1st Timothy 3:1 (KJV)
the church
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
You need to put each WE in its proper context. WE does not always refer to the SAME WE.
Do you ever read the where Paul explains some things about Jesus' earth ministry? Like this one:
Rom 15:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:8) Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:
Or this one from Jesus:
Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Any idea what these mean?
Cruciform
New member
Afraid not. The simple fact is that the Christian Church was already being commonly referred to as "the Catholic Church" by the end of the 1st century. That is a historical fact. Try again.
Cruciform
New member
OOPS! Already refuted and corrected in Post #4445 above. Try again.
glassjester
Well-known member
And don't forget Romans 10:4 - Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
and...
2 Corinthians 3:6 - He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
If Paul is a minister of the new covenant, then the gospel Church and the epistle Church are the same Church.
(church numbers 2 and 3 on SaultoPaul's list)
And most definitively, Matthew 28:19 - Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(notice, He doesn't say to make disciples of only the tribes of Israel)
And remember, Jesus calls the bread His body, and gives it to the 12.
Paul then says everyone who partakes of the bread is one body - the body of Christ.
So how can the apostles not be members of the body of Christ?
Right Divider
Body part
I'm always fascinated by how FAR people want to try to leverage that ONE TIME that Paul mentions the new covenant. Don't you think that if the new covenant was that important to Paul's ministry that he would have written about it more than ONLY ONCE.
God always allowed others to join with Israel. But He chose Israel above the other nations for a place of prominence as His holy nation and royal priesthood. That is God's plan for the earth. But TODAY, Israel has FALLEN into a position of NOT being God's leaders and this was when God revealed the dispensation of His grace.
Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Of course not, God wanted Israel to lead all of the gentiles nations to Himself. They rejected that position as the head of the nations by their rejection of their messiah.
Indeed, in two different contexts.
Two different contexts.
musterion
Well-known member
Acts 28 folk are big on that, I hear.
glassjester
Well-known member
Actually the exact same context.
From Matthew, Chapter 26:
From 1 Corinthians, Chapter 10:
Notice any similarities?
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you ignore things mentioned "only once" in the Bible?
Do you say Paul was incorrect in saying he was a minister of the new covenant?
Right Divider
Body part
Ha ha ha. What a childish prank. No, I do NOT ignore them. But I'm able to realize that really important stuff gets more attention than that.
I also know that the new covenant is SPECIALLY with Israel and not the gentiles.
No, I'm saying that it's possible to MINISTER the new covenant without being UNDER the new covenant.
Thanks for your futile speculations about what you think that I think.
Right Divider
Body part
Of course there are similarities, both program are founded on Jesus Christ. One based on His earthly ministry to and through Israel and one based on His heavenly body through Paul.
The blood applies to ALL.
Eph 1:10 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
glassjester
Well-known member
So Paul ministers the new covenant to people that are not under it?
...What does that even mean?
glassjester
Well-known member
Why did Christ instruct His apostles to make disciples of all nations, if His ministry was only to one nation?
Peter did have a new mission to fish for men when formerly as Simon he merely fished for fish. The new name did not mean that universal authority was given to him to be over Christ's Universal Church. No mention of successors herein to such either, nor mention of Roman Popes. I am sorry, cruci, but the Roman Catholic Church has based itself on lies based on lies based on even more lies.
Last edited:
glassjester
Well-known member
Was the great commission in reference to one nation, or was it universal?
Matthew 28:18-20 - Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
That language is quite universal, no?
2 Timothy 2:2 - And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
Have we any reason whatsoever to assume that Paul was the only apostle to pass his teaching authority on to a successor, and to instruct his successor to choose a successor, as well?
Notice, too, the reference to Tradition in Paul's specific instruction to preserve, not his writings, but "the things you have heard [him] say."
Apostolic succession is clearly intended in Christ's promise to be with us always; unless you think He intended for His Church to pass away upon the death of the last apostle.
And succession of teaching authority has been taught and upheld since the beginning of the Church. Take, for example Pope Celement I's letter to the Corinthians:
That was written in A.D. 80.
Sola Scriptura: 2 Timothy 2:2 does not prove apostolic succession and the need for extra-Biblical oral tradition .
This verse would likely refer to oral revelation from Paul's inspired mouth to Timothy, but it says nothing about apostolic succession. But lets not forget that Paul had written 13 other letters before 2 Timothy, which was his last. We must include Paul's writings in this command.
If this text was the basis for succession, then it would mean that Timothy was Paul's successor. This is nowhere recorded in tradition!
In 2 Tim 2:2, we have the famous 4 generation discipleship passage: 1. Paul 2. Timothy 3. Faithful men 4. Others. However that which is taught is identical with scripture, even if it was revealed originally as an oral tradition. What was taught within these four generations may have included oral revelation, but this oral doctrine was also taught in scripture. For Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders who see the succession of Bishops or the Pope, look elsewhere! First, the one's who were to be entrusted were, "faithful", not Bishops. Timothy was not a Bishop, was he to chose the next bishops to entrust the oral tradition to them? Second, the office of one bishop over the presbytery, did not exist until after 150 AD. Diocesan bishops, where one bishop was over another did not exist until 250. So to suggest this passage teaches succession in any Catholic or Orthodox way, is vacuous.
Where was Timothy a bishop, who succeeded him? Shouldn't Timothy have been a bishop at Rome if this teaches succession? The tradition that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus is very late and most scholars believe it is a fabrication. The Orthodox church, with nothing else, just blindly accept it at true. No tradition says that Timothy was Paul's successor. We have no line of successors in history either. Why didn't Paul make this claim of succession to someone who was to be bishop of Rome. And why didn't Peter make this statement?
Finally, it is indeed odd for Roman Catholics to claim this verse teaches succession when the church at Ephesus, where the fabricated tradition says Timothy was bishop, is under the umbrella of the Greek Orthodox church. If I were Roman Catholic I would never use any verse that implied Timothy was specifically included in succession of any kind.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Please READ my POSTS so that I don't have to REPEAT myself.
Israel was to be a HOLY NATION and a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD leading ALL NATIONS to God.
They FAILED as their leadership would not obey Christ and His chosen "little flock" leadership.
Jesus Christ Himself said that He came ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Do you have a problem understanding what God puts in His Word?
Right Divider
Body part
Where does it say WHO Paul ministered the new covenant to?
It does NOT say that he ministered it to ANYONE.
Read the entire passage and see that he is using it as AN EXAMPLE.
2Cor 3:6 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
He is making a COMPARISON. The new covenant/testament is still based on the LAW. Paul tells us that we are not under the law.
Jer 31:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)
(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Rom 6:14-15 (AKJV/PCE)
(6:14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (6:15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
If your RCC brain-washing didn't blind you, you might actually believe the scripture.
Last edited:
HisServant
New member
All of that has nothing to do with Grace whatsoever... in spite of what the pedophiles you follow would have you believe instead.
It really bothers me that your church have devolved grace to the work of human hands (the institution/organization/hierarchy/sacraments/mass.. are in fact all human inventions)... instead of allowing God to be the dispenser of his own grace... grace that we do not deserve, nor can we merit, nor can we do anything to incur it.
Its a free gift, unmerited, from God.... you church seeks to add strings to it for their own nefarious reasons.