. Paul, and you have already begun whining about the doctrine of hell. Do you really think that this has to be thread #2,423 on why you denounce the doctrine of hell?
18 Mar 21
@philokalia saidYour buddies who sexually molested little boys did not reject Christ. Are they going to the Kingdom of God then?
Not necessarily.
Christ is the only guaranteed, known way into the Kingdom of God, and those that consciously reject Christ do go to hell, but I am not sure to what extent this is absolutely universal or how it occurs.
But look -- we are on the second page of a thread about St. Paul, and you have already begun whining about the doctrine of hell. Do you really think that this has to be thread #2,423 on why you denounce the doctrine of hell?
18 Mar 21
@rajk999 saidIf you understood Greek, y ou would understand this passage:
Paul said that the gospel of Christ was already preached all over the world, during his time
... the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23 KJV)
The bible as we know it was only produced about 400 years ago. Therefore this statement you ...[text shortened]... [/i] .. shows that you cannot read. Paul himself stated that NOT everything he wrote came from God.
Here is my simple solution, though you have to know Greek to see it. The Greek for the phrase “which has been proclaimed” is tou kēruchthentos). This is a substantival participle which we could render “the proclaimed one” in English. It is in apposition with “the gospel” (tou euangeliou . . . tou kēruchthentos)—“the gospel . . . the proclaimed one.” The fact that the participle “proclaimed” is aorist tense does not mean the proclamation has already happened in the past. That is not the way aorists in substantival participles work, as Daniel Wallace makes clear in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (note 8, 615).
The aorist tense in such uses denotes no specific time. You can see how flexible the aorist is by the use of the aorist passive in Colossians 3:4: “When Christ who is your life appears (phanerothē), then you also will appear with him in glory.” The word for “appears” is aorist passive, but refers to an indefinite future time.
So the simplest reading of Colossians 1:23 is that Paul is defining the gospel as the kind of gospel that is unbounded and global in scope, and therefore is preached, by definition, in all the creation. There is no statement here that it has already happened. So I would translate it:
You he has now reconciled . . . if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard—the gospel which is proclaimed in all creation under heaven.
: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/has-the-gospel-been-preached-to-the-whole-creation-already
Norman L. Geisler also writes of thsi:
“to every creature under heaven. This is obviously a figure of speech indicating the universality of the gospel and its proclamation, not that every person on the globe heard Paul preach.
: https://americanvision.org/17853/has-the-gospel-been-preached-in-all-the-world/
Another website observes:
Obviously, Paul does not mean—nor does he think—that every person in the world had heard the gospel when he wrote these words. Instead, as in Colossians 1:6, Paul is poetically referring to the quick spread of the gospel across many parts of the world.
I am not sure how you think this is applicable to me...
I guess the problem stems from your uncharitable and obtuse interpretation of
There's no knowing Christ without the Bible;
as if an Orthodox Christain would suggest that the Church was illegitimate before the literal printing of the Bible.
It is the case, though, that the Gospels & Epistles were properly selected, and no modern person can dismiss the Bible. For to say that we do not depend on the Bible to know God is not actually saying that one cannot know God through the Church, it is saying that one cannot dismiss the Bible and know God.
Furthermore
there is also no approaching Christ without approaching through the Church,
Means that we need to receive the Baptism and the sacraments to begin our approach to Christ, though we may theoretically know about Him without ever attending church.
I suppose I will need to see how you develop your argument.
18 Mar 21
@rajk999 saidI do not understand your morbid fixation on the terrible crimes of others, and why you think it is so pertinent to me.
Your buddies who sexually molested little boys did not reject Christ. Are they going to the Kingdom of God then?
This is very rude and uncouth.
18 Mar 21
@rajk999 saidI do not even know how you would interpret the New Testament in this light.
God has dealt with ALL of mankind from the creation to now. The bible only represents Gods dealings with the Jews. This fact is stated in the bible in different ways.
Can you please explain this for us?
I can have no insight into what is transparently nonsense and would not try to navigate your particular irrationality.