Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m lucky that this is an easy one.

Jesus is endorsing and interpreting the OT.

My point is that in the NT I cannot see where Jesus commands to …write and compile
a NT. Nevertheless we don’t see protestant brothers explaining that we should not have a NT because of that. They assume developing a NT was the right thing, in spite of that. They trust the early Church IMHO. It was she that decided that having an NT was OK, convenient and faithful to the Master’'s teaching.

Quite curious situation for Sola Scriptura supporters.

Bless you
P7

[Jesus] told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

(Luke 24:46-49)
http://www.bkmarcus.com/writing/images/TH3b.jpg

Mr. Howell (and i hope you don’t mind my referring to you by that nick name, for you are certainly rich in the history of the early Church, your living in Italy and all): I understand your point, and please don’t take offense at this poor-in-spirit Gilligan respectfully disagreeing with wealthy you.

When Jesus commanded His followers to be His witnesses, what better way for them to obey than to write down what He said and did? This was certainly the tradition of the Jewish religion–when God spoke, His witnesses (the prophets) wrote down what He said. When God entered time and space to act, his witnesses (the Old Testament authors) recorded what He did for future generations. Jesus, commanding them to be His witnesses, would have been understood by them as God Himself commanding them to write, at the very least, the gospels telling His story.

In the light of His parting words in Luke, Jesus was commanding them to begin writing about Him, don’t you think?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Or how about "I am the second person of the Holy Trinity, the son of God, Consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, indwelling in the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ. Maybe he should have been clearer about this one as well, and then we could have avoided that whole Arian mess, and those crazy Jehova Witnesses, not the mention the Mormons, Gnostics, Manicheans, etc…

But Professor, there is a BIG difference between the disagreements the non-Christian cults have with Catholicism, and the disagreements many Protestants have with Catholicism. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others claim that the Bible is in error, and that their own religious texts are more accurate and, thus, more authoritative. One common example:

Ask a JW and a Mormon about this text:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(John 1:1)

The Mormon will tell you that the Bible is in error, and that Jesus is not God, but the spirit brother of Lucifer. He’d encourage you to read the Book of Mormon, which has not been transmitted in error, as the Bible has.

The JW will tell you that the Bible is translated in error, and that Jesus is not God, but Michael the Arc Angel. He’d encourage you to read the Bible published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which correctly translates the text, “… and the word was a god.”

You see, the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God, and that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So, these non-Christian cults must reject the biblical text. Many Protestants, however, accept the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, because the Bible is so clear on this point, and they accept the biblical text as authoritative.

The difference between this example, and the current topic of discussion, is that the Bible is not so clear on the establishment of the papacy. Unlike John 1:1, Matthew 16:18 is worded in such a way as to be open to different interpretations. The disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is NOT over the reliability of the New Testament text, but over the meaning of the New Testament text.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Keen intellect! That’s a laugh. I have three kids all below the age of four. I’ve had maybe three full nights of sleep in the last four years. My brain is mush right now. …

I can beat that! I’m currently breaking the 11th commandment: “Be not zoned out on pain killers that your oral surgeon prescribes for you, but be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… That being said, I can see only two possible interpretations of Matthew 16. Little rock and big rock is not one of them. I mean honestly, I don’t think this argument appeared until the 20th century.

God bless,
Ut

Agreed.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… But yes, Abraham is considered a rock in the psalms I think.

God bless,
Ut

Yes, Professor. Whether or not Abraham is called a rock, a pillar, or a foundation of the Jewish faith, he certainly is considered to be one. The same might be said of Moses.

So, i’m wondering this: Abraham and Moses were rocks, or pillars, of the Jewish faith, but God did not create any succession of leadership after them. After Abraham, came Isaac, and then Jacob, and then 12 sons of Jacob, none of which continued as God’s representative on earth. After Moses, came Joshua, and then after the Jewish people conquered much of their enemies and settled in the promised land, no leader rose up after Joshua to continue as God’s representative on earth. What followed these men of God was nothing like the perpetual papacy that followed Peter, don’t you agree?

 

[pneuma07]

Then, please explain what you meant when you said this:

Originally Posted by pneuma07 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
… If you consider what Sola Scriptura boils down to, IMHO you can find that those who were breaking or had already broken with the Church were preaching just this: that she (through which they admittedly had received Scripture), or better her life ( aka Sacred Tradition) is NOT the CON-text where Scripture can be properly understood and defended. Weren’t they compelled by mere consinstency to declare that ? …

It sounds to me that you are advising me to interpret the New Testament in the context of the religious tradition of the Catholic Church. If that’s not your meaning, then please tell me what is.

Breaking down my points:

1. Reformers were compelled to propose Sola Scriptura
2. That IMHO amounts to propose new CONtexts to interpret Scripture ( I hope to have your attention on this consideration), other than the life of the Catholic Apostolic Church.
3. It is my humble opinion that the many CONtexts proposed since Reformation in competition with the Church AND with each other are no match with the rejected CONtext. ( of course this point has to be developed , and I do not know unfortunately what CONtext you used to consider as most appropriate)).

So yes, my humble view on Sola Scriptura leads me to suggest what you state here.

Which is not the same IMHO as your previous question, seemingly implying that the jewish CONtext must be the best one to understand the OT.
I hope I succeeded in the previous post on this specific issue in outlining the
difference I see between Incarnation and Reformation , seen here as events when new CONtexts were proposed.

It is my fault if I could not or can not be now perspicuous.

 

[pneuma07]

[Jesus] told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

(Luke 24:46-49)
http://www.bkmarcus.com/writing/images/TH3b.jpg

Mr. Howell (and i hope you don’t mind my referring to you by that nick name, for you are certainly rich in the history of the early Church, your living in Italy and all): I understand your point, and please don’t take offense at this poor-in-spirit Gilligan respectfully disagreeing with wealthy you.

When Jesus commanded His followers to be His witnesses, what better way for them to obey than to write down what He said and did? This was certainly the tradition of the Jewish religion–when God spoke, His witnesses (the prophets) wrote down what He said. When God entered time and space to act, his witnesses (the Old Testament authors) recorded what He did for future generations. Jesus, commanding them to be His witnesses, would have been understood by them as God Himself commanding them to write, at the very least, the gospels telling His story.

In the light of His parting words in Luke, Jesus was commanding them to begin writing about Him, don’t you think?

i believe on your authority that the nick name must be appropriate.

As to your question, I don’t think so.

In verse 48 I cannot even see an open command, to be honest. He is not telling them “Be witnesses of these things”, he declares they are witnesses. The Greek has simply
υμεις μαρτυρες τουτων litterally “you witnesses of these (things)”, without verb. It is the unique experience of the Apostles alongside Jesus.
Luke’s version of the Great Commission ( if we can/want to consider it as such) looks like just an implicit commission. You tell me the NT can be considered implicit …within this implicit commission.

(I do concur the OT set the example when the concept of a new specifically christian Scripture was born and developed within the Church).

If we consider the classic and explicit version of the Great Commission, in Matthew

18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Nothing is said about compiling a new Scripture.

I am not saying of course the NT was born out of debatable initiatives. Far from that. I just cannot see that it is clearer from the Gospels than apostolic succession.

The Great Commission gives us hints about that BTW IMHO
If , speaking to the Apostles, the lord says: .*I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. *, then this “you” seems to imply , in case of a duration of the world longer than one generation, a prolongation of the Apostles, in other words an apostolic succession.

I do not want to go into an exegetic guerrilla. So I just want to show the possibility that Apostolic Succession can be implicitly seen in Jesus’ words even better than the NT.
In practice, the (early) Church decided both were according to the Master’s will, and I maintain she knows better than me.

Note please Jesus’ incipit: I have authority, therefore I send you.

The model we see: He sends who has authority.

But who can preach ? He who is sent, according to Paul. Doesn’t this show us the principle of a chain of sent/sending, perpetuating the preaching with legitimate authority ?

Bless you

 

[davidv]

[Jesus] told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

(Luke 24:46-49)
http://www.bkmarcus.com/writing/images/TH3b.jpg

Mr. Howell (and i hope you don’t mind my referring to you by that nick name, for you are certainly rich in the history of the early Church, your living in Italy and all): I understand your point, and please don’t take offense at this poor-in-spirit Gilligan respectfully disagreeing with wealthy you.

When Jesus commanded His followers to be His witnesses, what better way for them to obey than to write down what He said and did? This was certainly the tradition of the Jewish religion–when God spoke, His witnesses (the prophets) wrote down what He said. When God entered time and space to act, his witnesses (the Old Testament authors) recorded what He did for future generations. Jesus, commanding them to be His witnesses, would have been understood by them as God Himself commanding them to write, at the very least, the gospels telling His story.

In the light of His parting words in Luke, Jesus was commanding them to begin writing about Him, don’t you think?

I think “I know a better way”.
That better way was “teaching all nations” and walking the talk and mentoring (hands-on, not by handing them a textbook) the newly baptised in the Way.

 

[Pax]

Yes, Professor. Whether or not Abraham is called a rock, a pillar, or a foundation of the Jewish faith, he certainly is considered to be one. The same might be said of Moses.

So, i’m wondering this: Abraham and Moses were rocks, or pillars, of the Jewish faith, but God did not create any succession of leadership after them. After Abraham, came Isaac, and then Jacob, and then 12 sons of Jacob, none of which continued as God’s representative on earth. After Moses, came Joshua, and then after the Jewish people conquered much of their enemies and settled in the promised land, no leader rose up after Joshua to continue as God’s representative on earth. What followed these men of God was nothing like the perpetual papacy that followed Peter, don’t you agree?

Soc in Christ,

You might check out my comments in post #255 concerning succession for Abraham and Moses.

God bless

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

You might check out my comments in post #255 concerning succession for Abraham and Moses.

God bless

Yes, sorry for not saying so, but i’ve been prayerfully considering the truth of them.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Originally Posted by DrPiano forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*The second passage I’d like to raise for your consideration, Socrates, is one of Jesus’ last prayers before beginning his Passion (John 17):

My biggest point here: UNITY. Over and over (most of the passages in bold), Jesus prays for unity. Unity among his disciples. Unity among the believers who will follow. Our Unity is what affirms our witness. And its a visible unity - one that the world can see. And that means a unity built into the structure, built into the theology. The difference between Luther and Catherine of Sienna or St. Francis of Assisi, or any of the other Catholic Reformers, was that Luther let his just opposition to an abuse* of the Church’s doctrine lead him away from the Church. Have those abuses occurred? Absolutely! The Popes are not Impeccable. The Bishops are not Impeccable. The Priests are not Impeccable. And we as Catholics are most certainly not Impeccable. Abuses occur. They’re unfortunate. They certainly need to be addressed. But they are not a failure of the Church or her Teaching. They are a failure of the implementation (by some people) of that Teaching. (And/Or they’re a failure of a fallen human being. But then again, Jesus’ disciples weren’t impeccable either. One betrayed him. Another denied him three times. And yet the one who denied him was still given the keys to the kingdom and the job of leading the Church.) Luther chose to leave the Church. Calvin chose to leave the Church. But this need not have been. We need not have lost our unity - that thing which seems to be so important to Jesus here. And as the many reformers in the church have shown, one can correct the Church’s practice and not jump off the ship. …
http://lordwhatsmymotivation.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wabbit-season.jpg

Found the second passage you quoted, Doc.
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

–Jesus (John 17:9-11)
I think it was Augustine who said this:
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

If we can accept that he was correct, then we can accept that it’s OK to agree to disagree about the non-essential things. We can (and perhaps even should) debate them vigorously, and then go out for pizza afterword. However, when it comes to essentials, that’s a different story. We can (and perhaps should) part company over these essential doctrines.

That’s what Protestants tell me was Luther’s motivation. What was intended to be a Catholic Reformation became a Protestant Reformation when it became clear that he and other Protestants must part company due to disagreements over essential doctrines.

Just what the essentials are, i have some idea. What i should believe about some of them, i’m trying to figure out. But we should not be unified for the sake of unity. We should be unified in the truth and in love, don’t you think?

Doc:

If you are not too busy, i’d sure like to have you make a quick reply whenever you are able. The parts of Gilligan, Skipper, Mr. Howel, and the Professor are taken, but we’re still looking for someone to play the parts of Ginger, Mary Ann, or Lovey (personally, i think you’d make a great Ginger)!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Questions thus far:

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

Q.1b.

When Jesus said, in Matthew 16:18,
“I tell you that you are Peter, and on
this rock I will build my church”
was He trying to be ambiguous?

---

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

Q.2b.

Do Christ’s words in Matthew 16:18 make it easy
for others to get the wrong idea about an important
doctrine regarding His church (the doctrine of
the papacy)?

---

http://www.123facts.com/images/quizes/main/1202174238-id3921-mid

**Q.3.

**Was Jesus’ lack of clarity in Matthew 16:18
an act of mercy shown to those who would
not believe the truth?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

The leadership continued by way of the priesthood. Problems of course did arise with Israel falling into idolatry. The old covenant had its failures. The old is only foreshadowing of the good things to come in the new covenant. Jesus makes it clear in the gospel that even though there was failure and sin that the Jews were to do what their leaders told them to do. He even says this in Matthew 23:1-3:

THEN SAID Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
The teaching authority and the apparent correctness of the teaching is interesting and is tied to what Jesus refers to in Jewish tradition as “Moses’ seat.” The modern parallel to this in the Catholic Church is what we refer to as the chair of Peter.

Another interesting NT reference to the authority and prophetic teaching of the Jewish high priest is found in John 11:49-53 where it says:

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.
We learn a number of things about the Jews and the old covenant from all of this. These passages tell us the following:

1. The authority of Moses continued and was passed on to those that sat upon Moses’ seat.
2. The priesthood is the focus of authority and there is a hierarchy.
3. The high priest, even though quite sinful, could still be a voice of prophecy to the people.
4. The things of the old covenant are but shadows of the good things to come.
5. The implications for the NT Church are clear in scripture and are carried out in historical practice subsequent to Pentecost.

I hope this helps.

Pax:

To summarize where i am at this point in the evolution of my thinking, i’d say this: What i’m asking is what evidence there is to support the institution of the papacy. Is it something that is commanded by Christ in Sacred Scripture, or is it a tradition that developed after the closing of the Canon? You and others, Pax, appear to suggest it is supported by both. You say that Matthew 16:18, which says this,

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
is correctly translated this way:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [you]** this rock I will build **[the papacy of] **my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

But i’m wondering whether a rock a papacy makes. For Abraham and Moses were rocks (or foundations) of the Jewish faith, but nothing like the papacy succeeded them. Now, i’m no longer questioning whether Peter is the rock on which Christ built (or began) His church. I’m questioning whether Peter is the rock on which Christ built the papacy.

(Please see my next reply.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

And the next question:

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

**Q.4.

**Does a rock a papacy make?

(That is, what evidence is there to support
the institution of the papacy? Is it something
commanded by Christ in Sacred Scripture,
or is it a tradition developed after the closing
of the Canon?)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

The leadership continued by way of the priesthood. Problems of course did arise with Israel falling into idolatry. The old covenant had its failures. The old is only foreshadowing of the good things to come in the new covenant. Jesus makes it clear in the gospel that even though there was failure and sin that the Jews were to do what their leaders told them to do. He even says this in Matthew 23:1-3:

The leadership continued by way of the priesthood. Problems of course did arise with Israel falling into idolatry. The old covenant had its failures. The old is only foreshadowing of the good things to come in the new covenant. Jesus makes it clear in the gospel that even though there was failure and sin that the Jews were to do what their leaders told them to do. He even says this in Matthew 23:1-3:
THEN SAID Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

The teaching authority and the apparent correctness of the teaching is interesting and is tied to what Jesus refers to in Jewish tradition as “Moses’ seat.” The modern parallel to this in the Catholic Church is what we refer to as the chair of Peter.

Pax:

Your reply to the premise that nothing like a papacy succeeded Abraham and Moses is that Jesus said the Sadducees claimed to sit in the seat of Moses. For me, the question i should answer is whether they were given that seat by God, or whether they made an illegitimate claim to that seat. Please allow me to quote an expert in the Jewish faith Nathan Ausubel once again:
The appointment of the High Priest and other chief priests was often motivated by political considerations, and was of doubtful moral or Scriptural legality.

(The Book of Jewish Knowledge, page 356)
One reason i agree with Ausubel is that the Sacred Scriptures record that the Judges, rather than the priests, were God’s rulers on earth. Rather than being successors of Moses and High Priests, these Judges were individuals, hand-picked by God, to speak for Him and to lead His people in times of crisis. Some were priests, such as Samuel, but others were not, such as Samson (a Nazarite), Gideon (a farmer) and King David (a shepherd). When a Judge completed the task God set for him, often no other Judge was appointed to take his place. So, there was no continuous succession of priests following Moses. Following the Judges were the Prophets, who God chose as His spokespeople to reveal His will to the Jewish people. Perhaps this is why the Sadducees rejected the historic and prophetic writings, and accepted only the works of Moses as Sacred Scripture? For, the Scriptures following those authored by Moses brought into question their right to rule as God’s representatives on earth.

But perhaps i’m wrong. Perhaps the High Priests were God’s “popes” prior to Peter. Please tell me, Pax, what is it that qualifies someone to be a Pope?

 

[utunumsint]

Pax:

Your reply to the premise that nothing like a papacy succeeded Abraham and Moses is that Jesus said the Sadducees claimed to sit in the seat of Moses. For me, the question i should answer is whether they were given that seat by God, or whether they made an illegitimate claim to that seat.

I believe that the Sadducees traced the justification for their authority from this passage (the Sadducees tracing their leneage to the Zadokite clan of the levites).

Ezerkiel 40: 45 He said to me, "This chamber which faces south is for the priests who have charge of the temple, 46 6 and the chamber which faces north is for the priests who have charge of the altar. These are the Zadokites, the only Levites who may come near to minister to the LORD."

and

Ezekiel 44 15 As for the levitical priests, however, the Zadokites who cared for my sanctuary when the Israelites strayed from me, they shall draw near me to minister to me, and they shall stand before me to offer me fat and blood, says the Lord GOD. 16 It is they who shall enter my sanctuary, they who shall approach my table to minister to me, and they who shall carry out my service. 17 Whenever they enter the gates of the inner court, they shall wear linen garments; they shall not put on anything woolen when they minister at the gates of the inner court or within the temple. 18 They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen drawers on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causes sweat. 19 When they are to go out to the people in the outer court, they shall take off the garments in which they ministered and leave them in the chambers of the sanctuary, putting on other garments; thus they will not transmit holiness to the people with their garments. 20 They shall not shave their heads nor let their hair hang loose, but they shall keep their hair carefully trimmed. 21 No priest shall drink wine when he is to enter the inner court. 22 They shall not take for their wives either widows or divorced women, but only virgins of the race of Israel; however, they may marry women who are the widows of priests. **23 They shall teach my people to distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and make known to them the difference between the clean and the unclean.
24 In capital cases they shall stand as judges, judging them according to my decrees. They shall observe my laws and statutes on all my festivals, and keep my sabbaths holy. **
25 They shall not make themselves unclean by coming near any dead person, unless it be their father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or maiden sister; for these they may make themselves unclean.

The above quotes are why the Saducees were given such exclusive control over the temple.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

But Professor, there is a BIG difference between the disagreements the non-Christian cults have with Catholicism, and the disagreements many Protestants have with Catholicism. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others claim that the Bible is in error, and that their own religious texts are more accurate and, thus, more authoritative. One common example:

Ask a JW and a Mormon about this text:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(John 1:1)

The Mormon will tell you that the Bible is in error, and that Jesus is not God, but the spirit brother of Lucifer. He’d encourage you to read the Book of Mormon, which has not been transmitted in error, as the Bible has.

The JW will tell you that the Bible is translated in error, and that Jesus is not God, but Michael the Arc Angel. He’d encourage you to read the Bible published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which correctly translates the text, “… and the word was a god.”

You see, the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God, and that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So, these non-Christian cults must reject the biblical text. Many Protestants, however, accept the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, because the Bible is so clear on this point, and they accept the biblical text as authoritative.

The difference between this example, and the current topic of discussion, is that the Bible is not so clear on the establishment of the papacy. Unlike John 1:1, Matthew 16:18 is worded in such a way as to be open to different interpretations. The disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is NOT over the reliability of the New Testament text, but over the meaning of the New Testament text.

I cannot agree with this assessment because of historical reasons. Arius was a Catholic priest who was disciplined by his bishop for his interpretation of John 1:1 to name only a few. He postulated that Jesus was a creature and not God. He accepted all the same scriptures as the church does, and in fact there were many heretics present at the council of Nicea, including Eusebius, the father of church history, who is often called a semi-Arian.

Earlier than that, there were issues in the early 200s where Sabellius was claiming that there was not three persons in the Godhead, but only one God who took on three different masks. But the masks were not real. God was only pretending. This is a form of modalism, another Trinitarian heresy. Sabellius got in trouble with the current pope, but so did Hippolitus, who reacted so strongly against Sabellius, that the pope accused him of Ditheism (he didn’t mention the holy spirit much, but focused more on the Father and Son).

Then a little later in the third century (circa 270) Dyonisus, bishop of Alexandria, again made statements that were very close to what Arius said in later years, and again he was chastised by the bishop of Rome and recanted his views, explaining clearly his adherence to Trinitarian doctrine.

All of this and I haven’t even started on the Christological issues. They were certainly not self evident and these people did share the same scripture.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, Professor. Whether or not Abraham is called a rock, a pillar, or a foundation of the Jewish faith, he certainly is considered to be one. The same might be said of Moses.

So, i’m wondering this: Abraham and Moses were rocks, or pillars, of the Jewish faith, but God did not create any succession of leadership after them. After Abraham, came Isaac, and then Jacob, and then 12 sons of Jacob, none of which continued as God’s representative on earth. After Moses, came Joshua, and then after the Jewish people conquered much of their enemies and settled in the promised land, no leader rose up after Joshua to continue as God’s representative on earth. What followed these men of God was nothing like the perpetual papacy that followed Peter, don’t you agree?

God did not promise this to Abraham, but he did make a covenant with Abraham about his seed, and that he would make of him a great nation. So in a sense, Israel sprung out of Abraham, and succeeded him.

As for Moses, he was a levite, and as I’ve shown, members of his tribe, namely Zadok, were made hight priests of the temple during the time of David. In fact Zadok was co-highpriest with Abinadabe who sided with Absalom during the revolte, and so Zadok became sole high priest. His office was confirmed during the time of Solomon. If you read Chronicles, the line of Zadok can be traced all the way to the exile. And if you refer to the readings I provided you from Ezekiel, their position as high priest and judges of Isreal was confirmed by God himself, and also by Jesus who mentions that they hold the seat of Moses.

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

When asked about the issue which is presently focused, here were my :twocents: back in post 179, if they can still be useful.

*Thanks, P7. Please tell me how you would finish these sentences:

Peter is the the papacy as Moses is to ______________ .

or

Peter is to the papacy as Abraham is to _______________ .*

*Dear Soc,

i see you are more interested in the issue of succession now, than on petrine primacy as such, wich was what i was dealing with specifically. Am I getting your attitude, as perceivable through this question of yours ?

Moses was a prophet, the greatest one ever in Israel. Did he have a line of successors as “greatest prophets ever” ? Did the other prophets including John Baptists have a line of successors ? You and I would answer with a “NO”, I guess.
Why don’t propehts have lines of successors ?
Because theirs is not an office.

Abraham was the father of the believers ? is there a line of succession of “fathers of the believers”. No, I suppose we agree. Is being **father of the believers **an office ? I don’t think so . Do you ?

Did Aaron receive an office ? Yes, he did, we likely agree.
Did he have a line of successors in this office ? Sure.

Back to us, now, if what above sounds reasonable.

Is “General Pastor of Jesus’ flock” an office ? Sure it is.
Should we expect this office could and should be passed ? *
Good evening to everybody.
P7

PS UT: compliments for your third child. When was she/he born ?.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Pneuma!

Timmy was born six weeks ago.

Thanks for asking.

By the way, how is your wife? Last I heard she had an accident?

God bless,
Ut