Do we really know who were Jesus 12 apostles?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
Figure out who's who among Jesus disciples. Itried to There are so many different lists:First list Mark 1:29As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. Mark 3:16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Second list: Matthew copied Mark Matt 10:2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 17, 2004
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004
In Matthew: See Matthew is called a tax collector. Also, Sons of thunder is dropped. The Christian Yahwist-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 17, 2004.
Luke copied Matthew Luke6: 14Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. John is sort of independant. 40Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[10] ). Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael John 1: 43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me." 44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." 46n doesn't give a complete list. John 13:Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. John 20:24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. John 21: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. From Epi stula apostolorum which relies mostly on John's gospel. 2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true. Paul includes James , Jesus brother as an apostle. Galatians 1:19I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. So now, with this lists, what can you conclude. ho is who? The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 17, 2004.
dear Elpidio "so many different lists"? I find only three. According to Matt. 10, Mark 3 and Luke 6, the twelve disciples/Apostles were : Simon Peter; Andrew (brother of Peter); James; John (brother of James); Philip; Bartholemew; Thomas; Matthew; James (son of Alpheaus); Thaddeus (also called Judas and brother of aforesaid James); Simon the Caananite (also called Simon Zealotes); and Judas Iscariot. I would also think it quite obvious from your own observations that Matthew did not copy Mark. -- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 18, 2004.
Elpidio, post-resurrection - Barnabus is also called an apostle - Acts 14 God Bless
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 18, 2004.
and St Paul. and all the countless Catholic bishops through the years. whether created by St Peter or any other Pope or bishop of the Church.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 18, 2004.
ça va sans dire, "Cheval de bataille". But, of course, many will debate. .......................... -- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.
dear rod, Like many, it's a debate that has been done to death. I think Elpidio has a valid question though, about who is named an apostle in scripture, which begs the question 'what was an apostle?' and if apostleship ceased then 'when and why?'. One has to come to one's own conclusions, yet it makes an interesting personal study. I see from scripture that Paul never passed on his apostleship to Timothy for example, and yet it was to Timothy that he committed the doctrines of the church and teachings of himself to further 'commit to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also" It also appears from scripture that there was one generation of apostles and that even their apostlic power began to end before the scriptures were completed. But, each to his/her own beliefs *smile at you* God Bless...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 19, 2004.
But, Gillian, is it a question of everyone to their own beliefs or is it about the truth? Who has the truth? Everyone may have conflicting beliefs, but does that matter if only one or no one has the real truth? Should we live our lives believing in something that is not the truth? .............. -- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 19, 2004.
Gillian the error, which is very, very fundamental, that you make is by placing your total reliance upon Scripture. did Our Lord describe in detail the nature of the Holy Trinity in Scripture? No, He didn't. The subsequent Apostles, the Church, did. do you believe in the Trinity? if you do, then take Elpidion on and argue with him using Scripture. you will lose. not just because Elp is a very clever man, but because you need far mre than Scripture to understand this point. i challenge you. stand up for your beliefs. justify the Trinity on the basis of Scripture -- and answer Elp's questions. you should, of course, be able to provide a compelling Scripture that supports Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation. i bet you can't. -- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 19, 2004.
The Scriptures were not meant to be taken word for word. There were more than 12 Apostles. Jesus did not actually go into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. The Hebrews were not in the desert for 40 years. 12, 40, and 3 are all majical numbers in Jewish mysticism. Seven is also a very important number. When Jews say that 12 were present, not only are women and boys under 13 years not included, but there may have been anywhere from 10 to 15 men present. 12 and 13 are more significan numbers to Jews than 10, 11, 14, et cetera. In the Irish myth, the Tain, Cuchullain is said to have killed 100 men in a single pass. It is not important whether he killed 20 men or 100; what is important is that he killed a lot of men. In the same way, it is not important whether Jesus fed 4,000 or 5,000 people on a certain number of fish and loaves, what is important is that he fed a lot of people on very little. Whether there were 12 or 15 apostles should not be the basis of conflict. But this is merely the humble opinion of one who is called a heathen and a heretic.
-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), February 19, 2004.
Rodrigo de Bivar--El Cid--slaughtered over 4,000 captives and was named a protector of the faith by the pope of the time of Bivar. Ah, the most important thing here is that the slaughter of the heathen/pagans was somehow justified. Maybe it was four thousand or maybe just one pagan. I kind of dig the name belonging to El Cid-- Rodrigo. J. we never continued the other thread about Christians in war. ...........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 19, 2004.
Proving the Trinity?? Not even the Bible Scriptures agree: look at this thread. ................http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl? msg_id=00BJSo................. -- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 19, 2004.
dear rod, It certainly is important what you believe, for after all it is life or death. It is my absolute belief that the Scripture is 'the' Truth to all men in all generations. That Beloved Word is simply a matter of life or death for all *s*. Jesus said 'I am the way, the truth and the life' and I have no reason to doubt Him. If others do, AFTER they have truly and HONESTLY looked into the matter, then I have no problem with that, apart from some sadness of course. God Bless you ever...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 20, 2004.
ah, my dear Ian, you sure do make me type a lot... I wasn't aware I mentioned 'sola scriptura' or the 'trinity', do forgive me, but I shall of course endeavour to answer your questions. First of all I always prefer to let the Bible dictate my terms rather than men, so I will call the 'trinity' the Godhead for starters, if that's ok with you sir. ok, 'sola scriptura' let's see what God says about it: From Deuteronomy: (Jesus' choice of book to answer Satan with in the wilderness) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." "man doth not live by bread only, but by 'every word' that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." and: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalm 12 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." Proverbs "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning." 1 John Jesus said : "But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Paul said: "Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain." Why would I even look for anything else to live by if I have God's Word and my Saviour is within it, and why would I make void his command to live by His every word? Why would I seek anything else to determine my doctrine when His Word is pure? Why would I want to use anything else other than the Scriptures when Jesus didn't? Now for the Godhead: Old Testament "And God said, Let 'us' make man in our image, after our likeness:" Gen. 1:26 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as 'one of us', to know good and evil:" Gen.3:22 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, 'and his redeemer the LORD of hosts'; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Is.44:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The 'everlasting Father', The Prince of Peace." Is.9:6 New testament (this is gonna take ages so I'll just list a few verses to show the actual Godhead) "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Luke 3:21,22 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make 'our abode' with him." John 14:23 (the abiding Spirit is also Father and Son) "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Matt.28:19 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three 'are one'." 1 John 5:7 "For in him (Jesus) dwelleth 'all' the fulness of the Godhead 'bodily'." Remember Nathanel's words to Philip? He declared Jesus to be the 'Son of God' (as did the devils btw), and we know from John 10:33 that the Jews certainly realised that the 'Son of God' meant He was 'God'. The Godhead is certainly apparent in scripture, although explaining the infinite with a finite mind is silly really. One simply need accept the fact by faith. I hope this clarifies my position on the Word and the Godhead for you. God Bless you...
-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 20, 2004.
Gillian? The A.V. was compiled or translated by "men". They must have received it from other men, who receieved it from??? So, your statement--"First of all I always prefer to let the Bible dictate my terms rather than men,... ". Now, I wonder what you mean. Are you trusting the Gospel writers--men? If you are not trusting men, what are you saying? Can you seperate the men from the Gospels? The next problem: Do you include yourself in that list of "men" who cannot be trusted if you make your interpretations and understandings from Scriptures? Can you trust yourself, but not others? Should I trust my reasoning concerning the Scriptures? If we are going to believe the Bible, we are gonna have to have trust in those who put it together. If we can't trust the compilers/recorders, we shouldn't trust the Bible. We shouldn't trust the KJV or the NAB or .......Or, we can choose to look only at the Bible and dare not look at how it got into our hands, that's safer and less controversial. .......
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.
Rod, Gillian still doesn't understand that what we have are the revisions and improvements on the originals. We don't have the originals. At laest Gillian understands one thing: The Godhead is in scripture. I should know: His name is Yahweh The Christian Yahwist/The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.
"Gillian still doesn't understand that what we have are the revisions and improvements on the originals" EXACTAMENTE! Gillian,....., pls justify the Trinity to Elpidio. Elpidio, this is your chance to step out from behind that disguise. if you really are the "man of yahweh", earn the badge.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 20, 2004.
The Trinity is something people had to understand, deduce from scripture. That is why still called a mystery, Ian. No one understands it. Ian, I don't have to earn anything. I was given things freely by God our father. Ian, 3 questions I had posed to you before. You still have not answered them: Show me the originals, what kind of Catholic are you, who wrote the scriptures? The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.
Now, Gillian, Son of God doesn't mean God in Hebrew. From Genesis 6 That the sons [01121] ben of God [0430] 'elohiym saw [07200] ra'ah the daughters [01323] bath of men [0120] 'adam that they [02007] hennah Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose [were] fair; [02896] towb and they took [03947] laqach them wives [0802] 'ishshah of all which they chose. [0977] bachar Notice Hebrew says ben elohim (son of God). Here it means according to some the angels. In my opinion, the followers of God. From Job 1 Now there was a day [03117] yowm when the sons [01121] ben of God [0430] 'elohiym came [0935] bow' to present [03320] yatsab themselves before the LORD, [03068] Y@hovah and Satan [07854] satan came [0935] bow' also among [08432] tavek them. Here in Romans, it means adopted sons: For [1063] gar as many as [3745] hosos are led [71] ago by the Spirit [4151] pneuma of God, [2316] theos they [3778] houtos are [1526] eisi the sons [5207] huios of God. [2316] theos Thus, Jesus as a son of God never means God himseld, Gillian. Here is another proof for Ian that Jesus is not God himself. The Man of Yahweh/The Christian Yahwist -- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.
Are you still confused Elpidio? Is that why you reposted this?The lists look pretty identical to me. I don't believe anyone questions *who* were the original twelve apsotles. Why do you?
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 26, 2004.
Hi ElpidioI assume that you reposted some of your vandalized threads?
................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.
I am trying, Rod.Senor Ortiz probably will not repost them if they are lost already.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.
Who is Thomas, Faith?Who is Bartholomew?
Who is Mathew?
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.
Um...Elpidio,Huh?
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 26, 2004.
Is Thomas real name Judas, Faith, as it appears in the Gospel of thomas?These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
Is Nathanael same as Bartholomew? appears next to Phillip.
Is Matthew not Levi but Matthias (see Acts)? Mark never calls him Matthew. Yet, Levi is not his name either. He was probably a Levite. We don't know his name.
The Christian Yahwist
The Christian Yahwist The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.
I have never heard anything about this. It isn't an issue.Judas is Judas. Thomas is Thomas...Matthew is Matthew etc....
If this was even an issue among anyone--shouldn't I have heard about it by now??
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 26, 2004.
John only mentions 9 disciples: Peter and Andrew (brothers), the sons of Zebadee (without naming them as John and James), Phillip and Nathanael(not mentioned by Mark), Thomas, Judas , and Judas Isacariot.This means that the twelve were not originally 12.
To make up 12, some of Jesus brothers were added to the group:Judas, James, and Simeon. Sometimes mentioned as the sons of Clopas(or cleophas), or Alphaeus. This has to be a nickname of the family of Jesus. It is not a Hebrew name . Notice the similarity to the word Cephas(Kephas as translaiterated in Greek=Keepa Aramaic) .
According to Paul, Jesus appears to Kephas and James(1 Corinthians 15)
According to Like 24 he appears 2 two men on the road to Emmaus, one of them Klopas (Kephas?).Then when the story is told to Thomas Someone says Jesus appeared to Simeon.
So Simeon the disciple and Simeon the brother may or may not be the same person interchanged.
That is , some stories about Simeon Clopas (Jesus brother) are mixed with those of Simeon(Andrew's brother).
Theological repercussions for Roman Catholics?probably. Which Simeon got the keys of the Kingdom?
After all, Simeon clopas ruled the Jerusalem Church after the death of James according to Eusebius.
For Christians, no.
Still investigating....
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.
The Gospel of Thomas says that when Jesus is asked about who would lead them after he leaves, he mentions his brother James.12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
2Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are, you are to go to James the just,
Taken from this site:
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.
Elpidio--You are making your own controversy. This doesn't exist as a problem or theological debate amongst scholars. Therefore, I have to conclude that your understanding is inadequate.
My Bible doesn't reveal the things you are talking about. I would like to point out that sometimes--we need to consider the Bible as a whole, in order to get the full picture. The idea that some gospels don't mention what other gospels do---doesn't hold a negative meaning to me.
We have been able to conclude just *who* were the original apostles, by looking at the gospels as a whole--and there is no disagreement amongst Christians in general.
I would also like to point out that the gospel of Thomas was widely rejected from the begining by Christians who instinctively know God. That gospel never took hold in the Christian community. It is not even believed to have been written by Thomas.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 27, 2004.
Are you absolutely sure of your belief in the following quotation?"...by Christians who instinctively know God."
Because now, we will eventually acknowledge the Church Fathers and concede to their writings. That's if you believe what you have said, Faith. One cannot use these "Christians" to refute one set of books to be false and turn around and dispute their claims about the "real" Bible, can one?
...................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.
I am not sure what you are saying rod...I think you might be under the delusion that early church Fathers were Catholic or something??
I am talking about the people who were living and using the Scriptures as they were being written and circulated shortly after Christ. They already knew their Scriptures in the same way the the Jews knew theirs---long before any Catholic council ever sat down behind closed doors to put their stamp of approval on the Scriptures that were already widely used or rejected anyway.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 27, 2004.
We are talking about the Christians who rejected the books such as The Gospel of Thomas--"the other gospels". Why do you resort to calling me delusional?............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.
I don't think instinctual is quite right. Different Christian communities had different scriptures that reflected their understanding. Ebionites used part of Mark I believe, Marcionites used parts of Paul, another the gospel of Peter. These Gospels and scriptures were eventually surpressed. Most were burned. History is written by the winners.
-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), March 27, 2004.
Exactly! Jim.Of course, I'll have to say that the Book of John still contains some of that cultural-ness, as I still view the Gnostic residules in it.
.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.
I agree. John is very different from the other three. But enough similarities so as not to be perceived as unorthodox. It didn't tread on any of the sensitive issues during the first few centuries that could have gotten it rejected. Unless sections were edited out.
-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), March 27, 2004.
All I am saying is that the Catholic Church is not responsible for the Bible. The Bible is given to us by God., and was widely recognized and used before any council ever sat down to approve anything. Thomas--like any other rejected book--was rejected by Christians universally long before the catholic Church came in to it.People of God instinctively recognized inspired Scripture right away. Jesus commisioned the disciples to pass on the truth He had taught them. "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you.. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your rememberance all that I said to you." John 14:25-26
Paul's letters were almost immediately regarded as authorative. Jude quoted from Peter (2 Peter 3:2), Paul cited Luke's gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18..Luke 10:7). Obviously the believers of the eary days recognized a growing body of literature as the inspired Word of God.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 27, 2004.
I think you are banking on a hunch, Faith. Have you spent any time with the "other gospels"? There are many to read. Intuition or instinct sounds comfortable.........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.
By other gospels--are you refering to the rejected ones that godly people intuitively recognized as false?I own the gospel of Thomas. I can see why it is not accepted as inspired Scripture.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 27, 2004.
Yes, there are tons of writings that belong to the so-called "other gospels". I posted a link and Elpidio has too. It is interesting to note who compiled/filtered these writings..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.
I too have a copy of the Thomas writings. My view of the text is that it is splattered with Gnostic language, but to say that it is not inspired may prove a little difficult for me to accept. I keep telling people that the Thomas writings were probably used to convert Gnostics. So, perhaps it did serve its purpose. We really don't know.And, Elpidio's arguement is that the synoptic Gospels used some of Thomas' writings. Elpidio would have to elaborate on that one; I'm thinking it was the other way around. Thomas borrowed from the Synoptic Gospels.
.............. .............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.
"All I am saying is that the Catholic Church is not responsible for the Bible. The Bible is given to us by God., and was widely recognized and used before any council ever sat down to approve anything. Thomas--like any other rejected book--was rejected by Christians universally long before the catholic Church came in to it. "cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo,....
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 27, 2004.
Ian.., you forgot the rest...People of God instinctively recognized inspired Scripture right away. Jesus commisioned the disciples to pass on the truth He had taught them. "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you.. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your rememberance all that I said to you." John 14:25-26
Paul's letters were almost immediately regarded as authorative. Jude quoted from Peter (2 Peter 3:2), Paul cited Luke's gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18..Luke 10:7). Obviously the believers of the eary days recognized a growing body of literature as the inspired Word of God.
All you do Ian, is reveal that you are "inept." Why bother if all you can do is cackle like a bird?
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 28, 2004.
Faith,whether or not you like it, you are an offshoot of the Catholic Church that has existed for the best part of 2,000 years.
the original Christians were/are Catholic. your off-shoot is a heresy.
your only defence to this is that the Church founded all those years ago was the Ebionite movement. even then, however, you are a heretic by their standards.
you can't change history and you can't change Scripture. as much as you'd like too.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 29, 2004.
My church looks more like the early church that followed the apostles. Catholicism didn't start until the time of Constatine. You are the offshoot!The reformation had to happen--or we'd all be as lost as you.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 29, 2004.
"Catholicism didn't start until the time of Constatine"the usual fantasy.
BUT even if true (false), my thesis remains the same: you are an off- shoot of the Church of Constantine (a church that exists only in yr head), and you are a heretic.
you can't change history and you can't change Scripture. as much as you'd like too.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 29, 2004.
Neither can you Ian.., and Catholic Church history is something I sure as heck would want to change if I were you.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 29, 2004.
Well, Faith, if you supported the war in Iraq (as many Christians did) aren't you guilty of the blood of innocent children and women?What about all the other wars supported by Protestants? In fact, I dare say, that without evangelicals in this country, George Bush would not have had the support to enter this war in Iraq. Why, some evangelicals were so rabid in their defense of Bush that you'd think he was the Savior!
Your point is moot!
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 29, 2004.
Gail..,Your point seems to be off-topic.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 29, 2004.
"innocent children and women" - GailIn whose eyes? Gods? or Mans?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 29, 2004.
Sorry Elpidio,I'll try and get some of those threads restored.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 29, 2004.
Thanks, David O.I understand. You must be under the senioritis syndrome. All seniors go through that.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 29, 2004.
Faith,Rod, and Jim: I bowrrowed an Aramaic dictionary this saturday, March 27, 2004.I was checking the usual words like Keepa= Kepha=Petros=Peter (stone, rock).
Then I came across Cleopas,the man who talks to Jesus on the way to Emmaus after the resurrection: Keleopa.
Guess what? It is the same word used in Arabic for Khalifa (successor to the Prophet Muhammad!!!). This means, then, that my guess was probably true:
Clopas is the leader and succesor of Jesus (as mentioned by Thomas: James, and also mentioned by I Corinthians 15: James).
Isn't kind of odd that Paul says in I Corinthians 15 that Jesus appeared to his brother James and the Gospels don't mention him doing that?
There is already some sort of censorship done here. Not only the Gospels don't use James real name ,but Clopas, (a title meaning leader and successor) but the names of his brothers are also mixed up among the 12 apostles.
Thre Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 29, 2004.
"What about all the other wars supported by Protestants?"Gail, it's unfair to group all 'protestants' together.
"In fact, I dare say, that without evangelicals in this country, George Bush would not have had the support to enter this war in Iraq."
I believe he would have gone to war with or without 'evangelical' support. Anybody should have known he would have gone to war the minute he went to office.
"Why, some evangelicals were so rabid in their defense of Bush that you'd think he was the Savior!"
More unfair grouping...
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 29, 2004.
Rod,Also the word James of Alphaeus (Halpay) means something like a reed, a willow tree.
It is also the word for separation, cutting away, heretic.
Jesus is called the branch: Nazorean (in Hebrew).
So a connectyion between reed and branch.
Remember Jesus is the branch of Jesse, David's father. See Isaiah.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 29, 2004.
Elpidio,...So generic "Kahlif" ie. "successor" or Clopas was substituted as a name to replace James.
Paul writing earlier, didn't know James would be "de-emphasised."
-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), March 29, 2004.
Not off topic, Faith. You keep bringing up the Church's history as though that were really something. The Church does have a violent past, and also a glorious past. You forget that for 2,000 years, the Church built orphanages and schools, churches, and monestaries . . monestaries in which monks hand-copied the Bible over and over and over again. You forget that the Church produced men like Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, Athanasius, Mother Theresa and on and on.Protestantism also has a "past," though much shorter than the RCC. There are also many skeletons in its closest. Bloody wars in Europe that were sparked by prejudice and un-Christian-like attitudes. Why does that escape your notice? Baptists fighting "them thar yankees" so they could keep their slaves. How does that escape your notice? Heretics by the thousands being turned out in record numbers! How does THAT escape your notice? TBN is a nauseating spectacle and an embarrassment to Protestantism, bilking millions of their hard earned cash in order to fund their "ministries,"; i.e., limousines, mansions, fast cars, jets. That is a legacy for which you're branch of Christianity can take full credit.
Protestantism also has many things to boast about and has produced some great men and women of God . . . the list is long on both accounts. My point is this: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You keep bringing up the RC's history, so why can't I point out YOUR'S?
You are ever-so-right, David, that Protestantism cannot be "lumped" together, generally speaking, because it has no central authority, no creed in which all can agree, no agreement even on a matter as important as "salvation," and how one attains it. In matters of faith, it is INCOHESIVE. But in matters of politics, it makes its voice loud and clear.
Case in point: George Bush. The church in America bears much responsibility, whether good or bad, since it stoked the fires of "preeimptive strike" as a "God-given duty and responsibility." But was it really? Because George is a "Christian" most Christians in this country will give him a pass on just about anything he does . . . even lying to the public about the alleged "weapons of mass destruction." Where are those WMD? If it had been Clinton who told THAT LIE, Christians would be taking to the airways and streets in raucous protest, as, of course, they should.
Then you asked, David, something about the alleged innocence of women and children . . . ? Are you saying that the children AREN'T innocent and somehow DESERVE to die? Surely that's not what you're saying! Is your heart that cold?
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 29, 2004.
David: "innocent children and women" - GailIn whose eyes? Gods? or Mans?"
Gail: "Are you saying that the children AREN'T innocent and somehow DESERVE to die? Surely that's not what you're saying! Is your heart that cold?"
David's Reply: Answer the question.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 29, 2004.
Gail, don't ass/u/me.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 29, 2004.
What's with this ass/u/me thing again? Can't you see I am ASKING YOU TO CLARIFY YOURSELF, which you STILL HAVE NOT DONE!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 29, 2004.
Loaded question, David.Excellent point, Gail. I'd like to mention the great contributions to the world the Church gave via the Jesuits. The Jesuits went into frontiers that some would fear to enter. They gave light where darkness existed: social, technological, fine arts, Gospel.
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 29, 2004.
Jim,Eisenman makes a similar point in James the brother of Jesus but he can't explain to me why.
Instead of quoting Thomas, Eisenman dwells on the leader of the Qumrum community which he thinks is James.
But Luke 24 mentions a Clopas and I Corinthians 15 mentions an appearance to James. Galatians says that Paul calls James one of 3 pillars, the other 2 being Peter and John. Thomas says that Jesus tells the disciples to go to James (when asked who would replace him).
Acts states that James made the final decision on the gentiles. It seems it was also James who sent Peter and John to Samaria to accept the samaritans into the Church.
Even though our canonical Gospels don't give James his due, he is actually the successor of Jesus in the Church (by family ties).
Peter may appear more in later writings because he is the first to accept Samaritans and Gentiles into the Church before James.
If we use Catholic terminology, he is our first Pope. Not even Acts, and Galatians, Romans, or I Corinthians, Paul's oldest letters state that Peter was the main one. (Except one case in Galatians that says that Peter was the apostle of the circumcised. Paul being the one of the uncircumcised. If this is the case then, then Peter cannot be the Pope of the uncircumcised).
I believe, Jim, that James was obscure in the Gospels to lift Peter's prominance.
Have you checked the Egerton Gospel? It gives you a different arrangenment for the Gospel of John.
That being the case,
Ch. 21 doesn't belong , I think at the end of John.
It corresponds to Luke's miraculous catch of fish. There , Peter realizes jesus is the Christ.
So, John's appearance to Peter after his resurrecgtion is not documented. The disciple Jesus loved runs to the tomb.He stays outside. Peter sees and believes. Jesus seems to appear only to Mary Magdalene. So it seems Peter believes because Jesus is not there. He is called it seems Simon in Luke 24.
But, Jesus also had another brother by the name of Simon.
So, maybe Jesus appeared to James and Simon , his brothers. Those then would be the Simon and James of I Corinthians 15 and the two men of Luke 24 going to Emmaus.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 29, 2004.
Nothing escapes my notice about the protestant movement Gail.I am the first to say that Jesus' church is none of these earthly establishments.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 30, 2004.
Also Gail..,It wasn't me who brought up history--it was Ian--who tries to claim that Catholic history goes back to apostolic times. I disagree and said that Catholicism started around the time of Constantine.
I would also remind you that no one is innocent in God's eyes--but we are all born of a sinful nature and deserve to die. That is God's judgement. But I still contend that none of your points have anything to do with Ian and I were discussing.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 30, 2004.
Looks to me like you, Faith, are the one who escorted this thread off its course. Go back and read it. I just picked up where you and Ian left off. So I shall NOT take credit for the hijacking of this thread.Gail
P.S. Oh but Faith, you ARE a Protestant through and through. You cannot distance yourself from your ancestors in that way, nor can you distance yourself from the modern day heretical Protestant of our day. Most of the Protestant heretics on TBN are in NON-DENOMINATIONAL CHURCHES, just like YOUR'S!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 30, 2004.
Yes I can distance myself, Gail..., because I am a Biblical Christian- -who follows Jesus--not Luther, not Calvin--none of them.Thanks to them--we can see the fault in Catholicism. But My ancestors have nothing to do with my faith. If that were so, I suppose I'd still be Catholic.
In fact Gail--this thread was about the apostles. Elpidio questions who they are. He claims the Scriptures are questionable.
Ian added his two cents and claimed for the Catholic Church, ownership of the Scriptures.
I pointed out that early Christians knew their Scriptures long before the Catholic Church even existed. Then he said that I couldn't rewrite history. You know the rest.
Your coming in with anything about Protestant history is off-topic. We are talking about Catholic history--only to clear up where the Bible actually comes from. I added a jab to Ian because he brags about the Catholic Church as though he should.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 30, 2004.
The Catholic Church was the result of polarizing the existing "valid" doctrines and theologies into one group. St. Paul was most responsible for setting the polarization into effect. Any group that could not conform to St. Paul's concept of a "universal church" would be out in the cold. Protestantism wears many different styles of winter clothing.Vocabulary of the Day:
catholic
universal
church
false doctrines
pagans
heathens
protestant............. .............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 30, 2004.
Paul was not a Roman Catholic...he never heard of that religion, nor do we see him practice his faith like they do.Search in vain to find Paul worshiping Mary.., going to a Mass or ever talking about a doctrine known as purgatory. The list goes on.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 30, 2004.
Oh my goodness, Faith, what a bunch of poppycock!Sorry, Elpidio, for ruining your thread!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 30, 2004.
It's OK, Gail. These things happen.Gail, I think Faith is correct: Paul was not a Catholic since that word is not used in Acts or his letters to refer to his movement: it was either Christian (for the Greeks) or Nazoreans (for the Jews).
The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.
Faith..Constantine was the FIRST Roman Emperor to be a Christian. It was he who put an end to the persecution of CHRISTIANS in the 3rd century A.D. He did not establish the Catholic Church, he DID establish Christianity as the STATE RELIGION of the ROMAN EMPIRE. The very word "catholic" means UNIVERSAL..in the days of antiquity, the Roman Empire was vast, and encompassed virtually all of "civilized" Europe as well as North Africa. When your title happened to be that of ROMAN EMPEROR, you were the political ruler of the ENTIRE EMPIRE..since Constantine was a Christian, and had decreed that Christianity was now the UNIVERSAL, or "catholic" state religion of the ROMAN EMPIRE..it was. Paul and the other Apostles, and any Christian who had lived and breathed in and out from the time of Jesus walking the earth until Constantine was the first Christian Emperor of Rome were CHRISTIANS who were persecuted by the Romans. AFTER Constantine became Emperor of Rome, ALL CHRISTIANS were no longer persecuted under Roman law, and..here's the KEY point..CHRISTIANITY was NOW known as the UNIVERSAL, or Catholic Religion. The next time it changed into another name was when Martin Luther came along. One doesn't NEED to agree with or belong to or support the Catholic Church to merely have a basic knowledge of historical fact.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 01, 2004.
lesly..,Before Constantine.., the church looked very different. There were no pagan practices at all.
In A.D. 306, the emporer Constantine became a Christian and declared that Christianity was the religion of the Roman Empire, but what kind of Christianity was it?
The people went to the same temple, worshiped the same trinity of mother-child-God, and followed the same rituals. But now their rituals and religion were called "Christian."
The rites of Babylon--complete with the veneration of images and relics, penances, pilgrimages, and other pagan rites and festivals-- became part of Christian worship, creating a Christianity that looked nothing like Christianity of Paul's day.
Not until A.D. 376 did an emporer realize that the Roman church was not truely Christian. The emporer Gratian refused the title of Pontifex Maximus because he recognized that Babylonianism was idolatrous. As a result, two years later, bishop of the Christian church at Rome, was elected to the position and from that time Babylonianism and organized Christianity merged.
Thousands of people followed, trusting the rituals, the worship, and the acts of self-denial to save them from hell. The introduction of Babylonianism, an ancient and false mother-child cult, into the church of Jesus Christ was a satanic stroke of genius.
Satan knew God's *prophesied* plan for his own destuction, and in this, we can see the devil's clever attempt to falsly forshadow the authentic virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 01, 2004.
ah! the words of Hislop....uh, I mean Faith........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.
Not Hislop--sorry.....
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 01, 2004.
If you have a copy of Hislop,you will notice a great identity with his propaganda......
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.
Well I don't. Though I have many books that reference his book *The Two Babylons* I think that's the title.., but I never read it.
-- (faith01@myway.com), April 01, 2004.
Hislop Discussion moved to a new thread. For those seeking a balanced form of information.......
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.
Do you guys sit around here just arguing about something that happened 2000 years ago or more, Every single religion under the sun has been exploited by man, Was that not Jesus's intention to destroy the power of the organised religions of that day, if you people have been taught anything by Jesus it should be that God is inside you not in the feking dank halls of some 16th century building. Go listen to his two commandments and leave it at that! caio suckers
-- Garv (pbrstreetgang007@hotmail.com), September 14, 2004.
Hi Garv.Garv: Do you guys sit around here just arguing about something that happened 2000 years ago or more,
rod: Yes...uh, no.....well, yes....ok, no.....was it 2000 years or more? It seems like just today. That event is still having a powerful impact today.
Garv: Every single religion under the sun has been exploited by man, Was that not Jesus's intention to destroy the power of the organised religions of that day,
rod: Well, I don't believe Jesus was gonna destroy the religion that was first given by God. Jesus did not come to destroy, but I can see your view in the practical sense that Jesus did kind of destroyed the "Law" for some. We still see Judaism in its different styles, so Jesus didn't quite destroy it. But, we also see paganism. I guess Jesus didn't destroy like He said He didn't.
Garv: if you people have been taught anything by Jesus it should be that God is inside you not in the feking dank halls of some 16th century building.
rod: No one here disputes that God is in all of us. Is God in you, Garv? What are dank halss of some 16th century building like? Are you from Europe? :)
Garv: Go listen to his two commandments and leave it at that!
rod: Only two commandments? You need to go and buy yourself a new Bible, Garv. Your Bible is missing some more commandments.
Garv: caio suckers
rod: Uh, welcome to the forum?!
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.