- Jan 23, 2017
- 1,280
- 225
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
Brilliant Post!!! Well said.I would say the Church went wrong just like ancient Israel went wrong. Israel was captive in Babylon, and the Church is captive in spiritual Babylon.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
I agree but this last bit: "I do not hesitate to say that to interpret the church in terms of a privileged clerical caste or hierarchical structure is to destroy the New Testament doctrine of the church." Sounds contary unless by 'doctrine he means the doctrine of the Orthodox church and the popes who use lots to select leaders.Jesus was clear about how the leaders of His Church were to lead. Mark 10:42-44: “And Jesus called them to him and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all."
And in His condemnation of the Chief Priests, Pharisees, and scribes (in Matthew 23:1-12) Jesus indicated what our leaders were to avoid doing: Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
How did these clear commands of Jesus become ignored by the early Church? I can tell you why-- because of sin. It is human hubris and ego to desire power and public prestige. The governments and military in Greek and Roman lands were quite hierarchical in their power structure, and their cultures had a clear caste system. Once the Apostles were gone and the churches started to become larger and more organized, the Church co-opted some of these systems and turned it into clericalism. This was an early form of revisionism, following the culture rather than the words of Jesus.
John R.W Stott on the scandal of clericalism: “It is only against the backdrop of the equality and unity of the people of God that the real scandal of clericalism may be seen. What clericalism also does, by concentrating power and privilege in the hands of the clergy, is at least to obscure and at worst to annul the essential oneness of the people of God. Extreme forms of clericalism dare to reintroduce the notion of privilege into the only human community in which it has been abolished. Where Christ has made out of two one, the clerical mind makes two again, the one higher and the other lower, the one active and the other passive, the one really important because vital to the life of the church, the other not vital and therefore less important. I do not hesitate to say that to interpret the church in terms of a privileged clerical caste or hierarchical structure is to destroy the New Testament doctrine of the church.”
I think we are not answering any questions of an assertion made against the claim that the acknowledged leader of the Apostles was impatient and needed to only wait maybe three more weeks to get Saul's conversion as an alleged replacement of the vacancy of Judas seat. That they were told to wait in Jerusalem for the Comforter is not being denied. What is being denied is
Those points would be required to be assumed valid if the conclusion made is to be accepted by anyone simply saying "well it reads that way to me". Saying that is how it reads to me doesn't cut it because to my knowledge no one of any authority or qualification to make such claims has ever made them. Which is why I keep asking who besides the OP has, what authority does the claim have. If the answer is your authority and some unstated qualification for defying so many qualified that would dispute any merit to it, you should pardon the rest of us for accepting that as anything more than an opinion. You are entitled to an opinion and freely express it. To defend it requires more work than simply, "well it reads that way to me".
- that command meant they could do nothing until then and
- that had Peter been more compliant/patient his concern would have been addressed in short order by Saul's conversion.
Where did God tell them He would replace Judas for them?
Why replace anyone who dies for that matter since God did not tell them to do that either?
Was Saint Paul ever accepted as or even made a claim himself as a replacement for Judas? (that is rhetorical the answer is no)
Other than having to deal with stubborn headed Apostle, was Saint Peter punished for not waiting? (another rhetorical)
Was Saint Matthias Apostleship ever devalued because of the alleged mistake by Saint Peter besides anyone not posting in this thread? (again likely rhetorical as I believe we have gone 17 plus pages without anyone posting links to serious theologians making similar assertions or there being any made besides those from people in this thread for that matter)
Same rhetorical question and comment on the absurdly short timeline that is allegedly the way we all should read it - though no one else ever did apparently?
Forgive me for inserting myself in this, but hadn't the apostles received the Holy Spirit? See Acts 1:20 and John 20:22. If Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit (and He did), then these men were being led by the Spirit. As far as casting lots, do we not read in Proverbs (16:33 KJV) “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD?" Now if casting lots in evil, then why would He say it was good in the OT?
Fine. and acceptedWell I was tired last night but I should have this licked soon.
It only point two that is being addresses in the OP:
'that had Peter been more compliant/patient his concern would have been addressed in short order by Saul's conversion.'
So lets concentrate on that and if you keep making rhetorical questions then it's not going to leave much room for discussion now is it? (that's rhetorical btw).
Yes but that didn't happen till after the day of Pentecost. It was all down hill from thereThe fact is that we all are sin free! All we are suppose to do is to love one another; John 13:34, 2 Timothy 3:15 & Ephesians 2:8.
Now; how is the church going to extract money from the masses with a belief like that? It's not; enter sin, and we have death and power. I believe that it all began to go wrong for the church; when the church chose your sin over Christ's love, as the basis for salvation.
I don't know what you mean?hmn the crack in the pavement that has moved laterally thru compromise ...
Fine. and accepted, no more rhetorical.
Still 18 pages in and all we have for support of the "short order" is like a Spirit revealed "reads that way to me". Which at best without more objective endorsement of that view leaves us unable to deny one holds that belief as true and unable to say it is compatible, for many of the reasons already stated, with any other recognized authority on the matter. Which rather makes this at least appear as a not just an opinion, but one that refutes eons of people way smarter than me attempting to create a timeline for Saint Paul's ministry and nada among them agreeing that it started in "short order". As such and if there is nothing more in the way of support, we can agree to disagree and this remains just an opinion to me.
The objection to Saint Peter doing something that he should have simply prayed and waited for, was supported at least in part with a declaration that he was told to "wait for the Spirit" in Jerusalem and that also meant do nothing - as in do not replace the empty seat until then. If that has subsequently been retracted I missed that or maybe the above was your dropping of this claim, not sure. If not then I still take issue with adding to His Words in giving that command about where they were to wait for Him.
Basically, @Guide To The Bible, your assertion that the election of St. Matthias was some form of error appears to stem from a belief that the Roman Catholics choose their Pope that way. But this is untrue. What actually happens is that the College of Cardinals, who are Roman Catholic bishops who have been elevated to the Cardinalate and been made electors of the Pope, meet in the Sistine Chapel and debate who should become the Pope (almost invariably, one of their own number). They then vote, and may vote repeatedly until someone wins.
Now, the Coptic Pope is chosen by the casting of lots. Given that the Coptic church never conducted an Inquisition or the other misdeeds of the medieval Roman Catholoc church, one could be tempted to say that the
Sorry about that if i did.Please do not copy-paste previous replies written to one member into a reply to another member, but address each member individually.
You're missing the point. I'm not being anti-Catholic although I do see them as the Laodicean Church. I'm repeating my self i know but somehow it seems necessary. It's the cast of lots that is wrong.Yeah all the Satanic work of the Church you would think the culture/media would love us, for some reason Satan apparently likes to work against himself, at least in the minds of some.
Drawing lots is probably a better translations IMO. Each get equal lots in bag, 11 guys drawing, one of two equally suitable men vetted from many disciples gets elected to fill the empty seat. Where is the problem in removing human input into determining that outcome?
Also a better way to maintain unity of the group of 12, no group favoring one or the other is defeated by the act of others and neither disciple is offended by the act of anyone. Personal opinions and feelings totally removed from the process. Who would not want that among leaders that absolutely needed to get along together?
Are we suggesting Barnabas was the Spirit's choice and God was unable to effect that in a random draw?
Or are we actually back to it should have been neither because it was suppose to be Saint Paul?(which I have heard no claim ever until this thread)
Hardly a lottery if God can be granted ability to influence a random event. But either way it would also be a very Jewish custom allowing God's Providence so am not sure what the point is. Is the suggestion this is gambling?
I mean I know Protestors hate it when our party buses from Church pass them on their way to the Casino, and am sure they hate to see each other as they pull up separately to the Casino parking lot, but such an objection to drawing lots is taking such behavior to a new level. Just like my Sunday school teacher never drank or played cards and no one dancedlike those wicked Catholics.
Perhaps you would like to put yourself up for election? See how far that gets you? Jesus' Kingdom accepts you not only as you are but also immediately elevates you position above the angels and allows you to talk with Him in person whenever you like.A democratic vote by the Cardinals is nothing at all like throwing dice or pulling the short straw. Are you kidding me?
The fact is that we all have no sin. All we are suppose to do is love one another; John 13:34, 2 Timothy 3:15. Ephesians 2:8 & John 1:29.Sorry about that if i did.
Our cardinals do NOT cast lots. When has voting EVER been casting lots?You're missing the point. I'm not being anti-Catholic although I do see them as the Laodicean Church. I'm repeating my self i know but somehow it seems necessary. It's the cast of lots that is wrong.
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?