Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thing said:
… Now for as long as there will be more than one Christian alive the same argument will follow; who will be leader; the protestants say we will be, the Catholics say the Holy Spirit will decide through the means of a vote or a draw, as one Apostle had been replaced in that way in the Scriptures.

So Jesus refered to the ‘leader’ of the Apostles; turned to address Peter straight away; prayed for Peter; told him to confirm thy brethern; and the Apostles at some stage adapted a way of choosing a successor; And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Click to expand...
**Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas **

12Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

(Acts 1)

Well, Skipper. The disciples chose Matthias as the missing 12th apostle to replace Judas after he offed himself. But who did God choose?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Well, Skipper. The disciples chose Matthias as the missing 12th apostle to replace Judas after he offed himself. But who did God choose?

🤷
Click to expand...
And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, …
 
Thing said:
I thought He knew everything. He knew about the Reformations’ reinterpretation of rock; He knew which candidates the Apostles would put forward before they did, surely.🤷
Click to expand...
True. God knew everything. Peter and the other Apostles did not. They had no way of knowing that God had a different replacement for Judas in mind:
1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.
11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”
13"Lord," Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” 15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

(Acts 9)

Isn’t Saul (who became Paul) the Apostle God chose?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
True. God knew everything. Peter and the other Apostles did not. They had no way of knowing that God had a different replacement for Judas in mind:
1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.
11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”
13"Lord," Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” 15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

(Acts 9)

Isn’t Saul (who became Paul) the Apostle God chose?
Click to expand...
You mean it *was *actually Gods’ idea to have Apostolic succession?
The Bishops today are the successors of the Apostles. God did not say we must only have 12 successors, He only said, according to your own words, that we must have Apostolic successors, or, successors to the Apostles who continue in the Apostolic mission to teach all nations etc…
 
Thing said:
You mean it *was *actually Gods’ idea to have Apostolic succession?
The Bishops today are the successors of the Apostles. God did not say we must only have 12 successors, He only said, according to your own words, that we must have Apostolic successors, or, successors to the Apostles who continue in the Apostolic mission to teach all nations etc…
Click to expand...
Good point! and worth exploring next, Thing. But first, the answer is, “No, i meant what i asked.” So, please tell me: Didn’t Jesus choose Saul rather than Matthias?
 
Or are you saying that Jesus chose both, increasing the number of Apostles from 12 to 13?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Or are you saying that Jesus chose both, increasing the number of Apostles from 12 to 13?
Click to expand...
Well unless you have a handy quote from scripture that says God chose Paul *over *Matthias *and *He got really cross with the Apostles for asking Him to pick another successor… I guess both men were successors to the Apostolic mission - which incidently was really, really big, teach ALL the nations; twelve was just the start.
 
Thing said:
Well unless you have a handy quote from scripture that says God chose Paul *over *Matthias *and *He got really cross with the Apostles for asking Him to pick another successor… I guess both men were successors to the Apostolic mission - which incidently was really, really big, teach ALL the nations; twelve was just the start.
Click to expand...
Not at all! The rational approach is to draw conclusions from what you and i know, not from what we don’t. The evidence is clear that Saul (i.e., Paul) was hand-picked by Jesus. Odd choice, making one’s worst enemy one of His greatest advocates! But i suppose God rolls like that:

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

(1 Corinthians 1:27-29)
Yet, if each Apostle, upon his death, should have a successor, then why does Luke appear to indicate that none was chosen for John’s brother?

It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

(Acts 12:1-4)

The only reason i can see is that, upon James’ death, there were 12 Apostles once more, rather than 13, and Jesus’ originally design was to choose 12. Twelve was, after all, a number symbolic of completeness to ancient Jewish people. There were 12 brothers of Jacob, 12 tribes of Israel, 12 eggs in a dozen (maybe Matthias was the inspiration for the baker’s dozen)!

😃

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Skipper:

It seems to me that the Apostles were more worried about keeping the number of Apostles Jesus chose at 12 than they were about succession. Do you think maybe they weren’t looking to future generations, or even the next generation? Do you think they supposed Jesus’ return was imminent, and they wanted to make sure there was, upon His return, an Apostle to rule each of the 12 tribes of Israel?

Maybe searching the New Testament for the establishment of the papacy is looking in the wrong place? Maybe the idea of a succession of Popes came after the closing of the Canon of Sacred Scripture? Maybe i’m on to something, here?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
So, please reassure me, P7. Tell me how you know, without a doubt, that Jesus desired Peter to be the first of many papal “kings” rather than a kind of temporary leader, such as Moses or Samuel? Tell me how you are absolutely certain the papacy is not a product of the same sin of the ancient Jewish people, who wanted a succession of kings rather than the temporary spokesmen appointed by God.

How do you know that, if Catholics came before Jesus on Judgement Day and asked Him, “Why did you allow us to have a succession of Popes if it was wrong?” that His answer would not be this?

“I permitted you to have papal kings because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
Click to expand...
Dear Soc,

You did not find here a person who is able to pass such an “absolute certainty” (shouldn’t we speak about “deep persuasion”) in a few posts. …
I am afraid I can offer just a quick start, which will raise some of your able questions.
  • The apostles wanted a leadership appointed by themselves ( bishops) to succeed them in leading the Church after their own deaths and before the parousia, and settled the principle of succession.
"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. … And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe …Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry

( 1 Clement 42 and 44)
  • Even if the “you” in the Great Commssion in Matthew, does not extend, beyond the Apostles themselves, ( as some protestant brothers would mind) this momentous decision to endorse the principle of succession was taken by the apostles themselves, ie within the range of that promise by Jesus. Therefore we can trust it was assisted (aka wanted), rather than merely permitted by Him.
In this case apostolic succession is according to the divine design.

Within the Apostles Jesus had appointed a head. This was at the same time the prime minister of the High Priest and King, who is Jesus Himself…

Now, if there existed legitimate successors of the apostles, and if there always is Christ as High priest and King, why, let me ask, should we believe that to respect the divine design the job of leader of the successors of the apostles and prime minister of Jesus had to disappear after Simon Peter ?

I see you’re focusing your attention on Judges and prophets. They would receive ad hoc tasks, typically to protect God’s people from a specific threat, military or spiritual. Wouldn’t they ?

What do you mind, Soc, is “feeding Jesus’ sheep” an ad hoc temporary task, or does it look like a permanent one ?

I hope this can be helpful Soc, and am going to enjoy your questions ( and your answers).

In Christ
P7
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Skipper:

It seems to me that the Apostles were more worried about keeping the number of Apostles Jesus chose at 12 than they were about succession. Do you think maybe they weren’t looking to future generations, or even the next generation? Do you think they supposed Jesus’ return was imminent, and they wanted to make sure there was, upon His return, an Apostle to rule each of the 12 tribes of Israel?

Maybe searching the New Testament for the establishment of the papacy is looking in the wrong place? Maybe the idea of a succession of Popes came after the closing of the Canon of Sacred Scripture? Maybe i’m on to something, here?

🤷
Click to expand...
Maybe. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to go ‘teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’.

Now, as fit as I am I just would not have time to walk all over the world in one lifetime, to every nation. Neither would twelve men be enough for the job.

Yet that was exactly the commission they were given. Were they going to be like the lazy servant who was found to have done nothing when his master returned; or were they to be like the man with one talent who buried it until his master returned. No.

The significance of the Apostles was of eyewitnesses to the events. They were also Bishops of the Church. But as Jesus sent out the 72 to spread the word and as Jesus sent the Apostles out into the world likewise, and as the Father had sent Jesus out into the world, the Apostles appointed successors, Bishops, but not necessarily eyewitnesses, and sent them in turn out into the world. That was how Christianity was spread.

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” - Ignatius of Antioch Born 50AD Died 118AD, (or 35AD - 98AD)

As we have already seen Jesus said the Apostles would have a leader, and He specified exactly the characteristics of this leader, then He turned to Peter and said that He had prayed for him. Peter as an Apostle and Bishop of the Church left behind him when he died a vacant position of ‘leader’. And as the Apostles chose their leader according to Jesus specifications and as they did choose by praying to the Lord to select the successor He wanted, then that is how it continues.

Contrast it with what protestantism can sometimes look like, with all the Apostles still fighting among themselves to be leader but in this case there is no Jesus present to stop them and tell them of His specifications of a leader nor is there a Jesus prsent to then turn to St. Peter and tell him that He, Jesus, had prayed for him and for him to confirm his brethern. Everyone wants to be leader in protestantism, but Jesus turned to Peter.

The Apostles did look to the future of their commission and to making provision for that future; in St. Peters words;
’ For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off…’
 
pneuma, jinks, as we used to say. I did not read your post before writing mine, and I see we’ve mentioned some of the same things.
 
pneuma07 said:
… I hope this can be helpful Soc, and am going to enjoy your questions ( and your answers).

In Christ
P7
Click to expand...
Yes, i enjoy questions and answers myself. I find that the art and science of dialog is sorely lacking in (of all places) discussion forums like this one! People often spend too much time spewing what they believe without asking why they believe it. They spend too much time debating and too little time thinking. For me, asking why creates a deeper understanding, and a stronger faith, in what i discover is the truth.

The reason Socrates asked questions is that he had this odd idea that learning is remembering. He reasoned that all souls were once in the presence of the only wise God, and so at one time were aware of all of this God’s truth. Answering questions was a way of recalling the truth one had inside him, but had long forgotten. As evidence of this, he had a dialog with the young slave of a man, and taught him new principles of geometry by only asking questions. Rather than telling the boy what the truth is, the boy discovered it for himself by merely answering Socrates questions. After demonstrating this with the slave boy, Socrates continued the process with the boy’s master Meno:

SOCRATES: What do you think, Meno? Has he [the slave boy], in his answers, expressed any opinion that was not his own?

MENO: No, they were all his own.

SOC: And yet, as we said a short time ago, he did not know?

MEN: That is true.

SOC: So these opinions were in him, were they not?

MEN: Yes.

SOC: So the man who does not know has within himself true opinions about the things that he does not know?

MEN: So it appears.

SOC: These opinions have now just been stirred up like a dream, but if he were repeatedly asked these same questions in various ways, you know that in the end his knowledge about these things would be as accurate as anyone’s.

MEN: It is likely.

SOC: And he will know it without having been taught but only questioned, and find the knowledge within himself?

MEN: Yes.

SOC: And is not finding knowledge within oneself recollection?

MEN: Certainly.

SOC: Must he not either have at some time acquired the knowledge he now possesses, or else have always possessed it?

MEN: Yes.

SOC: If he always had it, he would always have known. If he acquired it, he cannot have done so in his present life. Or has someone taught him geometry? Fore he will perform in the same way about all geometry, and all other knowledge. Has someone taught him everything? You should know, especially as he has been born and brought up in your house.

MEN: But I know that no one has taught him.

SOC: Yes he has these opinions, or doesn’t he?

MEN: That seems indisputable, Socrates.

SOC: If he has not acquired them in his present life, is it not clear that he had them and had learned them at some other time?

MEN: It seems so.

SOC: Then that was the time when he was not a human being?

MEN: Yes.

SOC: If then, during the time when he exists and is not a human being he will have true opinions which, when stirred by questioning, become knowledge, will not his soul have learned during that time? For it is clear that during all time he exists, either as a man or not.

MEN: So it seems.

SOC: Then if the truth about reality is always in our soul, the soul would be immortal so that you should always confidently try to seek out and recollect what you do not know at present–that is, what you do not recollect?

MEN: Somehow, Socrates, I think that you are correct.

SOC: I think so too, Meno. I do not insist that my argument is right in all other respects, but I would contend at all costs both in word and deed as far as I could that we will be better men, braver and less idle, if we believe that one must search for things one does not know, rather than if we belief that it is not possible to find out what we do not know and that we must not look for it.
 
My thought is that Socrates had it partially correct. Perhaps there is some knowledge of the truth within us. And Paul seems to agree, for he writes that we all have within us the light of creation,
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

(Romans 1:18-20)
and the light of conscience,
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?

(Romans 2:1-4)
and the light of Christ,
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

(Romans 3:21-26)
However, rather than recollection, i think the Holy Spirit does what was too remarkable for even Socrates to imagine–communication. That’s why, when i ask questions of you, or anyone else, i ask the same questions of myself, and more importantly, of God. For James writes:
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)
This promise of wisdom is not for those who earn it by virtue of their goodness, for James writes that God “gives generously … without finding fault”. And this promise of wisdom is not for those successors of the Apostles only, for James was writing to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (James 1:1). Moreover, he writes “if any of you” rather than “if any Apostle” and he writes that God “gives generously to all”. No, wisdom is not obtained by recollection, as Socrates infered, but by communication and by prayer and by always asking why. But i doubt such a prayer will be answered if one asks, thinking that he already knows. For then the asker would doubt that God has any wisdom to give that he does not already possess. And as James also writes:

But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

(James 1:6-8)
 
pneuma07 said:
… Even if the “you” in the Great Commssion in Matthew, does not extend, beyond the Apostles themselves, ( as some protestant brothers would mind) this momentous decision to endorse the principle of succession was taken by the apostles themselves, ie within the range of that promise by Jesus. Therefore we can trust it was assisted (aka wanted), rather than merely permitted by Him.

In this case apostolic succession is according to the divine design.

Within the Apostles Jesus had appointed a head. This was at the same time the prime minister of the High Priest and King, who is Jesus Himself…

…
Click to expand...
Well, Mr. Howel, having lived in both worlds, it seems to me that the differences Protestants and Catholics have regarding this issue of who has the right to speak for Christ, is caused by a different understanding of the Great Commission. When Jesus 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.”

(Matthew 28:18-20)
You and other good Catholics seem to see Jesus as speaking to the Apostles alone. When many Protestants hear these words, they often say with amazement, “He’s speaking to me!” They see the Great Commission not as applying only to a select few in positions of authority, but to everyone who follows Christ. Making disciples is not the sole responsibility of their pastor, but a solemn responsibility to reach out to one’s immediate family, relatives, coworkers, next-door neighbors, and even strangers.

So how do you see it, Mr. Howel? Is the Great Commission only for the great elite among us? Or is it for the common man, as well as the religiously privileged?

http://l.yimg.com/eb/ymv/us/img/hv/...te_first_season/_group_photos/jim_backus3.jpg
 
Thing said:
Maybe. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to go ‘teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’.

Now, as fit as I am I just would not have time to walk all over the world in one lifetime, to every nation. Neither would twelve men be enough for the job.

Yet that was exactly the commission they were given. Were they going to be like the lazy servant who was found to have done nothing when his master returned; or were they to be like the man with one talent who buried it until his master returned. No.

The significance of the Apostles was of eyewitnesses to the events. They were also Bishops of the Church. But as Jesus sent out the 72 to spread the word and as Jesus sent the Apostles out into the world likewise, and as the Father had sent Jesus out into the world, the Apostles appointed successors, Bishops, but not necessarily eyewitnesses, and sent them in turn out into the world. That was how Christianity was spread.

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” - Ignatius of Antioch Born 50AD Died 118AD, (or 35AD - 98AD)

As we have already seen Jesus said the Apostles would have a leader, and He specified exactly the characteristics of this leader, then He turned to Peter and said that He had prayed for him. Peter as an Apostle and Bishop of the Church left behind him when he died a vacant position of ‘leader’. And as the Apostles chose their leader according to Jesus specifications and as they did choose by praying to the Lord to select the successor He wanted, then that is how it continues.

Contrast it with what protestantism can sometimes look like, with all the Apostles still fighting among themselves to be leader but in this case there is no Jesus present to stop them and tell them of His specifications of a leader nor is there a Jesus prsent to then turn to St. Peter and tell him that He, Jesus, had prayed for him and for him to confirm his brethern. Everyone wants to be leader in protestantism, but Jesus turned to Peter.

The Apostles did look to the future of their commission and to making provision for that future; in St. Peters words;
’ For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off…’
Click to expand...
http://www.aaacaricatures.com/images/360_360_gilligan_s_Island_Caricature.jpg

Gilligan: You’re a big man with a big head and - -
Skipper Jonas Grumby: Gilligan!
Gilligan: And a big heart.
Skipper Jonas Grumby: Oh, thank you.

So what gives, Skipper? I thought your heart was bigger than your head! I thought you’d disagree with Mr. Howel (see post 318) and say the Great Commission is even for little buddies like me. Am i playing the part of the fool, again?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
http://www.aaacaricatures.com/images/360_360_gilligan_s_Island_Caricature.jpg

Gilligan: You’re a big man with a big head and - -
Skipper Jonas Grumby: Gilligan!
Gilligan: And a big heart.
Skipper Jonas Grumby: Oh, thank you.

So what gives, Skipper? I thought your heart was bigger than your head! I thought you’d disagree with Mr. Howel (see post 318) and say the Great Commission is even for little buddies like me. Am i playing the part of the fool, again?

🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t know; don’t follow you.
…**and teaching them **to **obey everything **I have commanded you.
Click to expand...
There appear to be variable results in the protestant world concerning this part; just what did He command and does it depend on who I ask and whether they are pre-reformation or post-reformation.

Not all who think they are teachers teach you to obey the same things.
So will the real teachers please stand up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top