Replies

But there was no "chair of Peter".

Your entire thesis gets hung up, right there.

The earliest centuries church had no singular "pope" whom all looked towards as being authority over all others.

The Pharisees claimed to occupy seat of Moses.

Peter was not declared to be a Moses.

Whatever notion of Peter being a primary figure and example -- was not an inheritable position with true authority from above given over to whomever would in later centuries claim such distorted nonsense as the church having been organized with vertical hierarchy, with one among all others being set apart, to be above and over all others.

How many times must these things be pointed out?

Matthew 16, meet Matthew chapter 18 read 'em and weep? bwaahahaa

Once it sinks in, then one can see how useless and wrong the rest of the argument of necessity is, for that latter day justification (there must be one single head) circles right back to needing have one's righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.

To then adopt approaches to God and how men & cultures should be taught to regard Him (until individuals can meet with Him themselves, thus Know who He is) similar to how the Scribes and Pharisees had virtually scribbled upon the margins of what had been handed down to them --- circle right back to half-empty claim of themselves having been sole heirs to seat of Moses.

You wanna be seen as a Moses?

Do the work of a Moses. (or be but a placeholder at best -- or else in the way of those whom better know Him)

Anyone wanna be seen as a successor to Paul, Peter, James, Philip, Barnabas, Timothy, Mark -- then do the works they did. And that work cannot be done unless one comes to the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord in manner and ways similar to how they came to that same knowledge.

I've prayed for the sick and had them recover. Have you?

I wish that I could say that at all times I've enjoyed success in this, but I cannot.

I do recall one time when a Pastor of church I was attending asked everyone to pray for him. He'd been suffering pains, and had gone to see physicians who ran tests and told him it was his liver.

For what I can only credit the leading of the holy Spirit -- I somehow knew immediately as I was walking forward towards him to lay hands on him and pray for healing that it was not his liver that was the problem.

As more than a few gathered around him, I moved around behind him, put my hands on his back (about where I'd expect his kidneys to be adjacent to) and out loud prayed that God would heal his kidneys. Doing so, I was the odd man out. Someone praying at that same time offered correction to me -- it's his liver, not his kidneys, almost like I was just big dummy or something...lol.

After we were all done the Pastor graciously thanked me though, telling me, "I appreciate you praying for my kidneys, but it's the liver that need prayers".

We all sat back down in the pews except himself who remained standing. I recall him saying "I feel better already".

A couple of months or more later, perhaps even four or five months later...the Pastor told me that he had changed physicians, and that doctor had reviewed the records (the tests and treatments) and informed him that the prior diagnosis had been incorrect, the problem had been with his kidneys all along instead of the liver, his liver checked out ok --- and that he no longer had the kidney problem.

Although...if memory serves, it seems like Roger (the pastor) mentioned something along the line ---- that there may have been some confirming test, that there had been recently some stress or another suffered by the kidneys? I not precisely certain as for a test showing past kidney illness...but it seems there was something along those lines.

I do remember the Pastor talking to me about it later, asking how I knew it was the kidneys and not his liver...and come to think of it now, being as he spoke of this off and on for months previous to a half-dozen or so of the church praying for him --- I seem to recall having the thought --- kidneys, not liver, from the first time he said he announced he was having liver problems. After a while, with a few mentions of the problem I had begun to think "ok, liver" since that's what a doctor had been persistently telling him, and he was making occasional mention of to the assembly --- because the Pastor was in genuine discomfort.

Curiously enough I recall also this same Pastor having relayed to myself at another time and setting that the Lord had revealed to him that I would become an apologist --- and good one too. Perhaps I'm still waiting for that second "good one" portion to kick in, I dunno...

The Pastor told me one more thing at the time he was telling me about kidneys and asking me "how did I know"; that at a future time, come what may, he would be willing to back up what I'm telling about now. It's only been about 15 to 16 years by now? Does any of this make myself in charge, over others? Not necessarily, but I am at the least acquainted with the Lord, and can provide personal testimony as for the genuineness of His existence, and that He does confirm the written Word.

I'm not alone in this sort of thing, of course, and hallelujah for that. A three-fold cord is not easily broken...much less many strands and cords distributed widely amongst people(s).

When Peter and John had been arrested and taken before "their rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest" and Peter was finished giving them something of a dressing down;

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.