Catholics are the "new Black" (and related concerns)

[GodMyFortress]

Except what you say does not appear in scripture.


James presided over the council, not Peter. And the office James had was not of a mediator. Nor does the text say that. Peter is ἀπόστολος, or apostle meaning one who is sent. The words ἀπόστολος and μεσίτης are not synonyms.
Acts 15:1-19



The text does not say that. Ananias is a servant of God to be sure, but is in no way functioning as a mediator. Where is the legal dispute? This is a non sensical statement that lacks any logical reasoning. This is spitballing and seeing what sticks.



Show me in scripture where one baptizing another is referred to as a mediator. Scripture gets to define terms not you.

The word mediator has a specific meaning that doesn't fit your theology. It has a legal connotation in every sense that the Greek word appears in the NT,

Your logical leap from the Greek term to where you can shoehorn in your tradition is so wide Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump. Everything you wrote is example of eisegesis (reading into the text things that are not there based on your subjective presuppositions) as you are desperate to defend a tradition that has zero scriptural warrant. So I ask one more time, show us a place besides the six places I already showed you where the word μεσίτης appears in the NT.

I used the definition you provided of what a mediator is. I went on to illustrate how your definition of mediator fits the exact description of what my examples were accomplishing through God. The definition you provided said nothing about “legality”. It seems like you now want to change your definition now that you’ve been proven wrong.

God directly blinded Paul, but he did not directly unblind Paul. He used Ananias as a mediator to unblind Paul.

The doctrine dispute was decided by Peter because he made clear to the council what God said to him in the vision, and that was that. Peter was the mediator God chose to settle the dispute between what God wanted and what the Church would do going forward.

Since God does not baptize you directly (he doesn’t come down in the flesh to baptize you), God uses another person (mediator) to fulfill the baptismal ceremony. You don’t need to see the word there to know what a mediator is, you provided the definition.

 

[Athanasius377]

I used the definition you provided of what a mediator is. I went on to illustrate how your definition of mediator fits the exact description of what my examples were accomplishing through God. The definition you provided said nothing about “legality”. It seems like you now want to change your definition now that you’ve been proven wrong.

Um, no, you are struggling because scripture doesn't say what you claim is says. Where in scripture does it describe the incidents you cited as mediators. I have asked numerous times now and you keep responding with deflections and dodges. Please answer the question if you can or admit that you cannot.

Here is the full entry from BDAG:

μεσίτης, ου, ὁ (s. μεσιτεύω; since Polyb. 28, 17, 8; Ps.-Lucian, Amor. 47 θεὸν μεσίτην λαβόντες; pap; Job 9:33; TestDan 6:2; AssMos Fgm. a; Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 133; 16, 24. On this many-sided t.t. of Hellenistic legal language s. LMitteis, Her 30, 1895, 616ff; JBehm, D. Begriff Διαθήκη im NT 1912, 77ff w. numerous exx.; s. lit. in JModrzejewski, Private Arbitration in Greco-Roman Egypt, JJP 6, ’52, 247 n. 79) one who mediates betw. two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal, mediator, arbitrator, of Christ (Mithras as μεσίτης: Plut., Mor. 369e) w. gen. of the pers. betw. whom he mediates μ. θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων mediator between God and humans (Iren. 3, 18, 7 [Harv. II 100, 7]; cp. TestDan 6:2) 1 Ti 2:5; w. gen. of the thing that Jesus mediates: κρείττονος Hb 8:6, καινῆς 9:15, νέας διαθήκης 12:24 (s. διαθήκη 2. AssMos. Fgm. a, Denis 63, 10=Tromp p. 272], Moses calls himself τῆς διαθήκης μεσίτης). Of the law διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου ordered through the angels, by the hand of a mediator Gal 3:19 (Moses, as mediator betw. God and the people, called μεσίτης e.g. Philo, Mos. 2, 166, Somn. 1, 143; Betz, Gal [Hermeneia] ad loc.). The sense of vs. 20, ὁ δὲ μ. ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν an intermediary does not exist for one party alone, is disputed. It prob. means that the activity of an intermediary implies the existence of more than one party, and hence may be unsatisfactory because it must result in a compromise. The presence of an intermediary would prevent attainment, without any impediment, of the purpose of the εἷς θεός in giving the law.—NKZ 39, 1928, 21–24; 549–52; 552f; HStegmann, BZ 22, ’34, 30–42; Straub 67.—DELG s.v. μέσος B. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 634). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Not exactly. Corinth had asked for assistance in resolving the dispute.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.3


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 5). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

I never said that the Corinthians didn’t ask for help. But what you fail to recognize is that the Apostle John is still alive at this time, but they ask the successor of Peter over 600 miles away to settle their schism.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Um, no, you are struggling because scripture doesn't say what you claim is says. Where in scripture does it describe the incidents you cited as mediators. I have asked numerous times now and you keep responding with deflections and dodges. Please answer the question if you can or admit that you cannot.

Here is the full entry from BDAG:

μεσίτης, ου, ὁ (s. μεσιτεύω; since Polyb. 28, 17, 8; Ps.-Lucian, Amor. 47 θεὸν μεσίτην λαβόντες; pap; Job 9:33; TestDan 6:2; AssMos Fgm. a; Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 133; 16, 24. On this many-sided t.t. of Hellenistic legal language s. LMitteis, Her 30, 1895, 616ff; JBehm, D. Begriff Διαθήκη im NT 1912, 77ff w. numerous exx.; s. lit. in JModrzejewski, Private Arbitration in Greco-Roman Egypt, JJP 6, ’52, 247 n. 79) one who mediates betw. two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal, mediator, arbitrator, of Christ (Mithras as μεσίτης: Plut., Mor. 369e) w. gen. of the pers. betw. whom he mediates μ. θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων mediator between God and humans (Iren. 3, 18, 7 [Harv. II 100, 7]; cp. TestDan 6:2) 1 Ti 2:5; w. gen. of the thing that Jesus mediates: κρείττονος Hb 8:6, καινῆς 9:15, νέας διαθήκης 12:24 (s. διαθήκη 2. AssMos. Fgm. a, Denis 63, 10=Tromp p. 272], Moses calls himself τῆς διαθήκης μεσίτης). Of the law διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου ordered through the angels, by the hand of a mediator Gal 3:19 (Moses, as mediator betw. God and the people, called μεσίτης e.g. Philo, Mos. 2, 166, Somn. 1, 143; Betz, Gal [Hermeneia] ad loc.). The sense of vs. 20, ὁ δὲ μ. ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν an intermediary does not exist for one party alone, is disputed. It prob. means that the activity of an intermediary implies the existence of more than one party, and hence may be unsatisfactory because it must result in a compromise. The presence of an intermediary would prevent attainment, without any impediment, of the purpose of the εἷς θεός in giving the law.—NKZ 39, 1928, 21–24; 549–52; 552f; HStegmann, BZ 22, ’34, 30–42; Straub 67.—DELG s.v. μέσος B. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 634). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Bible doesn’t need to give a title to everyone that does something for God. You provided me the definition of what a mediator is, and those examples I provided fit it to a tee.

 

[Lanolin]

I dont know if the pope actually concerns anybody who isnt in the catholic church sorry!

The pope can say anything he likes but it has abosolutely no bearing on what I do.

 

[GaryA]

Your logical leap from the Greek term to where you can shoehorn in your tradition is so wide Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Even though I was arguing with him, I thought that was a pretty funny quip too.

 

[Athanasius377]

The doctrine dispute was decided by Peter because he made clear to the council what God said to him in the vision, and that was that. Peter was the mediator God chose to settle the dispute between what God wanted and what the Church would do going forward.

Of all the examples you gave you are closest here to the term Mediator. Yet James functioned as the mediator between the two parties. That is why James is presiding over the council. I would opine that it is likely because he is the eldest in the council following Jewish tradition. The mediation occurs when James says “It therefore is my judgement. . . “. Peter was the recipient of special revelation. I’m in no way disparaging Peter’s role in the dispute as I agree he holds a special place or even authority over the fledgling church. He’s just not a mediator in this case.

The reason I’m such a stickler for details is partly because it’s my nature as my role in my secular job. The other reason is I’ve been teaching catechism for 14 years and have had everyone from RC’s to Mormons, JW’s and even non-Trinitarian folks as inquirers to say nothing of disillusioned Episcopalians who show up at our church wanting to join whose theology is a mess. I’m sure I don’t need to point out our mother church in England is in free fall and in outright apostasy. In short the Church of England is a dumpster fire.

That’s why I’m so careful in handling Scripture, doctrine and history. One has to be consistent as God does not change. You have seen what happens in the RCC when one plays fast and loose with these subjects.

God Bless

A.

 

[Athanasius377]

Even though I was arguing with him, I thought that was a pretty funny quip too.

Even my wife finds me funny every now and again.
A.

 

[JesusWhereRU]

I dont know if the pope actually concerns anybody who isnt in the catholic church sorry!

The pope can say anything he likes but it has abosolutely no bearing on what I do.

Truth applies to everyone.

Christ established ONE Church

Insofar as Christians outside His Original Church agree w/ the Church (Jesus), they are doing well, spiritually. It is when they deviate from it that there are problems

you know.. accepting birth control, accepting divorce in some situations (that Jesus did not approve of) and etc... Jesus knew there would a bzillion questions, which is why he established ONE Church...


and again, non-Catholics are wittingly or otherwise part of that Church if they believe the fundamentals of what the Original Church taught.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Of all the examples you gave you are closest here to the term Mediator. Yet James functioned as the mediator between the two parties. That is why James is presiding over the council. I would opine that it is likely because he is the eldest in the council following Jewish tradition. The mediation occurs when James says “It therefore is my judgement. . . “. Peter was the recipient of special revelation. I’m in no way disparaging Peter’s role in the dispute as I agree he holds a special place or even authority over the fledgling church. He’s just not a mediator in this case.

The reason I’m such a stickler for details is partly because it’s my nature as my role in my secular job. The other reason is I’ve been teaching catechism for 14 years and have had everyone from RC’s to Mormons, JW’s and even non-Trinitarian folks as inquirers to say nothing of disillusioned Episcopalians who show up at our church wanting to join whose theology is a mess. I’m sure I don’t need to point out our mother church in England is in free fall and in outright apostasy. In short the Church of England is a dumpster fire.

That’s why I’m so careful in handling Scripture, doctrine and history. One has to be consistent as God does not change. You have seen what happens in the RCC when one plays fast and loose with these subjects.

God Bless

A.

I’m going to let the issue go since it’s clearly not going anywhere.

I’m willing to settle for the word intercessor if you can’t bring yourself to use mediator.

 

[Athanasius377]

you know.. accepting birth control, accepting divorce in some situations (that Jesus did not approve of) and etc... Jesus knew there would a bzillion questions, w

While I disagree with what makes up the catholic Church I agree that Rome was out in front of the development of the sexual revolution. Pope Paul Vi was absolutely right in Humae Vitae about the consequences of divorcing the marital act from procreation. There was a time when all Christian bodies were United in condemning artificial birth control. While I might quibble about how Paul VI got there his conclusions where eerily prophetic.

 

[JesusWhereRU]

While I disagree with what makes up the catholic Church I agree that Rome was out in front of the development of the sexual revolution. Pope Paul Vi was absolutely right in Humae Vitae about the consequences of divorcing the marital act from procreation. There was a time when all Christian bodies were United in condemning artificial birth control. While I might quibble about how Paul VI got there his conclusions where eerily prophetic.

I'm speed reading bc running out of time but it's nice to hear a logical response (to Catholicism)

hate to say it but many Protestants have an entirely closed mind RE the RCC. I can kind of understand bc the RCC does look very different from other faith communities.. But still, well, it reminds me of the 12 step program that uses the phrase

contempt prior to investigation...

 

[Athanasius377]

I'm speed reading bc running out of time but it's nice to hear a logical response (to Catholicism)

hate to say it but many Protestants have an entirely closed mind RE the RCC. I can kind of understand bc the RCC does look very different from other faith communities.. But still, well, it reminds me of the 12 step program that uses the phrase

contempt prior to investigation...

That’s because I was a believing RC first. And I’m not saying Rome is all wrong. She gets so many things right. The Holy Trinity, Christology and so forth. Rome was the bastion of orthodoxy while the rest of the patriarchates succumbed to heresy. And for that I am forever thankful. She kept the light of learning alive in the west by folks like St Benedict of nursia. Their contribution to western civilization cannot be overstated. So when I criticize Rome it’s all the additions to the faith. It’s not her correct application of Gods law. It’s the condemnation of the Gospel as spelled out by Trent most especially.

 

[Gideon300]

Someone once said that the last surviving acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism, which I tend to agree with. Today, however, ALL Christians are being discriminated against and persecuted in myriad ways by the thugs in charge (as I call them).

Anyway someone here said the following


The pope has tremendous influence among those who believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ. What these gullible Catholics have failed to notice is that Pope Francis is a RADICAL LEFTIST GLOBALIST (Communist would be appropriate) whose main purpose in life is to undermine and destroy Western and Christian societies and nations. So while non-Catholics may dismiss his evil words, Catholics are torn between listening to him or what their church teaches. He should have been forced to resign long ago, but that may never happen.


and I said


Not all Catholics are "torn" as you say

It is like anything else: If you follow Jesus and really, really care... about HIS commandments... you will not be fooled by a heretical pope.

I have studied Catholicism rather in-depth and no heretic can be pope

what i don't get is

WHY is Francis, an obvious heretic, allowed to "be one"? [ a pope, that is]


Today, my comments are as follows:


I think many Catholics see that Francis... uh... isn't "right" or whatever, although lately, it seems he is moving toward being "more conservative" (??) but God knows.

In any case, I have been studying this kind of thing for some time, albeit not so much of late and I still haven't found out (yes, I need to try harder... hard to find time) what the rubric (rules/regs of the Church) isconcerning a heretical pope.

A heretic cannot be pope. That much I do know.

So how is it that Pope F is still considered Pope? and who is the real one? Even Benedict said some "questionable" stuff.. though he OKd the use of the Traditional Latin Mass which even non-Catholics were happy about

It is very interesting to me that at the very same time in history, the US is going through a very similar thing: The US has a fake president (heretic). Biden's a heretic because he doesn't follow the US Constitution (to say the least). One example: he upholds Roe v Wade which not only is "bad law" as even some liberal attorneys have called it but is un-American [understatement]. The states are supposed to have law-making power, not the Justices.

Anyway...

2 fake world leaders... sigh

Christians should be anti all that is lies and deception. Never expect the world to embrace the truth. The world system is the product of Satan, working through fallen humanity. That applies to the good ole USA just as much as North Korea. Yes, the US is closer to Bible principles than North Korea. That means little in God's sight. God looks at the Body of Christ and where it is spiritually. If it is on the right track, the nation will reflect that. If not, then you will see exactly what is going on in the Western world today.

God is more impressed with the few Christians in the persecuted nations than He is with megachurches that are filled with the complacent and self satisfied. I think some pastors who currently pat themselves on the back will get a rude shock when God's rewards are handed out.

 

[Gideon300]

To be Bible believing would mean to give up Catholicism. So no. Catholics do not reject the Bible, but it is generally irrelevant to Catholic doctrine and practice. Take devotion to Mary as an example. That is clearly not taught in Scripture, but it is a primary aspect of Roman Catholicism.

I've met born again Catholics and dead as dodo Pentecostals. The problem is the Catholic organisation. God is more interested in a right heart than right doctrine. Having said that, I'd encourage born again Catholics to shun the false teachings of the Roman Catholic organisation (I refuse to call it a church).

 

[JesusWhereRU]

That’s because I was a believing RC first. And I’m not saying Rome is all wrong. She gets so many things right. The Holy Trinity, Christology and so forth. Rome was the bastion of orthodoxy while the rest of the patriarchates succumbed to heresy. And for that I am forever thankful. She kept the light of learning alive in the west by folks like St Benedict of nursia. Their contribution to western civilization cannot be overstated. So when I criticize Rome it’s all the additions to the faith. It’s not her correct application of Gods law. It’s the condemnation of the Gospel as spelled out by Trent most especially.

are u saying Trent condemned the Bible???

That makes no sense according to my info.

I think THIS is the biggest problem RE people misunderstanding the Church (etc):

We are human beings

The Church is a supernatural entity, unfortunately run by... human beings. I sadly have had to separate the supernatural aspect of the RCC from the human aspect... I see that there is no other alternative, not that I know of... and I reject the human facet of the Church... it is corrupted and sinister.. priests molesting children.. bishops covering it up and moving the priests instead of having them defrocked...

Yes, I know, there are sincere believers in the Church .. the clergy.. and my issues are NOT just concerning the above corruption/evil..

(forgot what I was going to say... I have a lot of things on my mind..)

basically, my point is that since we are human beings, we do not understand God a lot of the time... so how could anyone expect us to understand fully the Church HE established on Earth?

and yet He did establish one Church.. just one

 

[JesusWhereRU]

I've met born again Catholics and dead as dodo Pentecostals. The problem is the Catholic organisation. God is more interested in a right heart than right doctrine. Having said that, I'd encourage born again Catholics to shun the false teachings of the Roman Catholic organisation (I refuse to call it a church).

there are no false teachings in the Roman CC

IF (and this is a big IF)

a person fully understands what is meant by "teachings" of the Church.

What I myself am speaking of are the OFFICIAL teachings of the Church, the ones that cannot be changed by any pope (officially changed, that is). For example, it is official Catholic doctrine that Mary was a virgin ALL her life. No pope can change that.

So Pope F... he spouts all kinds of things that are NOT Catholic teaching but just the opposite... or he did... There are some signs that he is becoming more conservative but i cannot say I have been following him closely. Once he started spouting heretical stuff, I lost interest... and also, I don't @ this time have time to... do a lot of that kind of following ..

I heard from a reliable source (the only kind I deal w/) that an "ex cathedra" teaching has not been made by the Church in over 50 years.

There are criteria set up for a pope to make this kind of official teaching and if those criteria are not met, he is just spouting personal opinion, not doctrine to be observed by the Faithful.