Posted on 03/23/2008 1:40:54 PM PDT by count-your-change
Jesus did speak of different types of soil that the seeds of truth would fall upon in Mark chapter 4. Which one rec’d favorable mention? Which would mean what for the others?
Yes, we're reading the same text, basically. The one I have says to "prove" or discern or examine "all things, hold fast that which is good." But the context (we can't ignore that, can we?) is referring to "times and seasons." The context begins in verse 1 and ends in verse 24, then Paul ends it by asking the Thessalonians to pray for him.
The internet is a ocean and there’s poisonous things in it as well healthful. One just has to very careful about what they swallow. True of my local library also which has a patina of authority for its contents as the internet does not. Yes, the Beroeans were noble minded for doing the examination the Thessalonians were told to do.
I agree. And what Paul said about the Bereans is equivalent to examing for one's self what is said. I think it is more pertinent to what you said than 1 Thess. 5:21. Other than that, no problem.
Yeah, o.k...good point. Good example too!
Can you explain your reasoning? Was he in error in the point I cited?
He wasn’t expounding on theological opinion but a point of history, and just as I might accept what a historian like Barbara Tuchman said about some period of history I would hardly look to her for religious or spiritual commentary.
I seem to recall in one of her biographies that she was an atheist but nonetheless a skilled historian.
You may evaluate his comment any way you wish but either what he said is true or it isn’t.
I think there were ranks among the followers of Jesus, with the Apostles making a kind of an "inner circle". I think Paul claims a kind of rank for himself based on his Damascus road experience and his receiving the right had of fellowship on one Jerusalem journey. He suggests a kind of rank or prominence for Cephas when he mentions he stayed with him during an earlier stay in Jerusalem.
"Would that all the Lord's people were prophets." But they don't appear either to be so or to want to be so, and there's a suggestion in 1 Cor 12 that they are not likely to be so either. And Paul's remark that one ought not muzzle the ox who treads the grain must be weighted along with his assertion that he had the original tent-maker ministry.
I do not think the Biblical witness for a Church without orders is ambiguous at the very best, and consequently a Jesuit who says there "really" were no orders in the Patristic period is demonstrating nothing so much as the way a beloved hypothesis can interfere with the analysis of data.
The man-made organizational boundaries are, indeed, not even considered by most. This book takes a serious look at this issue - and many others confronting the church.
http://www.antonbosch.com/books.html
Scripture gives so much detail that is ignored. During the Apostolic Era and the century following churches determined their leadership. A centralized hierarchy was never the model in Scripture. The first real indictation of a movement for some to be superior to others (centralization of authority) is Clements letter to the Corinthians.
The clearest example of how the early church functioned is The Jerusalem Council in Acts.
Acts 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men...
Decision making was done as a body of believers. Also, if you look you will find the apostles did not place themselves as superior to elders in local churches.
The centralized hierarchy came later in part to fight other views that were considered heretical. The clergy becoming a superior caste is a result of the centralization and the recreation of Judaic practices.
The Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, which is the most reliable translation of Sacred Scripture, uses the word “presbuteros” in many places in Scripture, especially the book of Acts, when discussing the ecclesial hierarchy of the New Testament church. Paul also uses “presbuterous,” for example, in Titus 1:5, where Paul tells Titus that he left him in Crete to “ordain priests in every city.” You see in Scripture, particularly in Acts (e.g. 6:5-6; 13:2-3;14:23 and Paul’s letters to Timothy (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:22), that the infant Church ordained men through the “laying on of hands”.
So we see a definite hierarchy in the Church of the Bible that is distinct from the laity. When a translation uses the word “elder,” it means “priest,” not lay person.
Of course, this is a scriptural argument. Although, there is no basis for a scriptural argument only, as it is not found in scripture itself, there is a strong basis for the ordination of priests to lead the flock in the scripture.
There is a tremendous amount of debate about that claim.
Paul’s letters to Timothy (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:22), that the infant Church ordained men through the “laying on of hands”.
Which was symbolic in nature, indicating support for a decision. It did not precede the decision or the selection of church leaders by local churches.
Although, there is no basis for a scriptural argument only, as it is not found in scripture itself, there is a strong basis for the ordination of priests to lead the flock in the scripture.
And there's the rub. Once you move outside of Scripture man made inventions are easily justifiable.
The Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, which is the most reliable translation of Sacred Scripture,...
“There is a tremendous amount of debate about that claim”
I’m not really sure what the objective debate would be about. The translated word is what it is, “presbuteros” which means priest, not elder, as was translated after 1600 years of Christian tradition to reflect the Reformation bias.
The verse before though indicates the equal status of believers.
IPet.5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder...
The point being the Apostles did not believe themselves to be superior to other Christians. They did not act as bishops but were in fact primarily missionaries.
I understand what you are saying about sources and I hardly take one Phan as a spokesman for all things Catholic. As i said, the question I considered was whether the comment I cited was historically true or not. I don’t really care what his opinions otherwise are. But if you think he’s round the bend-I’m not defending his theological..whatever one calls it.
In the same spirit I might cite Pythagoras as a source for math even if he had some weird ideas about shapes and numbers. His math could be dead on whatever his other ideas.
I take it you have no problem with “The Catholic Encyclopedia”? Regardless of edition? Good day.
The term “bishop” has the unfortunate association with the formal office title “Bishop” rather than the simple descriptive meaning of oversight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.