UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH!
What an unsurprise!
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
As I must have said a few hundred times . . .
bureaucratic self-serving magicsterical POLITICAL POWER-MONGERS.
THANKS for your kind reply.
The throw down at the council was between the former pharisee Judaizers and the united position of Peter, Paul, and James. However, James appears to have been connected with the Judaizers:
Gal 2: 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself
Peter, James, and the whole Church were eventually won over by the arguments of Paul. Peter appears to have been the bridge-man between Paul and James. The primacy of Peter did not require him to originate everything, only that he determine and authenticate whatever became official teaching. This is what Peter did in siding with Paul.
Peter was the oldest of the Apostles while the younger Paul was not even one of the twelve. It is unlikely that James, Patriarch of Jerusalem, would have capitulated to Paul without the influence of Peter.
We were also talking about the proper historical context to interpret scripture. Anyway, I totally demolished your challenges to demonstrate apostolic succession and Church infallibility using Scripture. You talk a good game about obeying God's word, but when I provide biblical precedents for replacing a deceased apostle and an infallible Church council, you scoff.
The only rebuttals you guys could make was to quibble about side issues like the use of lots, Matthias' notoriety, and subjective opinions about which male was the most alpha at the council. Is the mechanics of Judas' replacement more important than the fact that it took place? Do you deny that Jerusalem council was inspired by the Holy Spirit? You purport to be a bible believer but now I call your bluff.
The Council of Jerusalem still proves nothing in regards to Peter being the first “pope”.
All this about Peter doing this, that, and the other thing behind the scenes is just nonsense. Without reading way more into the passage than is said, there’s no way anyone could get the Catholic interpretation of the papacy and justification for it out of that passage.
Peter never referred once in his letter(s) to what Catholics claim for him. He never left specific instructions on how to choose his alleged successor. All Catholics have to go on is his impulsive, ill conceived idea on how to replace Judas, which the apostles were never instructed to do. He acted in the flesh, without the leading of the Holy Spirit.
To base a whole doctrine on that event of questionable validity is foolhardy.
If Peter really did receive from Jesus the office of the first pope and if the Catholic church wrote the Bible, why wasn’t it included in the canon of Scripture if it was so critical a truth? Surely God would have left clearer instructions for what Catholics consider the one true church to maintain its integrity.
Where?
Where?
In some basement burrow of
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling.
They were not instructed by God to replace Judas. Peter took that on himself to make that decision.
It was not a church council of any kind because the church had not received power from on high as of yet.
It was done in the flesh, without the leading of the Holy Spirit, who had not been given yet.
If the Catholic church wishes to base their whole doctrine of the papacy and apostolic succession based on the carnal, misguided actions of a group which was not even the church yet and had no capability to use spiritual discernment, that's their prerogative, but it's still foolhardy. They weren't right the first time they did it (in Acts 1) and the Catholic church is not going to be right every time after it that it does it.
I have learned in study of Gods word that it is one thing when the scripture moves right along and that when one has to twist or reconfigure what is actually being stated in order to justify ones opinion or belief. It just doesn't flow right...thus I can say with great certainly that IMO...No Peter nor any of the other Apostles handed down any succession to the Catholic church as they have believed and stated...and No the Pope is not Gods spokesman for the body of believers.
Thank you for your work and the text of scripture you so amply give....it has been and will continue to be a “good study”.
How else would the head of the Roman Church assert his claim to being a “first among equals” without inventing an unbroken line from Peter?
That they did attempt.... but God had another in mind and in His time, not mans. Men do have a need to determine how they will go about doing Gods work without First consulting Him if the action itself is His will. In this case they jumped ahead of God, and as we see Matthias is hardly if at all mentioned in scripture thereafter. The stretch one has to make using Peter, does not suit the scripture context...rather to do this twists the meaning.
That’s pretty much my conviction, too.
However, if one's spiritual understanding is that the Holy Spirit moves according to His own will, then the only succession that matters is from God directly to a man.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. – Romans 8:15-17
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? – Acts 11:15-17
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
God's name is I AM.
I have learned in study of Gods word that it is one thing when the scripture moves right along and that when one has to twist or reconfigure what is actually being stated in order to justify ones opinion or belief. It just doesn't flow right...thus I can say with great certainly that IMO...No Peter nor any of the other Apostles handed down any succession to the Catholic church as they have believed and stated...and No the Pope is not Gods spokesman for the body of believers.
Thank you for your work and the text of scripture you so amply give....it has been and will continue to be a “good study”.
INDEED to the max.
It has been a pile of bureaucratic self-serving magicsterical power-mongering right along from 300-400 AD on. And before that, there were house churches and clusters of believers all over the place loosely connected to one another--if at all--primarily by Holy Spirit's doings--NOT a political power structure..
Christ showed HIS seDiments about politically structured RELIGIOUS elites quite sternly and harshly more than a few times.
Human RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES and organizations ever since have revealed HIS wisdom on such scores relentlessly. The stench always rises sooner or later and usually not that long after Holy Spirit has left the building.
It doesn't matter the label on the door. Though !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound and fossilized tend to be worse than newly minted.
The Scripture manglings and rationalizations to support said manglings grow ever more outrageous. The notion that Jesus transited Mary's birth canal a la a miraculous White Hanky POP is absurd to the max. And that well before He'd received HIS GLORIFIED BODY POST RESURRECTION. That's a nice detail they seem to ignore rather glibly.
And the unmitigated hogwash about Mary not having other natural born Children is more outrageous absurdity. Scripture is rather clear repeatedly on that score. They're evidently not interested in clear Scripture. Clear Scripture doesn't seem to fit well in their rubberized 'Bibles.'
Fantasized farce upon fantasized farce enshrined in fossilized, ritualized irrationality is putting it mildly.
What an insult to the authentic Mary.
Christ also stated sternly at least twice HIS priorities vis a vis His earthly mother and blood brothers and sisters.
Yet again the Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling will have none of THE TRUTH. Genetic rationalizers must work overtime to deny such plain Scriptures.
May God have mercy. Thanks for your perceptive, astute, well worded post.
They certainly weren’t about to wait for George Orwell to tell them that some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
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.