Answering old threads thread Part II

[Derf]

No, it was NOT! You just keep repeating a lie.

LOL. A fool that gets called a fool always cries ad hominem.

Again, for about the millionth time. You do NOT know what an argument from silence is. Your "research" has failed you.

An argument from silence is when someone claims that something is so BECAUSE there is no evidence for it (in this case, scripture). I am making NO SUCH argument.

Yes, you are. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus taught the apostles how to replace Judas while on earth.

And AGAIN, it is YOU what is making an argument from silence. YOU are claiming that BECAUSE the scripture does not document these instructions, they COULD NOT have been given. THAT is the argument from silence.

I agree. Mine is an argument from silence.

And yours is too.

Duh.

Which shows you are confused about what I've been saying.

Stop crying about ad hominem, you are a retarded moron parading around like you know something, when you don't.

A retarded moron must be pretty smart.

 

[Clete]

Yes, you are. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus taught the apostles how to replace Judas while on earth.

I agree. Mine is an argument from silence.

And yours is too.

Which shows you are confused about what I've been saying.

A retarded moron must be pretty smart.

Embarrassing.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, you are. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus taught the apostles how to replace Judas while on earth.

I'm not claiming that this missing information is evidence of anything. You just continue to remain ignorant.

The point is that it is a perfectly reasonable idea that this "replacement information" was part of Jesus' kingdom teaching during His FORTY DAY training course.

I agree. Mine is an argument from silence.

Yes, it is.

And yours is too.

NO, IT'S NOT. You are seriously deranged.

Which shows you are confused about what I've been saying.

Nope.

Scripture shows that Matthias was God's choice, despite your silly protestations to the contrary.

 

[Lon]

Yes, you are. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus taught the apostles how to replace Judas while on earth.

It'd show you understand what an argument from silence is, but didn't he give you scripture?
Perhaps I see Derf's point if he is saying 'these scriptures have nothing to do with what you are asserting, you are effectively arguing an idea nowhere in scripture."

How important to the premise was it if Peter made a decision or if Jesus had told him/them out?

 

[Derf]

It'd show you understand what an argument from silence is, but didn't he give you scripture?
Perhaps I see Derf's point if he is saying 'these scriptures have nothing to do with what you are asserting, you are effectively arguing an idea nowhere in scripture."

How important to the premise was it if Peter made a decision or if Jesus had told him/them out?

It goes to the question of authority. If Jesus told them to do it (whether or not He told them how), then Matthias is a shoo-in for Judas' replacement. If not, then the question has to be decided on other points.

The biggest factor, in my opinion, is about whether CHRIST chose him. Christ obviously chose Paul. If He didn't choose Matthias, then Paul is the only other Apostle (capital A), and so he rounds out the 12.

If Matthias's choosing to be an Apostle could have been handled by someone other than Jesus, then how important was His choice.

Jesus never gave criteria for the candidates, either, as far as we know. So to whittle down the candidate list (which was obviously Peter's doing) may have left a viable candidate, such as Paul, without a path to Apostleship. Obviously that was corrected on the road to Damascus. And for him to become the chief conduit for the gospel of Jesus Christ, suggests the others (11 or 12) have taken a secondary role...despite the candidate lists, elections, lots cast, and the like.

For the 12 to take a secondary role suggests the premise of another gospel, as MAD proclaims, is exactly what Paul says it is...anathema.

(I think I've stated that fairly accurately, but someone else is bound to disagree.)

 

[Right Divider]

It'd show you understand what an argument from silence is, but didn't he give you scripture?
Perhaps I see Derf's point if he is saying 'these scriptures have nothing to do with what you are asserting, you are effectively arguing an idea nowhere in scripture."

Apparently you also do not know what an argument from silence is. Do I need to teach you also?

How important to the premise was it if Peter made a decision or if Jesus had told him/them out?

Derf cannot understand that scripture confirms the choice of Matthias either way and repeatedly so.

Derf also cannot understand that it is a perfectly logical deduction to believe that part of the FORTY DAY training about the kingdom could have been the instructions for how to replace Judas. And YES, we know that scripture does not explicitly say that Jesus did that. So what?

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus never gave criteria for the candidates, either, as far as we know.

Exactly.

So to whittle down the candidate list (which was obviously Peter's doing) may have left a viable candidate, such as Paul, without a path to Apostleship.

Paul was NOT a "viable candidate". Paul was an unbeliever and a blasphemer. 1 Tim 1:13

Obviously that was corrected on the road to Damascus. And for him to become the chief conduit for the gospel of Jesus Christ, suggests the others (11 or 12) have taken a secondary role...despite the candidate lists, elections, lots cast, and the like.

Or... Paul was given a unique and singular role with a dispensation of the gospel.

 

[Lon]

Apparently you also do not know what an argument from silence is. Do I need to teach you also?

Or vise versa, it literally is this: An argument from silence is a argument based on the absence of evidence. I said 'if' Derf felt that your argument had 'nothing' to do with the passage, he may have a point. Don't get cocky and read. I wasn't even talking to you! (Still love you, you ignorant truck-jockey! - My boss was a carpenter, granted yours rode a donkey. I bet traffic was terrible during the Passover!)

Derf cannot understand that scripture confirms the choice of Matthias either way and repeatedly so.

At one point, I'd have said the disciples 'could' have made a mistake, that "Paul" was the 12th Apostle, but that wouldn't have left one for the 12th tribe. I'm fairly certain I get your point. I'm just trying to sync it with whatever the initial statement was, I lost it in all the 'argument from silence' debacle (I know, "Ignorant carpenter" help a brother out?)

Derf also cannot understand that it is a perfectly logical deduction to believe that part of the FORTY DAY training about the kingdom could have been the instructions for how to replace Judas. And YES, we know that scripture does not explicitly say that Jesus did that. So what?

For me (just talking for me now), it isn't as important as 'what does/did that have to do with...'). IOW, because I'm in the blind, I don't really care so much if Jesus and/or the Apostles chose, until I know how it was pertinent. I got caught up in the argument from silence distraction and THEN became interested in the actual topic (maybe rabbit trails can be good, or at least have God making all things work that way).

 

[Right Divider]

Or vise versa, it literally is this: An argument from silence is a argument based on the absence of evidence. I said 'if' Derf felt that your argument had 'nothing' to do with the passage, he may have a point.

Derf is claiming that I was using the absence of evidence as evidence.... but that is definitely NOT what I was doing. However, that is exactly what he was doing!

 

[Nick M]

This is why God mocks people and says he will laugh at their calamity.

 

[Derf]

Exactly.

Paul was NOT a "viable candidate". Paul was an unbeliever and a blasphemer. 1 Tim 1:13

Wow! You just eliminated all mankind from apostle-ship, since we were all dead in our trespasses and sins.

Or... Paul was given a unique and singular role with a dispensation of the gospel.

I'm ok with that. Not so much that he was given a different gospel to dispense.

 

[Right Divider]

Wow! You just eliminated all mankind from apostle-ship, since we were all dead in our trespasses and sins.

Thanks so much for your continued confirmation of your severe mental difficulties.

Paul did not meet ANY of the requirements for Judas' replacement. Paul was NOT there at the beginning, nor had he even met the Lord Jesus Christ at that time. Paul was an enemy of Christ at that time.

I'm ok with that.

How nice. Now we can all rest easy.

Not so much that he was given a different gospel to dispense.

Again, your ignorance does not change the fact that Paul was given a unique gospel that he called MY GOSPEL (recorded three times in scripture).

That you, and most of Churchianity, try to force all "good news" to be the same "good news" is retarded. But, by all means, believe the lie and be happy.

 

[Nick M]

You just eliminated all mankind from apostle-ship, since we were all dead in our trespasses and sins.

Paul was worse than that. Consider the source was used a point of persuasion because it is acceptable for many people. From Mid Acts;

16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.

21 Then all who heard were amazed, and said, “Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?”

 

[Derf]

Thanks so much for your continued confirmation of your severe mental difficulties.

Paul did not meet ANY of the requirements for Judas' replacement. Paul was NOT there at the beginning, nor had he even met the Lord Jesus Christ at that time. Paul was an enemy of Christ at that time.

Paul met one qualification to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was specifically, personally (in person) chosen by Him for the job, something Matthias could not claim.Paul met one qualification to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was specifically, personally (in person) chosen by Him for the job, something Matthias could not claim.

How nice. Now we can all rest easy.

Again, your ignorance does not change the fact that Paul was given a unique gospel that he called MY GOSPEL (recorded three times in scripture).

Of course it was HIS GOSPEL. But it wasn't unique. He was called in (by Barnabas) to deal with the Gentiles after other Jews had started reaching out to them.
Acts 11:20 KJV — And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

That you, and most of Churchianity, try to force all "good news" to be the same "good news" is retarded. But, by all means, believe the lie and be happy.

No, I'm sure there are lots of different good news, but the Apostles in Jerusalem and the Apostle to the Gentiles were preaching the same good news.
Acts 11:1 KJV — And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had ALSO received the word of God. (Same word, different people).

Here's the rest of the passage I quoted from above:

Acts 11:20-25 KJV — And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians (Gentiles), preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God (extended to the Gentiles), was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

Why did Barnabas seek Saul? He knew Saul had been selected to reach the Gentiles with the gospel message from his earlier dealings with Saul.

Acts 9:27 KJV — But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul met one qualification to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was specifically, personally (in person) chosen by Him for the job, something Matthias could not claim.Paul met one qualification to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was specifically, personally (in person) chosen by Him for the job, something Matthias could not claim.

That is a falsehood that you seem to cling to like it's the end of the world.

Matthias was just as "chosen" as Paul was, but for a different purpose.

Of course it was HIS GOSPEL. But it wasn't unique.

LOL, call a doctor immediately. You need serious professional help.

He was called in (by Barnabas) to deal with the Gentiles after other Jews had started reaching out to them.
Acts 11:20 KJV — And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

The TWELVE apostles, including the correctly chosen Matthias, had a mission to the TWELVE tribes of Israel.

Paul had a mission to ALL people without regard to their nation of origin or ethic background. Things that are different are not the same (no matter how long you beat that dead horse).

No, I'm sure there are lots of different good news, but the Apostles in Jerusalem and the Apostle to the Gentiles were preaching the same good news.

Begging the question... no, they were NOT. The scripture makes that abundantly clear, particularly when they SEPARATED people (based on physical attributes) and ministries.

Gal 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. ​

Acts 11:1 KJV — And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had ALSO received the word of God. (Same word, different people).

Again, BEGGING the QUESTION.

Here's the rest of the passage I quoted from above:

Acts 11:20-25 KJV — And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians (Gentiles), preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God (extended to the Gentiles), was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

Why did Barnabas seek Saul? He knew Saul had been selected to reach the Gentiles with the gospel message from his earlier dealings with Saul.

Yes, PAUL'S gospel (i.e., the one that Christ gave uniquely to him).

Acts 9:27 KJV — But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

DUH!!

Yes, Paul was chosen for a unique ministry that the twelve recognized after Paul explained to them HIS gospel.

Gal 2:1-2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:1) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also. (2:2) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.​

​

Note the use of the term "THAT GOSPEL". If there was a single, solitary "gospel", that term makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, if it's the "same gospel", why the need for a PRIVATE meeting? Again, it's because it was NOT the same gospel.

You are simply and stubbornly WRONG on this topic.

​

 

[Idolater]

... [Peter] quotes Psalms 2, if I remember correctly, but not Jesus. If Jesus had so recently (which instructional period ended less than 10 days before) given instructions, why quote Psalms at all. Peter was justifying the action they were about to take because no instructions were given.

This is such an important point.

In this example we get a Scriptural account of how Peter himself used c. Sola Scriptura to fill in the gaps left in detail by the Lord (similar to how later on we'll see the Bereans use c. Sola Scriptura, to "check on" the Apostle Paul).

We see later on Peter and the Church convening the first ecumenical Church council in history, and that too wasn't done based on any direct teaching of Christ, as far as we know—the Apostles were "winging it" then too, but the way in which they "winged it", is instructive and informative anyway, in spite of their ignorance.

In fact the story in Acts is consistent with the Lord deliberately meaning to leave things this way. He deliberately meant for Peter to reason based on Psalm 2 in the case of Judas's successor, and Peter did, and we get to see it in the Bible, like we've got special V.R. goggles or something, or a time machine, and we can see how he thinks about the Scriptures. We can discern his hermeneutics. That's of immense value for us today as we deal with all sorts of novel and unnatural things, things which the Apostles never knew, but they did pass on how to use what the Lord has taught us. Peter demonstrates the Apostolic hermeneutic, gives us a peak at it in action.

(In fact most of the epistles contain displays of Apostolic hermeneutic. This is just I think one of the first demonstrations of it.)

So important, great point.

 

[Nick M]

We see later on Peter and the Church convening the first ecumenical Church council in history, and that too wasn't done based on any direct teaching of Christ, as far as we know—the Apostles were "winging it" then too, but the way in which they "winged it", is instructive and informative anyway, in spite of their ignorance.

12 The Holy Spirit will give you the words to say at the moment when you need them.

 

[Idolater]

12 The Holy Spirit will give you the words to say at the moment when you need them.

Yeah right. And since He has spoken through the prophets, ofc His hermeneutic is true, and this is what all the Apostolic hermeneutic is too.

 

[Derf]

12 The Holy Spirit will give you the words to say at the moment when you need them.

That's important, but the context is more when the followers of Christ would be brought before civil and religious leaders, not just in determining church policy or doctrine. Your use would imply that the Pope's supposed ex cathedra statements are all valid, because he could claim the Holy Spirit was giving him the words at the moment when he needed them.

 

[7djengo7]

Your use would imply that the Pope's supposed ex cathedra statements are all valid, because he could claim the Holy Spirit was giving him the words at the moment when he needed them.

@Nick M simply quoted a verse. And neither that verse, nor any other Bible verse implies, or could imply that one or more of the Pope's un-Biblical statements is true.

Sure, the Pope, just like any other fallible man, could (perhaps does) claim the Holy Spirit gives him the words he says. But so what? Would you believe the Holy Spirit gives him the words he says?