Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OLD REGGIE
Interestingly Jesus also made it clear to them it wasn't necessary to be a follower of them, with them, and doing only as they "taught". Hmmm. Is there any room for "others" in this scheme?

Luke 9:
[49] John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."
[50] But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

Interesting. Do you think that if these folks were "against" Jesus, that Jesus would approve of them?

If they were doing in contradiction to what the Apostles taught, is that just hunky dory? Or is the message given to them optional?

SD

28,429 posted on 12/05/2002 9:56:10 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28425 | View Replies ]


To: SoothingDave
Luke 9:49 John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."

50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

Interesting. Do you think that if these folks were "against" Jesus, that Jesus would approve of them?

Obviously not. The Pharisees (in general) were against JESUS, and He certainly didn't approve of them.

If they were doing in contradiction to what the Apostles taught, is that just hunky dory? Or is the message given to them optional?

I believe that this passage is telling us that what is important is doing the will of JESUS, and that there is no need to be under any particular earthly authority to do it.


28,433 posted on 12/05/2002 10:09:56 AM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28429 | View Replies ]

To: SoothingDave
Luke 9:
[49] John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."
[50] But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."


Interesting. Do you think that if these folks were "against" Jesus, that Jesus would approve of them?

If they were doing in contradiction to what the Apostles taught, is that just hunky dory? Or is the message given to them optional?


Was he appointed by the apostles?

Was he acting under the "authority" of the apostles?

Was any formal "apostolic succesion" required?

Let me answer for you. NO! Not then, not now.

28,441 posted on 12/05/2002 10:28:21 AM PST by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28429 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson