Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not a change in my opinion. He knows what's he's doing. In the beginning he created male and female and they became one. This represents Christ and the Church. So God always knew what his plan was. It has never changed. Also God created our works in the very beginning before he rested from his workGod and Jesus are and always will be the same. Can God change his mind, yes.
Like the two witnesses in Revelation?-If there was apostolic succession, then they would be all Jewish. Also these apostles would be able to add to The Bible, with any new revelation from God
Like the two witnesses in Revelation?
You cant really prove stuff like this.Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?
I think that if you go back and read my replies again the confusion will dissipate, besides my replies and OPs in other threads make my views quite clear.p.s. - this has left me a bit confused about that you believe, including what you believe about the Sermon on the Mount, that I focused on in my last post (#51). Are you saying that, generally speaking, our beliefs about all of these things are actually the same, with apostolic succession being the sole exception? Thanks
That is not a question for me because I do not hold the "only applies to the people directly addressed" hermeneutic.What part of the Sermon on the mount isn't for us?
Are we sure they're not symbolic? How much of revelation is literal?Like the two witnesses in Revelation?
If what Jesus said to the apostles applies to people in subsequent generations that using that as a part of the interpretive framework for the new testament why would anyone think that what Jesus said to the apostles or to his disciples about being led into all truth, speaking for him with authority, and leading the church, does not apply to subsequent generations too, specifically to the bishops who are the successors of the apostles?What about it?
I'm not entirely sure what it means, but why would it affect the things which Jesus taught?
How does believing/not believing in the apostolic succession change the fact that Jesus told his disciples to love their enemies, for example?
I see thanksThat is not a question for me because I do not hold the "only applies to the people directly addressed" hermeneutic.
What will you accept as proof?Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?
If you can’t say, then there’s no point. You’ll just keep moving the goalposts.Give it a try and see.
1. Apostolic succession is only recorded in the Bible for Judas. Even James was not "replaced" according to scripture.Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?
ordinarily - you'd expect the persuader to select their own argument.If you can say, then there’s no point. You’ll just keep moving the goalposts.
If he had asked for our best argument, that would be one thing. Or even evidence. But he asked for proof. There has to be a standard of what he considers proof.ordinarily - you'd expect the persuader to select their own argument.
But i dont know if there are any universally accepted rules about this???
I guess it should be assumed that neither side is trying to persuade, both sides are trying to discuss and discover??
Yeah courts use the word "proof" when i think they mean "convincing to a reasonable person" - beyond reasonable doubt.If he had asked for our best argument, that would be one thing. Or even evidence. But he asked for proof. There has to be a standard of what he considers proof.
1. It's your belief that Bishops are successors of the Apostles. Some churches agree; I'm not sure if I do.If what Jesus said to the apostles applies to people in subsequent generations that using that as a part of the interpretive framework for the new testament why would anyone think that what Jesus said to the apostles or to his disciples about being led into all truth, speaking for him with authority, and leading the church, does not apply to subsequent generations too, specifically to the bishops who are the successors of the apostles?
true, why mention it? No one suggested bishops are holier, better, or more special. They are called, as are all priests, but that is a vocation not personal superiority.Clergy, Bishops, Archbishops etc have a greater responsibility than most; that does not make them better, holier, or more special people
Agreed.true, why mention it? No one suggested bishops are holier, better, or more special. They are called, as are all priests, but that is a vocation not personal superiority.
The apostles were not better, holier, or more special than others; why act as if they were?Agreed.
But you said that Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Why, and how so?
We've already established that they are no holier, or more special, than other believers. What gives them more authority than any other Spirit filled believer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?