@RandomRation@John_Stone_@ThoughtfulSaint โBeingโ is a poor English translation, made worse by the fact that we use the word โhuman beingโ synonymously with โpersonโ, rather than โbe-ingโ - what those persons are. The persons of the trinity are consubstantial. They are the same divine substance.
@CatholicCoachP Itโs an interesting question - โTo the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)โ. He seems to be saying that itโs not the word of God. But I can see an argument that God wanted us to have it.
@CatholicCoachP I think it shows that โNot everything that came from the mouth or pen of Paul was God-breathedโ - or at least he didnโt think so.
@thelb236 IMHO, when you have more priests than necessary, they should just have a regular old Mass, and the extra priests should participate as laity. One loaf. No โcoโ needed.
@kirkmckee13@AnneOfTheBooks No - the Bereans were reading scripture they already accepted, using it to confirm new revelation. Their scriptures predicted the event that Paul was telling them about in pretty strong detail. By contrast, my scriptures, the OT and NT, donโt predict Smith, LDS, or BoM.
@kirkmckee13@AnneOfTheBooks Yes, which is why I brought up that they were at the synagogue, so it would be reasonable that the Pharisaic scriptures would be available. But I agree that they would have expected confirmation both in the prior scriptures and through prayer.
@kirkmckee13@AnneOfTheBooks To my knowledge the Pharisees (who ran the synagogues) didnโt use Enoch. But letโs assume youโre right. Do you think they only checked Enoch? Or was the OP right that they checked the OT to know if Paul was right about Christ being the Messiah, and didnโt just ask God?
@kirkmckee13@AnneOfTheBooks Beats me which particular ones. There are a ton. Possibly the suffering servant of Isaiah, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Wisdom, Danielโฆ
@kirkmckee13@AnneOfTheBooks The Bereans saw that the Christ was foretold in the OT, and that the Jesus being described by Paul was the Christ. The NT hadnโt been written yet. The OT predicted Christ. Neither the OT nor NT predicted Smith. So, as modern day Bereans, we reject Smith.
@ThyPaddyDaddy Now youโre moving the goalposts. Your claim was โAntioch is a Roman Catholics worst nightmareโ. Why? We agree that Peter had primacy (whatever that entails) and that the fathers linked that primacy to Rome. So how is Antioch an issue at all for us?
@kirkmckee13@AnneOfTheBooks โThe scripturesโ in context meant โthe Old Testamentโ. The Bereans read the OT to see if Paul was right that they predicted Jesus. In comparison, the OT and NT donโt predict Smith. (That is, before he altered them to insert himself)