Why Calvinist, Catholics, Others, Do NOT Have Saving Faith

[Brother Ducky]

God does not impose salvation on anyone. If you want to be saved you will have to come to Christ as a repentant sinner and as him to save you, Romans 10:13.

So he is in fact the savior of some and not all.

 

[Robert Pate]

So he is in fact the savior of some and not all.

As far as God is concerned Jesus is the savior of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

People will go to hell because they have rejected God's great free gift of salvation that was provided for them by Jesus Christ.

 

[Nanja]

As far as God is concerned Jesus is the savior of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

People will go to hell because they have rejected God's great free gift of salvation that was provided for them by Jesus Christ.

Salvation is of Grace Eph. 1:7; 2 Tim. 1:9, not of works Eph. 2:8-9!

Jesus Christ never was the savior of the devil's children Mat. 13:38-39; Mat. 25:41!

 

[Brother Ducky]

As far as God is concerned Jesus is the savior of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

People will go to hell because they have rejected God's great free gift of salvation that was provided for them by Jesus Christ.

So, to summarize, [1] God thinks that Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
[2] if God thinks something is true,it must be true.
[3] some go to hell
[4] Conclusion: Pate's definition of "Jesus is the savior of the world" needs to be redefined like Calvinists do.

 

[Robert Pate]

Salvation is of Grace Eph. 1:7; 2 Tim. 1:9, not of works Eph. 2:8-9!

Jesus Christ never was the savior of the devil's children Mat. 13:38-39; Mat. 25:41!

The devil does not create children.

Jesus said that he came into the world to save sinners.

If you reject Christ and his Gospel, you have chosen to become one of the devils children.

"Choose this day whom you will serve".

 

[Robert Pate]

So, to summarize, [1] God thinks that Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
[2] if God thinks something is true,it must be true.
[3] some go to hell
[4] Conclusion: Pate's definition of "Jesus is the savior of the world" needs to be redefined like Calvinists do.

If Jesus did not fulfill God's holy law and atone for the sins of the whole world, Jesus would not be in heaven at the right hand of God, Hebrews 1:3.

 

[Nanja]

The devil does not create children.

Jesus said that he came into the world to save sinners.

If you reject Christ and his Gospel, you have chosen to become one of the devils children.

"Choose this day whom you will serve".

God is the Creator!

Prov. 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

 

[beloved57]

If Jesus did not fulfill God's holy law and atone for the sins of the whole world, Jesus would not be in heaven at the right hand of God, Hebrews 1:3.

You teach that sinners Christ died for are still lost!

 

[God's Truth]

Is the Bible the only source of information that we have for deciding when the books of the New Testament were written?

I don't think so. Church historians and Scripture scholars, though not infallible, can help us to learn those things.

With all due respect, saying that the Bible doesn't tell us when they were written is avoiding the question.



Well, we can agree to be charitable and resist the temptation to lose civility with each other.

Peace.

I think you are missing it completely what I am saying.

Most the New Testament are letters.

The letter are from Paul to different churches, and a couple from Peter and James and John.

Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude were all alive when Jesus was on earth, and all there letters were in their lifetime to the first Christians.

 

[God's Truth]

Well, you wouldn't tell me the dates of the writings of the books of the New Testament because you said the Bible doesn't tell us.

The writings were letters from the apostles in their lifetime.

To be consistent with your use of the Bible, can you tell me where the Bible says that a kiss on the feet is a sign of worship?

I gave scripture where Cornelius fell at Peter's feet. It was called worship in some translations. Cornelius didn't say anything, it was what he did that made it wrong.

No. Not necessarily. Cornelius was visited by angels in a vision and was afraid.

What does that have to do with Cornelius falling at Peter's feet? Cornelius did not say anything, it is what he did, and Peter calls it worship.

Tell me, why did the angels who Lot bowed to NOT tell him to get up and quit the false worshipping? Why did they let him worship them? Didn't those angels know that bowing to someone other than God was forbidden?

Jesus had not yet came earth. Peter and John explain falling at someone's feet as worship. Are you looking for excuses, or are you looking for God's Truth and trying to please Him?

I disagree. Unless you can show me in the Bible somewhere where a "worshipping kiss" is forbidden.

What would you say to people who came to you and fell at your feet? Would you say stop don't do that, I am only a man/woman myself?

I am sure that you know your Bible better than I do but I just don't remember ever reading about a "worshipping kiss".

Where is that at again?

You need to show me where it say Cornelius thought that Peter was God. You need to show that now since you keep saying I make up things. While you are at it, tell me where the apostle John thought the Angel was God.

I agree....if worship is occurring. But nobody believes the Pope to be God, so their is no worship involved. So there is no problem.

It doesn't matter one bit if people don't believe the Catholic pope is God.

If you want to be consistent in your use of the Bible, you will have to show me where the Bible says that John and Cornelius did not think they were gods.

You are the one who has to show that they thought they were gods. You will have a hard time doing that because you would have to blasphemy the Apostle John.

The Bible is filled with examples of people bowing and it shows that it was also a form used to show respect....and not worship.

I've already shown you Lot and Jacob with Esau. If I have time I will find some more. There are quite a few.

Peace.

The New Testament has new guidelines and regulations. We have Peter and John telling us not to fall at the feet of mere men and angels.

You have the choice now to obey, or you can make excuses why you will not.

 

[God's Truth]

The Bible records approximately 150 times in the New Testament that somebody does that including Zecheriah, Stephen, Paul, Mary....and yes, even Jesus Himself. They were not all confused. (Jesus confused?)

Also, the Bible says the same thing about being called "teacher". Do you have a issue with that as well?

It is easy, Jesus says to his disciples not to call each other ‘father’and ‘Teacher’. Jesus is the Teacher, and God in heaven is the Father. They are brothers in Christ. Jesus was not speaking about biological fathers or step fathers; Jesus is speaking about spiritual things. Jesus is also not speaking about not calling Abraham ‘father’. Abraham was not their brother in Christ.

Did you miss the fact that God commanded people to make statues several times. Was He confused?

God told how to make the statues for the temple and it had to be made EXACTLY as He said. God did not give anyone instructions on how to make statues for churches. God gave instructions on not making statues.

Did you forget the fact that God Himself commanded Moses to make that bronze snake? He commanded it.

Did you forget about Malachi 1:11: "For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations,” Says the Lord of hosts."

God told Moses to make the bronze snake, and when people looked at it they did not die from their snake bites. Even though they looking at the bronze snaked caused them to live---GOD STILL had the bronze snake DESTROYED because the people burned incense to it.

You said that you haven't failed to answer my questions. But I just remembered that you haven't answered this one that I asked earlier:

How is one person suffering for the sake of another (like Paul did) and how is one person praying for another (like Paul repeatedly stated), and how is sharing the Gospel with someone,.....how are those NOT mediating?

I did answer you, and I will tell you again.
Paul never prayed to other people. He prayed for other people. Paul suffering for the sake of the gospel has nothing to do with mediating.

John 20:23: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

That was said to the Apostles during the laying of the foundation. Your pope is no Apostle.

You are most certainly confused. Nobody but nobody is forbidden to marry. Anyone can get married if they want to.

Some people willing choose to NOT get married and consecrate their lives to God instead.

But this is their own free choice and they know that before they make their decision.

No, they are forbidden to marry. If someone want to be a priest, they are forbidden to marry.
When one is saved they become a priest to God and they are not forbidden to marry.

Almsgiving is biblical.

It is not biblical to pay for prayers.

Yup. But in an earlier post you claimed that they had a New Testament.

They didn't.

They did have a New Testament. The books and letters were written in their generation.

So how about 43 A.D. just for an example. What books and letters were they using then?

Peace.

I already answered you many times now. They had the Apostles themselves to teach them the gospel, and they had letters and books. How do you ever get that is not the New Testament they learned?

 

[God's Truth]

Uggh. I hate my screen name, just couldn't think of a good one at the time. Bard was a character in J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit". I love those books and movies!

My preferred screen name is "Bestil Andno" but I don't know if it is possible to change it.

Eh.

Hey, here is a little something to think about that I have stolen from Patrick Madrid:

Let's say we found a note from 150 years ago and it said: "I never said you stole the money."

Could we read it today, and know what that means? Maybe, it looks like it says somebody never said somebody else stole some money.

But there are at least 5 different valid interpretations of those 7 words depending on where the emphasis is placed:

1. I never said you stole the money. (My wife said it, though.)
2. I never said you stole the money. (I thought it, though.)
3. I never said you stole the money. (I said that your son did.)
4. I never said you stole the money. (I said you borrowed it.)
5. I never said you stole the money. (I said you stole the horse.)

5 different valid interpretations of 7 words.

Which do you think is more likely to be misinterpreted...those 7 words or the Bible which was written over the course of thousands of years, by numerous different authors, in several different languages, and in several different genres?

I know, I know...the Holy Spirit can help us to understand the Bible. But the Bible itself even warns us about misunderstanding it and twisting unto our own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

Did Jesus leave us in that state? Without being able to be sure of what we are reading?

Just something to think about.

Peace.

Thanks for explaining about your screen name. Someone I once knew really liked the book the Hobbit and gave it to me to read. I tried but just couldn't get into it.

As for interpretations of the Bible...

The apostles from the New Testament received all the truth we need to guide us to eternal life. All we need to guide us to eternal life is written down in the Scriptures: John 16:13; 2 Peter 1:3; Acts 20:20, 27; Matthew 28:20; I Corinthians 14:37; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

God’s word is understandable even to a young child. How from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, see 2 Timothy 3:15. We do not need elected men to interpret God’s word for us, but we are to check the scriptures to check out those claiming to be teachers, see Mark 7:14; 2 Timothy 3:15, 16, 17; John 20:30, 31; Acts 17:11; and, Psalm 119:105. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Jesus tells us how to have wisdom and understanding. See John 14:21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him."

Psalm 119:100 I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts.

Proverbs 3:32 For the LORD detests the perverse but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 1:23 Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.

See Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

John 8:30 While he was saying these things, many people believed in him. 31Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, "If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples

2 Timothy 2:25 correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth.

Luke 11:28 He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

 

[God's Truth]

So, to summarize, [1] God thinks that Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
[2] if God thinks something is true,it must be true.
[3] some go to hell
[4] Conclusion: Pate's definition of "Jesus is the savior of the world" needs to be redefined like Calvinists do.

Jesus is the Savior of the whole world. That means all have a chance to be saved.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

I think you are missing it completely what I am saying.

Most the New Testament are letters.

The letter are from Paul to different churches, and a couple from Peter and James and John.

Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude were all alive when Jesus was on earth, and all there letters were in their lifetime to the first Christians.

Hey GT,

Well, I might be misunderstanding.

Let's not forget about the 4 Gospels and Luke who wrote a Gospel and Acts as well.

But anyways, I think everyone would agree that the New Testament writings were completed in the 1st century.

But not all at once. You keep saying they had these from the beginning.

But I don't think anyone believes that any New Testament book or letter was written prior to sbout 44 A.D.

That means the Church survived and spread without ANY New Testament book at all.

And then about 45 A.D. things started to get written that became part of the New Testament.

But this happened over the course of at least 30 years or better.

Even Paul's letters. He may have written his first letters around 50 A.D. or so, but 2 Timothy was probably written near his death around 60 - 65 A.D. or something. So even his letters were written over quite a span of time. Maybe a decade or a decade and a half or something.

Some of John's writings probably happened after that even.

So it isn't accurate to say that they had a New Testament right from the beginning because everything that was eventually included in the New Testament was written over a span of several decades.

Christians who lived and died before 45 A.D. probably never saw a word of a New Testament writing.

Christians who lived and died before 60 A.D. probably never saw many of Paul's writings.

I will grant you that scholars debate about the dating of the New Testament writings.

But they agree that it happened over decades.

So if you say they had a New Testament from the very beginning, well, that beginning couldn't have been until all of those books were written which would be around 70 A.D. and some people will argue 90 A.D.

And then, once the books were written, there was a further problem of knowing which ones to use and include and which ones not to.

That turned out to be quite a debate as well.


Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

The writings were letters from the apostles in their lifetime.

Ok. But that is a span of at least 40 years and maybe even 60 years for their lifetimes. (40 A.D. - 70 or 90 A.D.)

If they had the New Testament from the beginning....when was that beginning?

If we pick a date prior to the writing of the last book of the New Testament, then they couldn't of had the New Testament.

If we pick a date after the writing of the last book of the New Testament, then the beginning would be 70 A.D. or later.

I gave scripture where Cornelius fell at Peter's feet. It was called worship in some translations. Cornelius didn't say anything, it was what he did that made it wrong.

I will grant you that the word "worship" could mean to just pay respect to someone.

If that is what Cornelius intended, it could be that Peter refused that out of humility.

If Cornelius was worshipping in the literal sense we think of it today, Peter refused it because he isn't divine.

We have to remember, though, that in the middle and far east, especially 2000 years ago, bowing to others as a sign of respect was common practice. I think it still is today in the far east.

What does that have to do with Cornelius falling at Peter's feet? Cornelius did not say anything, it is what he did, and Peter calls it worship.

Well, not that many people get visited by angels and whenever they do they are afraid. So Cornelius' state of mind was probably that something big and important was going on. His actions were probably affected by that encounter.

Obviously I am speculating. I've never been visited by an angel that I know of. I think it would probably affect me for quite some time if I was, though.

Also, if we read the passage more carefully we'll see that Peter doesn't call it worship. The author does, that would be Luke.

Jesus had not yet came earth.

So? Are you suggesting that bowing to someone was an acceptable practice until Jesus came to earth and after that it is not?

How do you get that idea?

That would mean that the two angels who let Lot bow to them didn't know that he shouldn't be doing that.

That doesn't make sense.

Peter and John explain falling at someone's feet as worship. Are you looking for excuses, or are you looking for God's Truth and trying to please Him?

I'm afraid not. The text says that fell down "to worship or and worshipped."

And Peter didn't say that.

Just because I hold to a different interpretation than you, doesn't mean I am making excuses.

I could say the exact same thing to you. I could say that you are making excuses for not seeing the Truth about honor and respect.

I am definitely seeking the Truth.

I think what we have here is a classic case of "I never said you stole the money."

I think there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that bowing before someone doesn't mean worshipping. It means showing respect or honor.

You think there is plenty of evidence in the Bible to show that bowing means worship.

But since we both have equal right to read the Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit guide us, neither one of us has the authority to tell the other person that they are wrong.

We can disagree. But we can't tell the other that they are wrong.

What would you say to people who came to you and fell at your feet? Would you say stop don't do that, I am only a man/woman myself?

Well, that would be odd since I don't live in the far east or middle east and I'm not living 2000 years ago either.

I would probably say, "Hey, in the Far East they bow and such, in France (I think), they kiss cheeks, over here.....we just smile and shake hands or hug."

But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a practice back then. And as far as showing that respect to the Pope, well, that has always been very rare and I don't even know that that is the practice today. I think it is a kiss on the hand more today.

You need to show me where it say Cornelius thought that Peter was God. You need to show that now since you keep saying I make up things. While you are at it, tell me where the apostle John thought the Angel was God.

When the Bible says that they "fell down to worship".

And if we are going to agree to answer questions you have some you haven't answered for me yet:

You stated that Catholics don't "break bread" like the first century Christians did. I asked you how you do that. Maybe you have got that right. Well, how do you "break bread" where you worship?

Malachi says incense will be offered to Him in all nations. I asked you if your church uses incense.
Well, does it?

You stated that a "worshipping kiss" on the feet is condemned in the Bible. Where is that at?

It doesn't matter one bit if people don't believe the Catholic pope is God.

Well, to sum this up. The Bible is clear from the writings of Paul that we are to honor and respect others.

Basically, you have a problem with that honor and respect being shown through the kissing of feet which rarely if even ever happens anymore.

Other people do not have a problem with honor and respect being shown that way.

Even if you are absolutely right and Catholics should not show honor that way. So what?

That is what is called a "practice" or "custom".

That is not a matter of faith or morals. It is a matter of showing respect. And it certainly isn't worshipping because nobody believes the Pope to be a diety.

You are the one who has to show that they thought they were gods. You will have a hard time doing that because you would have to blasphemy the Apostle John.

I can't because I cannot know what was in their minds and the Bible doesn't say that.

But I can show you that the Bible records that they fell down to worship versus other places where people bow down but not to worship and it is perfectly acceptable.


The New Testament has new guidelines and regulations. We have Peter and John telling us not to fall at the feet of mere men and angels.

You have the choice now to obey, or you can make excuses why you will not.

Or our interpretations do not agree and neither one of us has the right to tell the other they are wrong.

It is a "I never said you stole the money" situtation.

And to be honest, it isn't even a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. It is a man-made custom or practice that was used rarely at certain times and as such is changeable.

Doctrines of the Catholic Faith are those things that are given to us by God and they are not changeable.

I think it would be much more productive to focus on doctrines versus customs. There is a big difference.

I can't do any more posts this long. It is too difficult and I think there might be a rule against it.

I will try to be briefer.

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

It is easy, Jesus says to his disciples not to call each other ‘father’and ‘Teacher’. Jesus is the Teacher, and God in heaven is the Father. They are brothers in Christ. Jesus was not speaking about biological fathers or step fathers; Jesus is speaking about spiritual things. Jesus is also not speaking about not calling Abraham ‘father’. Abraham was not their brother in Christ.

Nope. I don't agree. The text says not to call "anyone on earth Father":

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

We have interpretation differences happening again.

Jesus says not to call "anyone on earth" father, and you have already made exceptions for biological fathers and step fathers.

Jesus didn't say that. That is just your interpretation. How do you know those exceptions exist?

How do you know that Jesus is speaking about spiritual things?

How do you know Jesus is talking only to those who are "brothers in Christ"? The text doesn't say that either.

God told how to make the statues for the temple and it had to be made EXACTLY as He said. God did not give anyone instructions on how to make statues for churches. God gave instructions on not making statues.

Nope. God doesn't have a problem with religious statuary because He could not command people to make things if it was wrong for them to do so.

The point is that the making and using of religious statuary is fine.

Thinking that what is made is a deity (committing idolatry) is what is forbidden.

God told Moses to make the bronze snake, and when people looked at it they did not die from their snake bites. Even though they looking at the bronze snaked caused them to live---GOD STILL had the bronze snake DESTROYED because the people burned incense to it.

The snake was not a problem and God commanded that it be made and used.

It BECAME a problem when they started to worship it. That was centuries later, I believe, and that is why and when God had it destroyed.

The point is: appropriate use of religious statuary is not a problem.

Idolatry is.

There is incense used in worship again. (falsely this time).

Does your church use incense as Malachi says? Just curious.

I did answer you, and I will tell you again.
Paul never prayed to other people. He prayed for other people. Paul suffering for the sake of the gospel has nothing to do with mediating.

No. You still have not answered my question. Please do.

If Paul prayed for other people, how is that NOT mediating?

If it is NOT mediating...well, then what is it?

That was said to the Apostles during the laying of the foundation. Your pope is no Apostle.

Nope. He is a successor of the Apostles. Same office with same responsibilities.

Paul writes about this in 2 Timothy 2:1-2: "You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

Paul "names" 4 levels of succession: Paul taught Timothy who is to teach others, who can teach others still.

No, they are forbidden to marry. If someone want to be a priest, they are forbidden to marry.

You could not be more wrong. If I want to become a priest, I know ahead of time that I cannot also be married in Roman rite. I make that choice ahead of time.

If I think I might want to be married someday....it's simple. I do not become a priest.

There is no "forbidding" going on at all. It is a conscience decision I make and I take full responsibility for it ahead of time.

By the way, that is a "discipline" of the Church and is changeable. There are some Catholic priests who are priests and they are married. Some who converted from the Anglican Church, for example, and some in the Eastern Catholic churches, I believe.

When one is saved they become a priest to God and they are not forbidden to marry.

That is two different kinds of priesthood you are talking about there. The "universal priesthood or priesthood of all believers" and the "ministerial priesthood". We have both kinds in both the Old Covenant and in the New Covenant.

It is not biblical to pay for prayers.

Who does that?

They did have a New Testament. The books and letters were written in their generation.

Did they in 40 A.D.? No.
50 A.D.? No.
60 A.D.? No.
70 A.D. ? Maybe

I already answered you many times now. They had the Apostles themselves to teach them the gospel, and they had letters and books. How do you ever get that is not the New Testament they learned?

What you are saying is wrong. Not one word of the New Testament had been written by 43 A.D. according to most biblical scholars.

If you are going to claim that they had books and letters of the New Testament in 43 A.D., you will have to offer some evidence of that.

It isn't true just because you assert that.

Which books and letters did they have?

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Jesus is the Savior of the whole world. That means all have a chance to be saved.

Amen.

Hey GT,

We are failing miserably at focusing on one topic.

People are probably laughing their heads off at us.

Want to regroup and focus on just one of the topics we have been tossing around?

Back to the Pope or something else?

It would also make for shorter posts.

Peace to you.

 

[God's Truth]

Hey GT,

Well, I might be misunderstanding.

Let's not forget about the 4 Gospels and Luke who wrote a Gospel and Acts as well.

But anyways, I think everyone would agree that the New Testament writings were completed in the 1st century.

But not all at once. You keep saying they had these from the beginning.

But I don't think anyone believes that any New Testament book or letter was written prior to sbout 44 A.D.

That means the Church survived and spread without ANY New Testament book at all.

And then about 45 A.D. things started to get written that became part of the New Testament.

But this happened over the course of at least 30 years or better.

Even Paul's letters. He may have written his first letters around 50 A.D. or so, but 2 Timothy was probably written near his death around 60 - 65 A.D. or something. So even his letters were written over quite a span of time. Maybe a decade or a decade and a half or something.

Some of John's writings probably happened after that even.

So it isn't accurate to say that they had a New Testament right from the beginning because everything that was eventually included in the New Testament was written over a span of several decades.

Christians who lived and died before 45 A.D. probably never saw a word of a New Testament writing.

Christians who lived and died before 60 A.D. probably never saw many of Paul's writings.

I will grant you that scholars debate about the dating of the New Testament writings.

But they agree that it happened over decades.

So if you say they had a New Testament from the very beginning, well, that beginning couldn't have been until all of those books were written which would be around 70 A.D. and some people will argue 90 A.D.

And then, once the books were written, there was a further problem of knowing which ones to use and include and which ones not to.

That turned out to be quite a debate as well.


Peace.

You say they did not have all the letters and books all at once, as we do now, but you fail to understand that they might even of had MORE than what we have. They might have had more books and letters. You must deal with that because it is nonsense to keep arguing about it.

You are also mixing up my saying they had the New Testament as if I were saying they had the New Testament BOOK exactly as we have it, limited in number but perfect as it is. Having the New Testament does NOT mean having the Bible exactly how we have it now. Having the New Testament is about hearing the truth of the New Testament, whether having it read to you, you reading it to yourself, or just hearing it orally by the apostles themselves.

You keep bringing up the year 43 A.D., and you bring up other years. It does not matter because you do not know the year for sure and you do not know of other books and letters that they had seen that we did not see. Which makes NO DIFFERENCE.


You are mixing up the fact that what we have in the Holy Bible the New Testament and it is the letters and books that the first century Christians had---they definitely shared them as was COMMANDED.

Again, having the New Testament is not about the first Christians having the Holy Bible exactly as we have now. That is just nonsense to say that those who were preached to by the apostles themselves did not have the New Testament because it was orally. Not only that, it is worthless for you to go on about how long it took and who had which letter and books to share, for they could have had much more than what we have today.

I think you need to get a grasp on what exactly you are trying to prove or disprove, because you are not making any kind of case for the truth.

The letter to the Corinthians was from Paul to the first Christians in Corinth. We get to see exactly what they were taught.

They got to share those exact teachings to those in other other churches in other cities, and vice versa.

Think about what you are saying when you say they didn't have the New Testament as we have it.

 

[God's Truth]

Ok. But that is a span of at least 40 years and maybe even 60 years for their lifetimes. (40 A.D. - 70 or 90 A.D.)

If they had the New Testament from the beginning....when was that beginning?

Again, when I say they had the New Testament, they had the New Testament. I am not talking about their having the Holy Bible exactly as we do now. We have some of the letters that they had, and some of the books, but they might have had much more than what we have. They had the apostles themselves preaching and teaching them, so they did have the New Testament. It is not like someone comes up to you and says they want to teach you the New Testament of God and you not really know if you can believe them or not because you do not have the written word for yourself. However, the people could check the scriptures of the Old Testament, AND, God TESTIFIED to what the disciples taught, He testified to it by miracles and signs. You would believe someone if you were healed or someone you love was healed in a miraculous way.

I will grant you that the word "worship" could mean to just pay respect to someone.

That is major. I am so glad that you can see that.

If that is what Cornelius intended, it could be that Peter refused that out of humility.

That is right; it is exactly what I am saying, for we are to be humble always. This is so important what you just said about Peter was being humble. This is major. Being humble is a teaching of Jesus. Without humbleness, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[God's Truth]

Obviously I am speculating. I've never been visited by an angel that I know of. I think it would probably affect me for quite some time if I was, though.

Right; and, you know now from the Bible that you should not drop to your knees at the sight of an angel. We are taught now not to do that.

So? Are you suggesting that bowing to someone was an acceptable practice until Jesus came to earth and after that it is not? How do you get that idea? That would mean that the two angels who let Lot bow to them didn't know that he shouldn't be doing that. That doesn't make sense.

Since the New Testament, Jesus explains changes to us. Don’t you acknowledge that?
We have Peter and John explaining not to fall at someone’s feet…this is a spiritual concern. We are not talking about laying at the feet of a dying loved one, we are talking about falling at the feet of someone from the spiritual world teaching us spiritual things.