Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

Monk Brendan · Sep 13, 2017

Oscarr said:
I never said that the two Bishops were merged. The Bishop of Constantinople was the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church that broke from Rome.

Forgive me, I misunderstood.

However, you still said that all of the Latin bishops were merged into the Pope. This is an error. There have always been multiple bishops, and that includes multiple bishops IN ROME.

Another error you made is that you said the Bishop of Constantinople ruled the Orthodox Church. This is another error. The PATRIARCH of Constantinople is not the head of the Orthodox Church. He is the head of those Churches that are affiliated with him, but he cannot order the Patriarch of Moscow (for instance) to obey him. Besides that, Kirill would probably tell Bartholomew to stick any such order in his miter.

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 13, 2017

scottSTANLEY said:
Hi,
They are forgiven. The peril is to allow the doctrines they teach to permeate your understanding. Babylon is divided into three parts: Paganism / Catholicism / Protestantism All three base there beliefs on God needing a human sacrifice in order to forgive the sinner. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16) and love does not keep a record of sin (1 Corinthians 13:5). The cross bears this out.

Orthodox Christianity does not share the view on God needing a human sacrifice in order to forgive the sinner.

Forgive me...

Monk Brendan · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
No. A church is not a rock. You build on top of the rock. You just don't keep putting foundation on foundation. Again, the it refers to the Church, not a person. And, scripture teaches so much more that Jesus is the cornerstone of the Church.

Haven't you studied ANY Greek? In Greek, the word "rock" is Petrus. So you see, Jesus was telling Simon bar Jonah that HE, Simon was "rock," and upon this "ROCK" (foundation) He would build His Church.

BTW, I haven't studied Greek either, this is just one of the benefits of a Catholic education.

AnticipateHisComing said:
Lastly, you use assumption that Peter's rock must be carried on by another. The point of my OP is that institutions from God do not come from assumptions but from clear direct command.

Was not the High Priesthood carried on, male to male in direct descendancy? If Aaron can pass on his role, why can't the Bishop of Rome? Please show me Book, Chapter and Verse where God has forbidden this.

scottSTANLEY · Sep 13, 2017

OrthodoxyUSA said:
Orthodox Christianity does not share the view on God needing a human sacrifice in order to forgive the sinner.

Forgive me...

It does if you think Jesus died to pay your sin debt.

Monk Brendan · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
How many Popes have there been? Sorry, only 12 thrones.

Did you know that Peter occupied two bishoprics? First, in Antioch, and then in Rome. But while Peter may only occupy one seat, and the others of the Twelve occupy the others, that does NOT mean that other Popes, in their time, may not occupy the same SEAT of Peter (i.e. be the principal Bishop of Rome), or the seats of the others here on Earth, with the same power and authority as Peter did.

I have always been willing to admit that some of these popes were bad, that the system that elected them was corrupt, that money is a powerful motivator, etc. But MOST of the elections have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and the choices have been good ones.

AnticipateHisComing said:
Authority given to not just Peter. Do Catholics only receive forgiveness from the Pope?

You should know that that is wrong. You seem to be throwing up any excuse not to believe that the Pope has the same authority as Peter. OKAY! Go ahead and believe what you want. I can't stop you from doing that.

But you are not Catholic, so why does the working of a church you're not a member of bother you so much?

Because the Roman Catholic Church is the biggest target to Fundamentalists and the Reformers, and by spewing hatred and poison you THINK you might get a few to join your church instead. But you are exactly the same as the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and Jesus rebuked them, too.

AnticipateHisComing said:
The Pope does not do the miracles that Peter did. Preach the gospel, we are all charged with doing, the same with forgiving sins.

How about the others claims of the Papacy:
inerrant, not even the "first Pope" was.
supremacy, no scripture that Peter was.

Now you're just trying to confuse the other readers, but I am not confused.

In their times, Popes, bishops, priests, deacon, and the faithful have done miracles. But does the miracle come from the man? or God? I'll bet on God, every time.

The Pope is inerrant, when, speaking from the See of Peter, and in communion with the other Bishops of the Church, he makes a statement to teach or define a matter of faith or morals.

What that means is he is still apt to put two spoons of sugar in his coffee instead of one, unless someone lays out his clothing for the day, he is still apt to pick up the wrong socks, and he can still mess up on a math problem. Only if the circumstances mentioned above is he inerrant. Otherwise, he is just an old man from Argentina.

Again I ask, you are not Catholic, so why does the working of a church you're not a member of bother you so much?

As for Supremacy, why does it matter what other men think of the Pope. I am a Catholic, and he is not Supreme to me!

1213 · Sep 13, 2017

Monk Brendan said:
Oh please! I have know several Protestant preachers that have required some degree of obeisance from their congregations. And in my 40 years as a Catholic cooperating with Christ, I have seen my share of preachers who paid more attention to lining their pockets than saving souls....

And that is sad thing. What Jesus told is not only about rabbis. It is about leaders commonly. And same bad things can be seen in many religious groups. Worst thing is, if it is found among the people who are allegedly disciples of Jesus.

Disciples of Jesus should be loyal to him and respect what he said. Unfortunately many “Christians” don’t seem to care what Jesus said, they love more their own doctrines and high positions.

1213 · Sep 13, 2017

OrthodoxyUSA said:
And still we have St. Paul calling himself the spiritual father of the Corinthians.

That is interesting thing and I think it is one mistake that Paul has done. Luckily, people should be disciples of Jesus rather than disciples of Paul. After all, it is the words of Jesus that can save, not Paul.

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 13, 2017

scottSTANLEY said:
It does if you think Jesus died to pay your sin debt.

And we don't.

Forgive me...

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 13, 2017

parousia70 said:
the reason that Church Tradition is appealed and held fast to is because there is a scriptural command to do so:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Your translation is lacking emphasis on what traditions the Church is to follow. Try this one.

ESV So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

So scripture does not say to follow ALL traditions of the religious leaders, but ones from us, the apostles.

Jesus clarifies this when he taught that following all the traditions that the religious leaders taught was not what he intends.

Matthew 15:2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.

Lastly, I know you want to defend the Papacy, but can you make an argument against the one presented in the OP?

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 13, 2017

1213 said:
That is interesting thing and I think it is one mistake that Paul has done. Luckily, people should be disciples of Jesus rather than disciples of Paul. After all, it is the words of Jesus that can save, not Paul.

It wasn't a mistake. Christ was saying don't confuse anyone here with your creator.

Forgive me...

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
No. A church is not a rock. You build on top of the rock. You just don't keep putting foundation on foundation. Again, the it refers to the Church, not a person. And, scripture teaches so much more that Jesus is the cornerstone of the Church.

I have never said Peter was not an important apostle that was given special power, but the authority he received was given to the other apostles also. Further, scripture never puts him over the other apostles.

Monk Brendan said:
Haven't you studied ANY Greek? In Greek, the word "rock" is Petrus. So you see, Jesus was telling Simon bar Jonah that HE, Simon was "rock," and upon this "ROCK" (foundation) He would build His Church.

Your rebuttal is to teach me what I just stated. It should be clear that my comment agrees with you that Peter was called the rock/foundation of the church.

Have you ever built a house? I have. You start with a foundation and then add to it: walls, roof, etc.. The whole house is not foundation on foundation on foundation. So to learn from Jesus' analogy, Peter being the start of the early NT church does not mean that the church will require a person/office like him forever. Other people take over with other skills/power/authority. Of course some authorities to baptize and forgive sins remain in the church.

Also, you ignore that the promise of protection is given to the Church, not Peter.
Lastly, you ignore that the cornerstone of the Church is Jesus.

Monk Brendan said:
Was not the High Priesthood carried on, male to male in direct descendancy? If Aaron can pass on his role, why can't the Bishop of Rome?

Do you still offer animal sacrifices? Do you still go to the temple in Jerusalem? Do you still abide to the High Priests?

Monk Brendan said:
Please show me Book, Chapter and Verse where God has forbidden this.

Your have not refuted a single argument in my last post. You have not even responded to the bulk of it. Instead you expect me to prove a negative. I could ask you to show me where in scripture that I don't have to bring my pastor presents. Oh, just because scripture doesn't forbid something, you think it true. Weak, weak argument.

Now, to entertain your thought that scripture says nothing on the subject, there is plenty. As already posted, Hebrews 7 ends the concept of a human authority over the Church. As other scripture says, Jesus is now the head of the Church.

Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Anguspure · Sep 13, 2017

parousia70 said:
Sola Scriptura is an oxymoron... but leaving that fact aside, the reason that Church Tradition is appealed and held fast to is because there is a scriptural command to do so:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

On the other hand the doctrine of Sola Espirito Sancto is well attested to.

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 13, 2017

Anguspure said:
On the other hand the doctrine of Sola Espirito Sancto is well attested to.

Monk Brendan · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
Do you still offer animal sacrifices? Do you still go to the temple in Jerusalem? Do you still abide to the High Priests?

You were the one that started talking about the high priesthood, not me.

AnticipateHisComing said:
Your rebuttal is to teach me what I just stated. It should be clear that my comment agrees with you that Peter was called the rock/foundation of the church.

Have you ever built a house? I have. You start with a foundation and then add to it: walls, roof, etc.. The whole house is not foundation on foundation on foundation. So to learn from Jesus' analogy, Peter being the start of the early NT church does not mean that the church will require a person/office like him forever. Other people take over with other skills/power/authority. Of course some authorities to baptize and forgive sins remain in the church.

While I have never, personally built a house, I've seen how it is done. But I believe you misunderstand me. The power and authority that Peter had, as an Apostle, and as a bishop in the Church have been passed on, not only to Linus (2nd bishop of Rome) and from there down to Pope Francis, but it has been spread out, so that ALL of the bishops of the Catholic Communion of Churches, as well as Eastern Orthodox, etc. have that same power and authority.

Peter is dead! There is a tomb in St. Peter's in the Vatican. But his power and authority--given to him, by Jesus, did not die with him.

AnticipateHisComing said:
Also, you ignore that the promise of protection is given to the Church, not Peter.
Lastly, you ignore that the cornerstone of the Church is Jesus.

But that is what I am saying. God's protection, given to Peter AND THE CHURCH, has NEVER failed, and never will. If you think that because St. Peter's in the Vatican has his tomb below it there is some sort of voodoo juju magic involved, your unbalanced! The protection of the Church by God.

But you said:

AnticipateHisComing said:
You admit you can not refute my argument that there is clear scripture for my three other examples instituted by God but not the Papacy. You resort to a distraction that is easily refuted.

I have never said that I do not believe your argument. There is clear Scripture for the other three examples. Your only problem is about the Bishop of Rome.

Okay, have it your way. The Pope (Bishop of Rome--Pope is a Latin title meaning papa, or a diminutive, like "little father") is nothing but an old man from Argentina. If that will make you happy, go for it. But as I have said before, why do you care so much? You are not a part of the Catholic Church. Have I attacked YOUR pastor? NO. And I don't. I am not a part of his congregation, or his denomination, okay? I won't tell him how to run his church, and you stop worrying about how the Bishop of Rome (along with the Holy Spirit, and His protection) takes care of the Roman Catholic Church.

By the way, what do you call YOUR pastor? Pastor? (meaning feeder of the flock--puts you down just a little bit, doesn't it?)Reverend? (meaning a member of the clergy) Bob? I am clergy, and yet I don't insist that I be called Reverend Monk Brendan, do I?

BTW, Looking at your pastor as just that, a pastor--one who feeds the sheep--did you know that sheep could very easily be the stupidest land animal on earth? If they get turned on their back, they can't even figure out how to get up. That sounds like your pastor is lording over you a bit, doesn't it?

Anguspure · Sep 13, 2017

OrthodoxyUSA said:

No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (Hebrews 8)

Bible2+ · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said in post #34:

I have never said Peter was not an important apostle that was given special power, but the authority he received was given to the other apostles also. Further, scripture never puts him over the other apostles.

Good points.

The idea of the papacy seems to be based in part on the idea of apostolic succession.

But Jesus Christ Himself is the highest apostle (Hebrews 3:1). And He can ordain people directly, without any other apostles having to be involved (Acts 26:13-20).

Also, Acts 14:14 shows eventually there were at least 14 apostles of Jesus Christ, including Paul and Barnabas, and the 12 apostles of Acts 1:26.

Also, if the pope today were the apostolic successor of Peter, then who today would be the apostolic successors of the at least 13 other apostles besides Peter?

Did all the other lines of apostolic succession peter out? And if so, how could this be? How could the Church today need only one apostolic successor while the early Church needed at least 14 apostles?

What has happened?

AnticipateHisComing said in post #34:

I have never said Peter was not an important apostle that was given special power, but the authority he received was given to the other apostles also.

That's right, and not only to the other apostles, but to all Christians.

For in Matthew 16:19 the principle doesn't apply only to the apostle Peter, but to the entire Church which Jesus Christ would build upon Himself the rock (Matthew 16:18-19, Ephesians 2:20). For the same principle is repeated later in Matthew 18:18, where it's addressing plural people (see the Greek) and where it can apply to everyone in the Church, just as its context principles apply to everyone in the Church (Matthew 18:17-20).

In Matthew 16:19, in the original Greek, the "thee" and the two "thou" verbs are singular, while in the original Greek of Matthew 18:18 the "you" and the two "ye" verbs are plural.

David Kent · Sep 14, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
There was a transition time where the HP did still have authority even after Jesus came. The destruction of the temple was the end of it though.

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

The highpriesthood ended before the destruction of the temple. Josephus tells us that the sacrifice failed because there was nobody qualified to offer the sacrifice. There were two reasons for that.
1). The bodies of those that had recently held the sacred office were cast naked into the street and trampled upon. (There was a civil war going on in the city during the siege with three different factions fighting against each other.
2). Because the house of mortgages, which held all the Jewish genealogies, was burnt down there was no body who could prove their right to the priesthood. Josephus tell us the temple was destroyed 45 days after the sacrifice failed.

Lulav said:
Yes he did, but there is more to that, Eleazar's son, Phinchas was given the High Priesthood through his act of unselfish atonement offering. (read Num. 25) It is through his line that the Messiah came and the Priesthood continued.

Jesus was from the tribe of Judah and no way descended from Aaron as far as I can see from scripture.

David Kent · Sep 14, 2017

OrthodoxyUSA said:
Jerusalem - James 33ad

Antioch - Peter and Paul 38ad

Alexandria - Mark 38ad

Rome - Peter 42ad

Constantinople - Andrew 62ad

Peter was never bishop of Rome. Linus was. Eusebius tells us that Linus was the first bishop, or elder, of Rome was Linus and that he was installed by Peter and Paul.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 14, 2017

Monk Brendan said:
You were the one that started talking about the high priesthood, not me.

My comments about the OT priests was related to the institution God gave to descendants of Aaron. We are in agreement on all I have stated about them. You tried to transfer authority in an office given to specific people in the old covenant to a different set of people in the new covenant. I answered your test and proved you wrong. Now you cop out with a comment that it is my argument that I started that you are using. Not true. I take you failure to defend your argument as an acknowledgement that it was without basis.

Monk Brendan said:
The power and authority that Peter had, as an Apostle, and as a bishop in the Church have been passed on, not only to Linus (2nd bishop of Rome) and from there down to Pope Francis, but it has been spread out, so that ALL of the bishops of the Catholic Communion of Churches, as well as Eastern Orthodox, etc. have that same power and authority.

Peter is dead! There is a tomb in St. Peter's in the Vatican. But his power and authority--given to him, by Jesus, did not die with him.

Half true. If you read my posts, you see I believe people today have the power to forgive sins and baptize as Jesus commanded and gave to the first apostles. Now what we disagree is how much other power did Peter and the other 11 apostles have compared to what power those in the Church might have today.

Note OT examples of power going from one to another.

Numbers 11:17 I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take some of the power of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them. They will share the burden of the people with you so that you will not have to carry it alone. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.

2 Kings 2:9 When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?”
“Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit,” Elisha replied.
10 “You have asked a difficult thing,” Elijah said, “yet if you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours—otherwise, it will not.”

Both examples put it in God's hand to move power from one to another. While the NT apostles did lay hands on others, I do not believe they actually commanded the Holy Spirit.

So power is a gift of the Holy Spirit and authority is from God. No Pope, bishop or pastor has shown the power as Peter had to heal crowds of people with just his shadow passing them on the street. I won't argue that none have been healed after the first apostles, only that it is not done today as it was for them in such numbers, "and all of them were healed".

Now authority. The first apostles had authority to write scripture. The canon is closed. That authority no longer exists. The other authority they were given was to command things in heaven. What this means is debated, but I will again repeat what scripture says. This was limited to twelve.

Monk Brendan said:
But that is what I am saying. God's protection, given to Peter AND THE CHURCH, has NEVER failed, and never will.

Peter did fail at least twice as recorded in scripture. You have incompletely argued how your church defends the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Church I agree will survive till the last day.

Monk Brendan said:
I have never said that I do not believe your argument. There is clear Scripture for the other three examples. Your only problem is about the Bishop of Rome.

I am glad you acknowledge my argument, agreement on the three examples I gave, but contention to the Papacy.

Monk Brendan said:
Okay, have it your way. The Pope (Bishop of Rome--Pope is a Latin title meaning papa, or a diminutive, like "little father") is nothing but an old man from Argentina. If that will make you happy, go for it. But as I have said before, why do you care so much? You are not a part of the Catholic Church. Have I attacked YOUR pastor? NO. And I don't. I am not a part of his congregation, or his denomination, okay? I won't tell him how to run his church, and you stop worrying about how the Bishop of Rome (along with the Holy Spirit, and His protection) takes care of the Roman Catholic Church.

If your Pope would only act the same as you wish me to act. While I have thought about the idea in the OP for a while, what prompted me to put it down was your Pope yet again meddling in politics, promoting climate change policies and insulting those with a different view, calling them stupid men, using scripture at it.

I used to be Lutheran for many years. I like you grew up believing every word they taught. As I began to read scripture on my own, I saw inconsistencies with what they taught. I will say that many Lutherans thought the Pope to be the Anti-Christ and I could not see how you could say that of any that professed Jesus to be God. Another thing that bothered me was how Martin Luther was so revered just as I see Catholics doing for the Pope. I thought that ironic, him being the reformer. What really surprised me and put me off to him was the treatment of Jews at his direction. The Nazis quoted Luther in their abuses of Jews also. I can't see how one so determined to determine what is true would encourage such abuse and I fault him partially for what the Nazis did.

Now this is why this applies to my thread. No church leader is perfect and people inside a church denomination are very rarely inclined to correct the authority in their church. That places the burden on those outside of a church to hold other churches accountable to truth. Now I don't think we should have denomination wars, but here in CF where there is a wide variety of views on doctrine, we can't expect any one church to be sanctioned as true such that it does not have to defend their beliefs and practices. If you think it too disrespectful to argue your leader or that you can not refute arguments attacking your belief related to this doctrine, then you may just ignore this thread.

Monk Brendan said:
By the way, what do you call YOUR pastor? Pastor? (meaning feeder of the flock--puts you down just a little bit, doesn't it?)Reverend? (meaning a member of the clergy) Bob? I am clergy, and yet I don't insist that I be called Reverend Monk Brendan, do I?

BTW, Looking at your pastor as just that, a pastor--one who feeds the sheep--did you know that sheep could very easily be the stupidest land animal on earth? If they get turned on their back, they can't even figure out how to get up. That sounds like your pastor is lording over you a bit, doesn't it?

You have no idea what my relationship with my pastor is to accuse him of lording over me. Jesus acted as a sheep. Jesus called the disciples sheep. We are commanded to act as sheep. Would you rather be a goat?

Some on the internet call others sheeple as an insult. It is our Christian calling.

Romans 8:36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

The problem comes when people replace Jesus as their shepherd with another.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 14, 2017

David Kent said:
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah and no way descended from Aaron as far as I can see from scripture.

Yes, Jesus was known to be of the tribe of Judah, according to Jewish tradition of assigning tribe based on the father's tribe. Of course Joseph was not the true father of Jesus, but Mary was his true mother. Now if Mary was related to Elizabeth a descendant of Aaron, it is possible that Jesus was actually a descendant of Aaron.

Regardless, scripture in Hebrews 7 says Jesus is considered to be of the tribe of Judah.

Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus

Disciple of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Matthew 4:4

Continuing Historicist

Continuing Historicist

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads