Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for sharing. Does that mean (bolded) that it would have ended with John anyway (the last apostle)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Yes, I guess it would have had to, as there was no one left to ordain him to the leadership of the Church. Theoretically, he could have called others and ordained them to be apostles but for his exile. As a matter of fact, the other living Apostles could have done so, too. The Bible actually alludes to several others who may have been ordained as Apostles, but little is known about them. As far as I know, all Christians believe that Matthias replaced Judas. Most believe that Paul was actually ordained an Apostle (though some apparently disregard the fact that the Bible mentions him as an Apostle. Barnabas was also mentioned as an Apostle, as was James (the brother of Jesus). It seems clear to me that as long as it was feasible to do so, each Apostle was replaced by another one following his death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
It would have made a lot of sense that in the earliest days of the Church, the apostles would have decided that they wanted to choose from someone who had a firsthand knowledge of Christ. I don't think God ever intended that that be a criteria, though, and obviously, it would have had to change over time. Here's how I see it:
In Ephesians 4:11-16, we read:
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. As I said earlier to EscaAlaMike, I believe that the same organization that existed anciently was to continue until all Christianity was united (see my first underlined phrase). And if this did not happen, the purity of Christ's doctrine would be perverted by cunning and crafty men (see my second underlined statement).
I have also pointed out that there was anciently a very clear distinction between the apostles and bishops (who were called to preside solely over individual congregations). You can't just ordain a bishop, change his title to Pope, and still maintain apostolic succession. Simply stated, you can't have apostolic succession without apostles.
(P.S. I love you Catholics. You're so easy to get along with. )
I can see how that would have 'put a cap' on 'Apostles' ( first-hand eye-witnesses to Jesus ),
and scripture tells us "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true Jn 8:17,
so I can also see that for inclusion into NT scripture would have likely been limited as originating from first-hand eye-witnesses (testifying to what they saw with their own eyes), with 2 or more corroborating so that we know the testimony is true.
Even Paul 'confer[ed] with Cephas' (Gal1:18) and the church pillars affirmed (Gal2:9) that he not 'run in vain'.
As you show in Ephesians, Christ gave offices to ensure that His lambs, His church which is His body, to continue to be fed, tended, and taught(the testimonies of His witnesses as true) ;
like Meerkat2 might say, the 'season' for 'Apostles'/eye-witnesses might have come to an end,
but not His church, His body. He promised 'the gates of Hades will not overcome it'.
The Apostles were also the first bishops,
and as scripture shows more bishops selected, instructed,
(even to "... hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thes 2:15 ) ,
and appointed/assigned physical jurisdictions as the church grew and expanded outward, rapidly (what, 3000 added that first day!!).
I just don't see any evidence to counter where Paul instructs Timothy on how to select bishops ( 1 Timothy 3:1-7 ),
as Timothy was not an Apostle/eye-witness,
but being shown by one as how to proceed perpetuating bishops!
I can see how that would have 'put a cap' on 'Apostles' ( first-hand eye-witnesses to Jesus ),
and scripture tells us "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true Jn 8:17,
so I can also see that for inclusion into NT scripture would have likely been limited as originating from first-hand eye-witnesses (testifying to what they saw with their own eyes), with 2 or more corroborating so that we know the testimony is true.
Even Paul 'confer[ed] with Cephas' (Gal1:18) and the church pillars affirmed (Gal2:9) that he not 'run in vain'.
As you show in Ephesians, Christ gave offices to ensure that His lambs, His church which is His body, to continue to be fed, tended, and taught(the testimonies of His witnesses as true) ;
like Meerkat2 might say, the 'season' for 'Apostles'/eye-witnesses might have come to an end,
but not His church, His body. He promised 'the gates of Hades will not overcome it'.
The Apostles were also the first bishops,
and as scripture shows more bishops selected, instructed,
(even to "... hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thes 2:15 ) ,
and appointed/assigned physical jurisdictions as the church grew and expanded outward, rapidly (what, 3000 added that first day!!).
I just don't see any evidence to counter where Paul instructs Timothy on how to select bishops ( 1 Timothy 3:1-7 ),
as Timothy was not an Apostle/eye-witness,
but being shown by one as how to proceed perpetuating bishops!
I personally do not think there has been a time since Jesus when we were without inner guidance from the Comforter which makes the idea of succession entirely possible. In fact, I even accept that there may have been individual believers, priests, apostles, or prophets even today who faithfully represent God and Jesus (Francis of Assisi comes to mind). I just question the validity of the mainstream corporate Church dogma and doctrine promulgated by those supposedly elected to succeed and maintain the faith in Christ.
Let's face it, the lack of any attempt to discern the "spiritual solid food" within the "carnal milk" necessary for our ancestors' primitive minds suggests to me that for millennia neither God nor the Comforter has been involved in the selection of successors in any of the mainstream Catholic or Christian religions, IMO. I am willing and actually anxious to be proven wrong.
I personally do not think there has been a time since Jesus when we were without inner guidance from the Comforter which makes the idea of succession entirely possible. In fact, I even accept that there may have been individual believers, priests, apostles, or prophets even today who faithfully represent God and Jesus (Francis of Assisi comes to mind). I just question the validity of the mainstream corporate Church dogma and doctrine promulgated by those supposedly elected to succeed and maintain the faith in Christ.
Let's face it, the lack of any attempt to discern the "spiritual solid food" within the "carnal milk" necessary for our ancestors' primitive minds suggests to me that for millennia neither God nor the Comforter has been involved in the selection of successors in any of the mainstream Catholic or Christian religions, IMO. I am willing and actually anxious to be proven wrong.
People are having meaningful conversations, when that is happening I believe we shouldn’t be too hasty in trying to divert their attention from what they are “working†on, (not saying you shouldn’t have an opinion and voice it, but sometimes we can get too caught up in our own personal views and arguments)
The Scriptures have been, and are to be used in a fluid way, but we also are to make sure we are only building upon the foundational rock that everything is to stand on
That is a tricky balancing act to do when the whole thing has been happening over Millenia, and why tradition, doctrines, dogmas are needed for the rigid structural part - like a body needs bones for support and protection
Originally Posted by Meerkat2
And Jesus came to divide - "a peg fixed to a firm place, broken to fall, and the heavy weight that hung on it shall be done away with"
And to unite - He a cornerstone, for a new building, which joins two different walls firmly together
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCyou
my reply/adds above, in blue.
I really like that, fits in so well with my thoughts!
I personally do not think there has been a time since Jesus when we were without inner guidance from the Comforter which makes the idea of succession entirely possible. In fact, I even accept that there may have been individual believers, priests, apostles, or prophets even today who faithfully represent God and Jesus (Francis of Assisi comes to mind). I just question the validity of the mainstream corporate Church dogma and doctrine promulgated by those supposedly elected to succeed and maintain the faith in Christ.
The bolded is certainly understandable.
What we have to recognize is that Christ really did bestow a certain degree of authority on man. Specifically the authority to make disciples, baptize (perform sacraments), and teach (Matthew 28:18-20). The challenge is in finding out who possesses that authority today, as there is a lot of misdirection out there from the forces of evil, whether they be spiritual or carnal.
Hanni believes the historical use of the dates for celebration determines what people doing the celebrating are intending to celebrate. Most sane people recognize that what we INTEND to celebrate determines what we are celebrating!
Sane people dont falsley claim to be in a new covenant only made for Israel and Judah when they are neither Israel or Judah. You arent a Jew, you have not replaced any Jews.
Again, the whole point was to add Gentiles to the chosen nation to become one people.
That is impossible for a pagan Gentile to achieve, 2 people cannot become one people when they have their own worship systems opposed to each other, it is impossible.
The pagan must accept the feasts of Messiah, or all of Israel must join in to your worship system of Baal that teaches the resurrection of his son Tammuz.
Not only are you not in the covenant with Israel and Judah, you are the enemy to all who are in the new covenant.
Why?
Because you cant admit your own reality, you cant even admit that you keep all the holy days, traditions and rituals of Tammuz.
You want to take everything from Babylon and you want to put the name of Jesus on it so you can make Jesus a pagan also, an enemy of Israel.
What you have is all your excuses why the worship system of Tammuz is righteous, and why the worship system of Christ is so unrighteous.
At the end if the day and after you have laid out all your excuses, you are still keeping the worship system of Tammmuz and it dont matter how many excuses you use, you are an enemy of all the saints in the covenant.
You would have all of Israel keeping the holy days of Baal right along side of you.
Last edited by Hannibal Flavius; 09-28-2021 at 02:06 PM..
I personally do not think there has been a time since Jesus when we were without inner guidance from the Comforter which makes the idea of succession entirely possible. In fact, I even accept that there may have been individual believers, priests, apostles, or prophets even today who faithfully represent God and Jesus (Francis of Assisi comes to mind). I just question the validity of the mainstream corporate Church dogma and doctrine promulgated by those supposedly elected to succeed and maintain the faith in Christ.
Let's face it, the lack of any attempt to discern the "spiritual solid food" within the "carnal milk" necessary for our ancestors' primitive minds suggests to me that for millennia neither God nor the Comforter has been involved in the selection of successors in any of the mainstream Catholic or Christian religions, IMO. I am willing and actually anxious to be proven wrong.
Yes, inner guidance perpetually available, but how does a 2-year old tap into that?
Humans need truthful teaching/guidance until maturity makes that reception possible.
The issue is that some (many, most?) never mature to that level, and only respond to the stick.
Yes, inner guidance perpetually available, but how does a 2-year old tap into that?
Humans need truthful teaching/guidance until maturity makes that reception possible.
The issue is that some (many, most?) never mature to that level, and only respond to the stick.
But it depends where you are in the greater scheme
Maturity looks very different in different life-forms
I personally do not think there has been a time since Jesus when we were without inner guidance from the Comforter which makes the idea of succession entirely possible. In fact, I even accept that there may have been individual believers, priests, apostles, or prophets even today who faithfully represent God and Jesus (Francis of Assisi comes to mind). I just question the validity of the mainstream corporate Church dogma and doctrine promulgated by those supposedly elected to succeed and maintain the faith in Christ.
Let's face it, the lack of any attempt to discern the "spiritual solid food" within the "carnal milk" necessary for our ancestors' primitive minds suggests to me that for millennia neither God nor the Comforter has been involved in the selection of successors in any of the mainstream Catholic or Christian religions, IMO. I am willing and actually anxious to be proven wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
The bolded is certainly understandable.
What we have to recognize is that Christ really did bestow a certain degree of authority on man. Specifically, the authority to make disciples, baptize (perform sacraments), and teach (Matthew 28:18-20). The challenge is in finding out who possesses that authority today, as there is a lot of misdirection out there from the forces of evil, whether they be spiritual or carnal.
The problem is that the misdirection and corruption of the Good News Gospel occurred very early during the transition from oral communication to written (scripture). This allowed the Bad News corruption to be embedded in the very scripture and its interpretations that are being relied on by those claiming to teach and lead the Church in Christ's name. That travesty is extremely difficult to root out. The God portrayed in the dogma by the ancient scriptures is NOT the God revealed and demonstrated unambiguously by Jesus Christ on the Cross. That is about as thoroughly corrupted as it gets!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
