ECT Apostolic Succession

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
.......Read these scriptures, you will see that Paul even mentions Peter, otherwise known as Simon/Cephas and says not to say I follow Simon/Peter as if it means something special......

Straw Man argument. I never said I follow Peter. I never said I follow anyone but Jesus. But that does not mean that I will stick my head in the sand as you do regarding who who Jesus put in authority. Unlike you, I respect Jesus by respecting those who Jesus put in authority.

As usual, your post is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the conversation or the facts.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Peter, His Bones, and His Earliest Successors
Karl Keating - November 23, 2015 - SOURCE LINK

scavi.png


QUOTE:
The ancient Liber Pontificalis (Book of Pontiffs) gives brief lives of the first 108 holders of the see of Rome. Only recently has this important work been translated into English, allowing those of us whose Latin is less than fluent to browse at will.

The fourth pope listed is Clement, known to history as Clement of Rome and the author of an epistle, addressed to the Corinthians, that is used by Catholic apologists to show the early exercise of papal authority. It seems that the Corinthians had called on Clement to settle a dispute. (The poor Corinthians were still troubled, long decades after Paul had tried to straighten them out—apparently with insufficient success.) The last surviving apostle, John, lived much closer to them and would have been the logical adjudicator, but they didn’t write to him. They wrote to the successor of the chief apostle, and Pope Clement replied in tones of authority.

The Liber Pontificalis gives only twenty lines about Clement, including the curious note that “on St. Peter’s instruction he undertook the pontificate for governing the Church, as the cathedra had been handed down and entrusted to him by Jesus Christ. . . . Hence Linus and Cletus are recorded before him because they were ordained bishops to provide the sacerdotal ministry by the prince of apostles himself.”

For clarification of this peculiar passage, I flipped back a page to the life of Peter. “He ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, to be present in Rome to provide the entire sacerdotal ministry for the people and for visitors.” Today we would call Linus and Cletus auxiliary bishops. They seem to have been given most of the sacramental duties, while Peter oversaw the Church as a whole. “Peter himself was free to pray and preach, to teach the people” (suggesting perhaps that the sacramental duties of a bishop tended to limit his leisure for prayer and for homiletics?).

Then comes a curious point: in addition to praying, preaching, and teaching, Peter seems to have been noted for his public debates. “He held many debates with Simon Magus, both before the Emperor Nero and before the people, because Simon was using magical tricks and deceptions to scatter those whom Peter had gathered into Christ’s faith. When their disputes had lasted a long time, Simon was struck down by God’s will.”

Nero, later the first great persecutor of the Church, thus knew Simon Magus and Peter and amused himself by watching the magician joust with the fisherman from Galilee. But Nero’s champion “was struck down by God’s will.” Did this embitter Nero against the Christians? We aren’t told, but it is a fair surmise. Recall that Pharaoh’s opinion of the Israelites was not improved when he saw his priests bested by Moses.

The next sentence of the life of the first pope records that Peter “consecrated St. Clement as bishop and entrusted the cathedra and the whole management of the Church to him, saying: ‘As the power of government, that of binding and loosing, was handed to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I entrust it to you; ordain those who are to deal with various cases and execute the Church’s affairs; do not be caught up in the cares of the world but ensure you are completely free for prayer and preaching to the people.’ After making this arrangement he was crowned with martyrdom along with Paul in the thirty-eighth year after the Lord suffered.”

Do not misinterpret what is going on here. No pope can make another man his successor; the most he can do is make him a bishop, which is what Peter did to Linus, Cletus, and Clement. It is unclear what force should be given to the clause “after making this arrangement,” but I take it to mean that Clement was consecrated not long before Peter’s death.

He appears to have been Peter’s recommendation for pope, but that choice could not be made until the papal see fell vacant and thus would be made by the living, not by Peter. Since Linus and Cletus had been ordained some years earlier to assist Peter in the administration of the see of Rome, and since each had paid his dues, so to speak, it must have seemed proper to the clergy of Rome to allow each in turn to serve as chief bishop of the imperial capital.

Thus Linus became the second pope, holding the see for eleven years, and Cletus the third, holding it for twelve. Next came Peter’s personal favorite, Clement, who was pope for nine years. The Liber Pontificalis closes its lives of Linus and Cletus by noting that each was buried “close to St. Peter’s body on the Vatican [Hill].” Unexpectedly, Clement, Peter’s favorite, died in Rome but ended up being buried in Greece.

Peter was buried, as we all know, on Vatican Hill. At the time of his death, that hill—which is not counted among Rome’s seven distinguishing hills, which are all on the other side of the Tiber—was outside the city limits and consisted chiefly of a cemetery. It was a rural area of no consequence. Early on, after the legalization of Christianity, a church was erected over the place Peter was interred. That church gave way, over the centuries, to multiple enlargements, the present basilica being completed in the seventeenth century.

It was only a lifetime ago that scientific proof of Peter’s burial was obtained. In the 1940s Pope Pius XII authorized excavations beneath the high altar. The digging disclosed a necropolis (city of the dead). Today one can take a tour of the Scavi (Italian for excavations; see photo), provided one prudently makes a reservation months in advance.

The necropolis is like a tiny town, with narrow streets bordered by brick buildings, but the “buildings” are mausoleums. The archaeologists discovered, directly under the high altar, a small memorial to Peter. It must have been erected shortly after his death, while the memory of the burial spot was still fresh. Neighboring his memorial are burial niches, the facings of which are inscribed with graffiti that say things like “buried near Peter.”

When the memorial was opened, it was discovered to be—empty. Where were Peter’s bones? Had then fallen away into dust? It turns out they, or what little remained of them because they largely had disintegrated, were nearby, having apparently been removed (hidden away, actually) during an early persecution to forestall the authorities unearthing Peter's bones and destroying them.

This story of the excavations underneath St. Peter’s Basilica are not part of the Liber Pontificalis, of course, but they are a fitting cap to the story told in that ancient book.

Again, being as unbiased as I can possibly be; this is very inferential. The implications aren't clearly of Apostolic succession, and especially not of Papal authority wherein the Roman See is of greater overall authority to all other locality Bishops rather than of greater honor in deference to Peter.

All these evidences are also very recent, not supporting a much more ancient insituted view of Apostolic Succession and the Papacy.

It seems more of Confirmation Bias for Catholics and Cognitive Dissonance for non-Catholics. Again, inconclusive.

And I hope you see I'm not being adversarial, just examining presented evidence and its veracity and specificity, which is lacking.

Plainly, local Bishops were appealed to for authoritative local matters; even consulted regarding non-local matters. That's not altogether any different than in any era of Christendom, whether Catholic, Eastern, Coptic, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopal, Anabaptist, Protestant, Evangelical or Neo-Evangelical.

This is much too weighty an issue to be left to late-emergent inferential semi-confirmational vagueries. It's a big deal, in either direction. To dismiss Easterns, Copts, and all other non-Catholics in whatever manner it means, this really needs to be an ancient and unassailable tenet with copious proofs rather than assorted and assembled recent bridge-building implicational excerpting from archeological speculation.

I'd hope Catholics would want to present laudible and unequivocal historicity that is extremely conclusive. I just don't see that from any sources with clarity and specific declarative.

And my biggest concern is Vatican II. I despise it, and all that has come from it to undermine all that came before it. And I can't speak of Francis without being horrifically offensive to Catholics. There are no words for my opinion of him and what he is saying and doing.

Thank you for all you've provided so far. :)
 

God's Truth

New member
Straw Man argument. I never said I follow Peter. I never said I follow anyone but Jesus. But that does not mean that I will stick my head in the sand as you do regarding who who Jesus put in authority. Unlike you, I respect Jesus by respecting those who Jesus put in authority.

As usual, your post is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the conversation or the facts.

The straw man is you saying "straw man".

Catholics do claim to follow Peter.

The Catholic's pope is said to sit in Peter's chair.

The Catholic's pope wears a ring that he has everyone kiss, and it is also a ring of the fisherman, supposedly the fisherman Peter. The pope is the leader of the Catholic Church and said to be the successor of Peter.
 

HisServant

New member
Peter, His Bones, and His Earliest Successors
Karl Keating - November 23, 2015 - SOURCE LINK

scavi.png


QUOTE:
The ancient Liber Pontificalis (Book of Pontiffs) gives brief lives of the first 108 holders of the see of Rome. Only recently has this important work been translated into English, allowing those of us whose Latin is less than fluent to browse at will.

The fourth pope listed is Clement, known to history as Clement of Rome and the author of an epistle, addressed to the Corinthians, that is used by Catholic apologists to show the early exercise of papal authority. It seems that the Corinthians had called on Clement to settle a dispute. (The poor Corinthians were still troubled, long decades after Paul had tried to straighten them out—apparently with insufficient success.) The last surviving apostle, John, lived much closer to them and would have been the logical adjudicator, but they didn’t write to him. They wrote to the successor of the chief apostle, and Pope Clement replied in tones of authority.

The Liber Pontificalis gives only twenty lines about Clement, including the curious note that “on St. Peter’s instruction he undertook the pontificate for governing the Church, as the cathedra had been handed down and entrusted to him by Jesus Christ. . . . Hence Linus and Cletus are recorded before him because they were ordained bishops to provide the sacerdotal ministry by the prince of apostles himself.”

For clarification of this peculiar passage, I flipped back a page to the life of Peter. “He ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, to be present in Rome to provide the entire sacerdotal ministry for the people and for visitors.” Today we would call Linus and Cletus auxiliary bishops. They seem to have been given most of the sacramental duties, while Peter oversaw the Church as a whole. “Peter himself was free to pray and preach, to teach the people” (suggesting perhaps that the sacramental duties of a bishop tended to limit his leisure for prayer and for homiletics?).

Then comes a curious point: in addition to praying, preaching, and teaching, Peter seems to have been noted for his public debates. “He held many debates with Simon Magus, both before the Emperor Nero and before the people, because Simon was using magical tricks and deceptions to scatter those whom Peter had gathered into Christ’s faith. When their disputes had lasted a long time, Simon was struck down by God’s will.”

Nero, later the first great persecutor of the Church, thus knew Simon Magus and Peter and amused himself by watching the magician joust with the fisherman from Galilee. But Nero’s champion “was struck down by God’s will.” Did this embitter Nero against the Christians? We aren’t told, but it is a fair surmise. Recall that Pharaoh’s opinion of the Israelites was not improved when he saw his priests bested by Moses.

The next sentence of the life of the first pope records that Peter “consecrated St. Clement as bishop and entrusted the cathedra and the whole management of the Church to him, saying: ‘As the power of government, that of binding and loosing, was handed to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I entrust it to you; ordain those who are to deal with various cases and execute the Church’s affairs; do not be caught up in the cares of the world but ensure you are completely free for prayer and preaching to the people.’ After making this arrangement he was crowned with martyrdom along with Paul in the thirty-eighth year after the Lord suffered.”

Do not misinterpret what is going on here. No pope can make another man his successor; the most he can do is make him a bishop, which is what Peter did to Linus, Cletus, and Clement. It is unclear what force should be given to the clause “after making this arrangement,” but I take it to mean that Clement was consecrated not long before Peter’s death.

He appears to have been Peter’s recommendation for pope, but that choice could not be made until the papal see fell vacant and thus would be made by the living, not by Peter. Since Linus and Cletus had been ordained some years earlier to assist Peter in the administration of the see of Rome, and since each had paid his dues, so to speak, it must have seemed proper to the clergy of Rome to allow each in turn to serve as chief bishop of the imperial capital.

Thus Linus became the second pope, holding the see for eleven years, and Cletus the third, holding it for twelve. Next came Peter’s personal favorite, Clement, who was pope for nine years. The Liber Pontificalis closes its lives of Linus and Cletus by noting that each was buried “close to St. Peter’s body on the Vatican [Hill].” Unexpectedly, Clement, Peter’s favorite, died in Rome but ended up being buried in Greece.

Peter was buried, as we all know, on Vatican Hill. At the time of his death, that hill—which is not counted among Rome’s seven distinguishing hills, which are all on the other side of the Tiber—was outside the city limits and consisted chiefly of a cemetery. It was a rural area of no consequence. Early on, after the legalization of Christianity, a church was erected over the place Peter was interred. That church gave way, over the centuries, to multiple enlargements, the present basilica being completed in the seventeenth century.

It was only a lifetime ago that scientific proof of Peter’s burial was obtained. In the 1940s Pope Pius XII authorized excavations beneath the high altar. The digging disclosed a necropolis (city of the dead). Today one can take a tour of the Scavi (Italian for excavations; see photo), provided one prudently makes a reservation months in advance.

The necropolis is like a tiny town, with narrow streets bordered by brick buildings, but the “buildings” are mausoleums. The archaeologists discovered, directly under the high altar, a small memorial to Peter. It must have been erected shortly after his death, while the memory of the burial spot was still fresh. Neighboring his memorial are burial niches, the facings of which are inscribed with graffiti that say things like “buried near Peter.”

When the memorial was opened, it was discovered to be—empty. Where were Peter’s bones? Had then fallen away into dust? It turns out they, or what little remained of them because they largely had disintegrated, were nearby, having apparently been removed (hidden away, actually) during an early persecution to forestall the authorities unearthing Peter's bones and destroying them.

This story of the excavations underneath St. Peter’s Basilica are not part of the Liber Pontificalis, of course, but they are a fitting cap to the story told in that ancient book.

Quite the fairy tale... with absolutely no historical facts to back it up.

Peter never went to Rome.. if he did, it was in disobedience to God.. and he had a time machine or transporter.

The entire line of reasoning is anti-scriptural too, because it falls right into the trap that Paul asks us to avoid.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Sure. Here's another, a magazine article:
"Apostolic Succession Is Assurance of Truth"
by James L. Papandrea - January 18, 2016 - LINK TO ARTICLE

Just a passing comment...

I think anti-Catholics are most often every bit as guilty of whatever they accuse Catholics of. There's a very real problem of throwing everything away for 1500 years and insisting the Roman Church was completely apostate; especially since the vast majority retain the scriptures and overall general foundational framework of doctrine provided during that period.

There really needs to be a substantial rebuttal from Protestants for whatever they disagree with in their accusations of Rome. I don't see that happen very often.
 

HisServant

New member
Just a passing comment...

I think anti-Catholics are most often every bit as guilty of whatever they accuse Catholics of. There's a very real problem of throwing everything away for 1500 years and insisting the Roman Church was completely apostate; especially since the vast majority retain the scriptures and overall general foundational framework of doctrine provided during that period.

There really needs to be a substantial rebuttal from Protestants for whatever they disagree with in their accusations of Rome. I don't see that happen very often.

Yes, most Protestant denominations retained some vestiges of Romes corruption... like building buildings and paying staff.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Yes, most Protestant denominations retained some vestiges of Romes corruption... like building buildings and paying staff.

Are you insinuating that the early churches in scripture had no buildings and did not provide for those scripture insists are worthy of a double portion for their service as leadership?

The Church at Corinth alone would dispute this, would it not?

And do you deny the compiled canon of Genesis through Malachi, and of Matthew through Revelation? What do you exclude or otherwise include in the canon?

I think you're not a Trinitiarian, so that doesn't need to be a question, I suppose.

Even observation of certain practices as ordinances is merely the sacraments in another form.

I'm no Roman apologist, but most Protestants can't/don't make a very good case against Rome. Most are downright dishonest, and all are very short-sighted.

If someone can't rebut the Catholic claims of Protestants being Ecclesial Deists, then it gets a bit ironic up in here.
 

HisServant

New member
Are you insinuating that the early churches in scripture had no buildings and did not provide for those scripture insists are worthy of a double portion for their service as leadership?

The double portion you speak of in the greek.. is where we get our english name Honorarium. I have no problem taking an offering for someone speaking to defray costs, or to have a set fee-for service pay method.. but paying someone a salary and benefits is not the biblical model. And Paul specifically, encouraged all those in the ministry to model after him.. work in the secular world for your financial needs so as not to be a burden on the church and accept assistance when it isn't a burden.

And no, Early Churches did not have dedicated buildings.. the new Christians were more interested in helping one another rather than building edifices. Also, building buildings would fly in the face of how God historically wanted buildings in his name built. We are not free to design our own.

The Church at Corinth alone would dispute this, would it not?

No.

And do you deny the compiled canon of Genesis through Malachi, and of Matthew through Revelation? What do you exclude or otherwise include in the canon?

I think that even God can use horribly corrupt things for noble purposes.. and that the standards for the canon of scripture are very reasonable.

PneumaPsucheSoma;4765064 I think you're not a Trinitiarian said:
Although I believe the 3 are 1, I do not think its something that human philosophers and/or scholars should try and elaborate on. The Holy Spirit inspired what we need to know and we should honor him by taking him as his word.

Even observation of certain practices as ordinances is merely the sacraments in another form.

Sacraments are not Christian... the term is used no where in the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Sacraments are a Latin term that were prevalent in the religion that ruled Rome prior to Christianity. If you do your research, you would see that the Romanist practice of Sacraments is pretty much identical to Mithraism.

I'm no Roman apologist, but most Protestants can't/don't make a very good case against Rome. Most are downright dishonest, and all are very short-sighted.

Romanism is nothing more than the harmonization of scriptures with existing Prechristian Roman sensibilities and religious practices. Christianity started as a sect of Judiasm, yet it has done pretty much everything in its power to de-Jew its scripture and practices... it even persecuted the Jews.

Think about it. Even Jesus was not his name.. it was more like Joshua... they changed the names for the apostles, name places and pretty much everything to make it more appealing to the Romans.

If someone can't rebut the Catholic claims of Protestants being Ecclesial Deists, then it gets a bit ironic up in here.

I have no problem with being termed Ecclesial Deists, because it assigns responsibility to God.. not the imaginings of the Religious Mafia in Rome.

I believe that God runs and shepherds his people himself.. and he doesn't need a physical institution to do that for him... especially run out of the capital of his sworn enemy that is under a perpetual curse for its invasion/occupation of Israel.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The double portion you speak of in the greek.. is where we get our english name Honorarium. I have no problem taking an offering for someone speaking to defray costs, or to have a set fee-for service pay method.. but paying someone a salary and benefits is not the biblical model. And Paul specifically, encouraged all those in the ministry to model after him.. work in the secular world for your financial needs so as not to be a burden on the church and accept assistance when it isn't a burden.

I don't disagree. My impression was that you opposed any form of consistent remuneration for those serving the Body in leadership.

And no, Early Churches did not have dedicated buildings.. the new Christians were more interested in helping one another rather than building edifices. Also, building buildings would fly in the face of how God historically wanted buildings in his name built. We are not free to design our own.

No.

The Church at Corinth had an edifice. A building. Others likely did, too.

I think that even God can use horribly corrupt things for noble purposes.

Agreed. (As long as we're not talking about Aristotelian nobleness.)

and that the standards for the canon of scripture are very reasonable.

There's still a bit of an elephant in the room here.

Although I believe the 3 are 1, I do not think its something that human philosophers and/or scholars should try and elaborate on. The Holy Spirit inspired what we need to know and we should honor him by taking him as his word.

Even that allegely "simple" approach requires great scholarship, whether led of the Spirit or by man's own endeavor. Otherwise, it's usually rampant vague but adamant conceptualism.

Sacraments are not Christian... the term is used no where in the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Sacraments are a Latin term that were prevalent in the religion that ruled Rome prior to Christianity. If you do your research, you would see that the Romanist practice of Sacraments is pretty much identical to Mithraism.

Sacrament simply indicates the means of God distributing His grace in a physical sense. It's not a voodoo type practice. It's not Mithraism. That's a reach.

The Word is a sacrament. Do you not consider the Word to be the means of God administering His grace to us physically?

Romanism is nothing more than the harmonization of scriptures with existing Prechristian Roman sensibilities and religious practices.

This sounds oddly like modern retrospective rather than actuality.

Christianity started as a sect of Judiasm, yet it has done pretty much everything in its power to de-Jew its scripture and practices... it even persecuted the Jews.

As much as there was Hellenism, there was still plenty of Judaism. This is quite a generalization.

Modern Protestantism is crazy with Hyper-Pseudo-Judaism. Biblical Judaism is extinct. All that remains is Rabbinic Pharisaic Talmudism.

Racism is a human thing, not a Christian thing. Pro-race is just as racist as anti-race.

Think about it. Even Jesus was not his name.. it was more like Joshua... they changed the names for the apostles, name places and pretty much everything to make it more appealing to the Romans.

A linguistic adaptation of a name is not a change. There is not need to refer to Theanthropos in Jewish parlance as Yeshuah. That's a fallacy. It's not an incantation.

I have no problem with being termed Ecclesial Deists, because it assigns responsibility to God.. not the imaginings of the Religious Mafia in Rome.

I don't, either. But an apologetic against it is more important than you contend.

As for the Religious Mafia, I think it important to distinguish between the hierarchial corruption and the general Roman pewsitters.

I believe that God runs and shepherds his people himself.. and he doesn't need a physical institution to do that for him... especially run out of the capital of his sworn enemy that is under a perpetual curse for its invasion/occupation of Israel.

There's no perpetual curse. Israel is not an entity an longer.

There's no doubt God shephers His people Himself in/through Christ alone without a Vicar. There is always a visible Church. It need not be a Church prohibited from meeting in buildings, though to erect monuments of stone CAN be (and much too often IS) idolatry in various forms.

But idolatry has many forms, and I've not seen many exempt from it in their own lives.

Yours is not much of an anti-Roman apologetic. It's more just blanket condemnation and unfounded or partially founded opinion. Don't go on the debate circuit.
 

HisServant

New member
My opinions are more along the archaeological, sociology and scientific lines rather than theology.

When it comes to theology, were are told to show restraint and not go beyond what was written.. it seems that Romanists and Protestants have forgotten this and have allowed themselves free reign to dream up whatever they want.

As far as Sacraments... I do not believe God distributes grace through any particular thing we do. I also do not consider the Word to be a means of distributing grace. It in and of itself in an academic sense is worthless without the Holy Spirit to grant one understanding and discernment.

As Paul said... Christianity is not a religion of sight, but of good conscience... so anything tangible, anything we can see our put our hands on is suspect of being idolatry.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
Just a passing comment...

I think anti-Catholics are most often every bit as guilty of whatever they accuse Catholics of. There's a very real problem of throwing everything away for 1500 years and insisting the Roman Church was completely apostate; especially since the vast majority retain the scriptures and overall general foundational framework of doctrine provided during that period.

There really needs to be a substantial rebuttal from Protestants for whatever they disagree with in their accusations of Rome. I don't see that happen very often.

I'd say that's a fair observation. Sadly, the non-factual attacks and insults sometimes cause me to respond in kind out of frustration.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
Paul is the head of the church - appointed by the Risen Ascended Christ

I like you, but you know I disagree. Peter is obviously the leader of the apostles, and the apostles are the leaders of the Church.

And for those who keep referring to Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, I would remind you what Paul himself stated: In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile.

Those in Christ are brothers and sisters, and we are adopted sons and daughters of the Father. There is One Body, One Church, One Head Jesus... ...and the One Church has one leadership appointed by Christ. That's what this is all about.
 

HisServant

New member
I'd say that's a fair observation. Sadly, the non-factual attacks and insults sometimes cause me to respond in kind out of frustration.

His problem is he thinks that doctrinal development is valid... whereas, I do not.

We are called to be witnesses to Jesus atoning work... witnesses are not at liberty to embellish their witness or they become useless (luke warm and are thrown out).

ANY denomination that supports doctrinal development is not Christian in any way shape or form. Simply because they no longer follow Christ.. they follow the image they have created of him.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Straw Man argument. I never said I follow Peter. I never said I follow anyone but Jesus.....

Yes, you allegedly follow "Jesus" after the flesh, in His earthly ministry, which included teaching the law. Paul, your apostle, tells you not to follow "Jesus" after His earthly ministry, and tell you to follow him, as outlined in Romans-Philemon, the doctrine for the body of Christ, which is following the risen, glorified,ascended, and seated "Lord from heaven" in this dispensation, not that powerless, fake wafer "god" of yours, who is still depicted as a victim on the cross, and whom you "re-sacrifice" with this "mass...transubstantiation" abomination, every day, all over the world.

You "follow Jesus," do you, sport? Fine. Sell all you have...Head on over to Jerusalem....Raise the dead.....Walk on water.....Make the blind see....


Fraud.
 

HisServant

New member
"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

I like these statues in front of St. Peter's:
Paul at left with the word as indicated by the scroll, and Peter at right with the "Keys to the Kingdom"

You know the keys were returned to Jesus... right? He opened the door at Pentecost and the door has never been closed, so the keys are now useless.

Have you studied the importance of the keys to the temple in the Old Testament?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
And for those who keep referring to Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, I would remind you what Paul himself stated: In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile.

Deception. Sophistry. The point of Paul, here, is not to eliminate the differences between ethnicity, male/female.....but to point out that, for now, the LORD God is no longer distinguishing between Jew/Gentile in this dispensation, for service, as He did in "time past."

vs.

Those in Christ are brothers and sisters, and we are adopted sons and daughters of the Father. There is One Body, One Church, One Head Jesus... ...and the One Church has one leadership appointed by Christ. That's what this is all about.

Galatians 3:28 KJV

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Out with your "brothers and sisters...adopted sons and daughters," as....

"there is neither male nor female:"



Take your seat.
 
Top