Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

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."

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

God bless,
Ut

Gee wiz, Professor!

The Sadducees (in Hebrew: Tzadokim) only considered the five books written by Moses as religiously authoritative. Since they rejected the authority of Ezekiel, how could they use his writings as justification for their office?



The greater the influence of the Rabbis, grew over the people, the more aroused the Sadducees became and the more opposed to them. Not the least among the reasons for their hostility was the fact that the immensely rich Temple treasury, which they controlled, was being placed in jeopardy by the new teachings. Thus they were precipitated into an uncompromising war against the Pharisees.

One of the most crucial areas of conflict lay in doctrinal differences. The Sadducees represented themselves to be uncompromising champions of Mosaic Law; the teachings of the Pharisees they ridiculed as heresies. Because they tightly confined all religious authority within the texts of the Five Books of Moses, they carried on a continuous and acrimonious debate with the Pharisees, especially over the teachings by the latter on immortality and resurrection. The Sadducees were implacably opposed to the alien beliefs expressed by the Pharisees. They denounced them as being in violation of the teachings of Moses, for nowhere in the Torah, they averred–and correctly so–was there any authority of them.

(Nathan Ausubel, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, page 385)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Are you saying that Arius believed Jesus was a god, and not the God?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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 ?.

But, Mr. Howel. I am trying to consider the meaning and implications of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18:

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.
The Catholic argument that some (and perhaps you, too) are making goes something like this:

a. Jesus said Peter is the rock on whom He would build His church.

b. Peter was the first of many popes.

Therefore,

1. When Jesus called Peter the rock, He was commanding the creation of the papacy.

The counter argument is this:

a. Jesus said Peter is the rock on whom He would build His church.

c. Abraham was a rock on whom God built the Jewish religion.

d. Moses was a rock on whom God built the Jewish religion.

e. There is nothing like a papacy that succeeded Abraham and Moses in the Old Testament.

Therefore,

1b. When Jesus called Peter the rock, He was affirming his important role in establishing His church, but in no way was He commanding the creation of a papacy.

---

But regarding Aaron, is he anywhere in the Old Testament called a rock, or a pillar, or a foundation of the Jewish religion?

 

[utunumsint]

Gee wiz, Professor!

The Sadducees (in Hebrew: Tzadokim) only considered the five books written by Moses as religiously authoritative. Since they rejected the authority of Ezekiel, how could they use his writings as justification for their office?

Good point Gilligan.

That being said, there were a lot of extra biblical writings that the Pharisee accepted around the time of Jesus, including a fair number of apocaliptic writings. It could be that the Sadducees, being the ones in charge of temple worship, wanted to set some limits on the number of authoritative documents out there in order to ease their teaching burden.

Besides, there is always the possibility that Ezekiel was simply describing the status quo in his prophecies, since the Zadokite clan had always been those in charge of temple worship, as shown in Chronicles. The Sadducees, would therefore not have required Ezekiel’s prophecy to solidify their claim to the highpriesthood.

The greater the influence of the Rabbis, grew over the people, the more aroused the Sadducees became and the more opposed to them. Not the least among the reasons for their hostility was the fact that the immensely rich Temple treasury, which they controlled, was being placed in jeopardy by the new teachings. Thus they were precipitated into an uncompromising war against the Pharisees.

Does he provide any evidence or citations for this war? Its interesting because I’ve read Josephus’ works, and I can’t really find anything that corresponds to his description. Certainly no open warfare.

One of the most crucial areas of conflict lay in doctrinal differences. The Sadducees represented themselves to be uncompromising champions of Mosaic Law; the teachings of the Pharisees they ridiculed as heresies. Because they tightly confined all religious authority within the texts of the Five Books of Moses, they carried on a continuous and acrimonious debate with the Pharisees, especially over the teachings by the latter on immortality and resurrection. The Sadducees were implacably opposed to the alien beliefs expressed by the Pharisees. They denounced them as being in violation of the teachings of Moses, for nowhere in the Torah, they averred–and correctly so–was there any authority of them.

(Nathan Ausubel, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, page 385)

Very interesting. Again though, Nathan provides no citations…

A few questions:

1-In the Sanherdrin, during the time of Jesus, were there Pharisees included among their number?
2-Did any of the pharisee denounce the high priest Annanias?
3-For that matter, is there any record of any pharisee boycotting the temple sacrifices offered by the high priests in the New Testament?
4-Is there any record of the Pharisees denouncing the Saduccees authority at all?

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Are you saying that Arius believed Jesus was a god, and not the God?

Arius believe that Jesus was a lesser God, and the Holy Spirit was lesser than both Jesus and the Father to the point of calling both Jesus and the Holy Spirit creations of the Father.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Just so I don’t seem completely biased, here is a revealing quotations from Josephus:

Antiquities Book 18 chapter 1, paragraph 4.
But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; **for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. **

This would explain why there are so many pharisee among the sanhedrin in the Gospel accounts, and why the two parties tolerate each other. And yet the people always choose Sadducees for magistrates, so much so that they are forced into this role. Most likely because of their Zadokite lineage.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Arius believe that Jesus was a lesser God, and the Holy Spirit was lesser than both Jesus and the Father to the point of calling both Jesus and the Holy Spirit creations of the Father.

God bless,
Ut

I don’t see how the grammar of John 1:1, 14 allows for Arius’ belief, do you?In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (a) and the Word was God.** (b)** … The Word became flesh** (c) **and made his dwelling among us. …
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%201:1,%2014;&version=31;

Clearly the Word …
a. Is with God.

and

b. Is God.

and

c. Took on human flesh.

I see no ambiguity in the English translation of the words, do you? The only way i can see to misinterpret the passage is to mistranslate the passage, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses did:In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. … So the Word became flesh and resided among us …

watchtower.org/bible/joh/chapter_001.htm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Just so I don’t seem completely biased, here is a revealing quotations from Josephus:

This would explain why there are so many pharisee among the sanhedrin in the Gospel accounts, and why the two parties tolerate each other. And yet the people always choose Sadducees for magistrates, so much so that they are forced into this role. Most likely because of their Zadokite lineage.

God bless,
Ut

Who has political power in Afghanistan, today? Those accepted by the occupying United States military forces and their collaborators, or those backed by the Taliban?

 

[utunumsint]

I don’t see how the grammar of John 1:1, 14 allows for Arius’ belief, do you?In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (a) and the Word was God.** (b)** … The Word became flesh** (c) **and made his dwelling among us. …
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%201:1,%2014;&version=31;

Clearly the Word …
a. Is with God.

and

b. Is God.

and

c. Took on human flesh.

I see no ambiguity in the English translation of the words, do you? The only way i can see to misinterpret the passage is to mistranslate the passage, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses did:In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. … So the Word became flesh and resided among us …

watchtower.org/bible/joh/chapter_001.htm

History shows that it wasn’t so simple. Especially given that both Sabellius and Arius were Greek speakers.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

History shows that it wasn’t so simple. Especially given that both Sabellius and Arius were Greek speakers.

God bless,
Ut

English grammar shows it’s so simple a child can understand. Are the original Greek MSS not so clear?

 

[utunumsint]

Who has political power in Afghanistan, today? Those accepted by the occupying United States military forces and their collaborators, or those backed by the Taliban?

But the High Priest Zadok was appointed by David. And the Zadokites were only allowed to return to Jersulam because of the good will of Cyrus.

All priests that served at the temple had to show Aaronic lineage. For example, in Luke 1 you have

5 In the days of Herod, King of Judea, 3 there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

And we have it from Josephus that the Hasmonean High Priests could trace their lineage back to Aaron through Phineas, Aaron’s grandson. Even the toadies of Herod the Great had to be able to demonstrate their Aaronic priesthood.

This was really important for the people. All you have to do is look at the book of Hebrews to see how important the office of high priest had been for Jews. In fact it is an indispensable part of our theological understanding of Christ, which just adds to their legitimacy.

Anyway, why we are talking about this again. Oh yeah, your contention is that they did not excercise a legitimate ministry and are therefore not legitimate examples of papal succession.

Here is a list of the high priests starting from Aaron.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

English grammar shows it’s so simple a child can understand. Are the original Greek MSS not so clear?

You assume and inject a great deal of meaning into these words. Does it show explicitly that Jesus is coeternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit? It doesn’t even mention the Holy Spirit. Does it say anything about the nature of the Godhead, and how the persons of the Holy Spirit and the Father are differentiated from the Son, even though they share the same nature? Does it say anything about what person of the Holy Trinity actual became flesh? I mean it only says the Word. Does that mean that God the Father became flesh, as well as the Holy Spirit?

These questions, and many more were debated over five or six hundred years. They were not simple.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You assume and inject a great deal of meaning into these words. Does it show explicitly that Jesus is coeternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit? It doesn’t even mention the Holy Spirit. Does it say anything about the nature of the Godhead, and how the persons of the Holy Spirit and the Father are differentiated from the Son, even though they share the same nature? Does it say anything about what person of the Holy Trinity actual became flesh? I mean it only says the Word. Does that mean that God the Father became flesh, as well as the Holy Spirit?

These questions, and many more were debated over five or six hundred years. They were not simple.

God bless,
Ut

Gee wiz, Professor! The focus of this specific question is whether some passages of the Bible are more clear than others, or whether they are all equally ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. I contend that some passages are more clear than others, such as John 1:1. You appear to disagree.

Regarding your point about early heresies, i can see how a partisan of Sabellianism (AKA Modalism)–who says that God takes on different forms, or modes–might be fooled into thinking that John 1:1 teaches the idea. Yet the wider context clears up the ambiguity, for Matthew writes:
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

(Matthew 3:16-17)
The question i’d pose to a Sabellian (such as a Oneness Pentecostal) is this: “If God exists in only one form at a time, how could the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit all be present at the same moment in time?”

Thus, the wider context of the New Testament clears up any apparent ambiguity.

---

Regarding the partisans of Arianism, such as the first Christian Emperor Constantius II, i’d say they have to distort the understanding of John 1, to say that God does not mean the God, but another God besides the eternal God. In effect, rather than take the plain meaning of the text, they give it a meaning closer to that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Ask an Arian whether John 1:1 means this,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

or this,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

he’d say the latter is a clearer meaning of the text. In other words, he’d claim that John used poor grammar and should have wrote ho theos (a god) instead of theos (God). It’s the same argument of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They are, essentially, Neo-Arians.

Thus, it’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s a matter of transmission. The Arians, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, must claim that John (or those copying his gospel) got it wrong.

---

For these reasons, i see no need to say that the Bible is ambiguous regarding the teaching of the Trinity. But do you still disagree?

 

[pneuma07]

But, Mr. Howel. I am trying to consider the meaning and implications of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18:

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.
The Catholic argument that some (and perhaps you, too) are making goes something like this:

a. Jesus said Peter is the rock on whom He would build His church.

b. Peter was the first of many popes.

Therefore,

1. When Jesus called Peter the rock, He was commanding the creation of the papacy.

The counter argument is this:

a. Jesus said Peter is the rock on whom He would build His church.

c. Abraham was a rock on whom God built the Jewish religion.

d. Moses was a rock on whom God built the Jewish religion.

e. There is nothing like a papacy that succeeded Abraham and Moses in the Old Testament.

Therefore,

1b. When Jesus called Peter the rock, He was affirming his important role in establishing His church, but in no way was He commanding the creation of a papacy.

---

But regarding Aaron, is he anywhere in the Old Testament called a rock, or a pillar, or a foundation of the Jewish religion?

Dear Soc,

Hoping I get the gist of the objection the thread is dealing with, and in order to try to assess it, I ‘m going … to expand it.

We know Paul says in Ephesians 2
*19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; *

Now, why haven’t we “successors of prophets” the way we have successors of the Apostles and of their head ( in the catholic understanding, that is) ?

That becomes quite understandable IMHO, considering the nature itself of the task or role of “prophet”.
I mean, either you’re a prophet, or you’re not. If I came here to tell you “You know, I am a successor of prophets along this genealogy”, that would be rather curious. Wouldn’t it ?
And having a “college of the successors of the prophets” could even enter the realm of the preposterous.

If you are more or less with me on this, we can see why we can suppose Abraham or Moses were foundations without having a line of succession. That’s to say, for the nature itself of the role this being foundations/rocks of theirs had produced in each of them.
Let’s think of that and ask ourselves: does succession lines of “greatest prophets in the OT”, or of “fathers of the believers” make sense ?
On the other hand: can according to you, a priori, a line of general pastors of Jesus’ flock make sense, once acknowledged there was one appointed by the Lord ?

Or does the motivation for having a person who confirms his brethen, who feeds Jesus’ sheep ( which BTW is what I see B16 is doing in our time … ) end after the very first generation of Christians ? Why ?

Does what above make sense ?

(As for Aaron, whether we want to consider him a foundation or what else, his case does show that the person selected in the OT to serve as the highest among God’s ministers, does precisely have a succession line).

P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

Hoping I get the gist of the objection the thread is dealing with, and in order to try to assess it, I ‘m going … to expand it.

We know Paul says in Ephesians 2
*19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; *
*20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; *

Now, why haven’t we “successors of prophets” the way we have successors of the Apostles and of their head ( in the catholic understanding, that is) ?

That becomes quite understandable IMHO, considering the nature itself of the task or role of “prophet”.
I mean, either you’re a prophet, or you’re not. If I came here to tell you “You know, I am a successor of prophets along this genealogy”, that would be rather curious. Wouldn’t it ?
And having a “college of the successors of the prophets” could even enter the realm of the preposterous.

If you are more or less with me on this, we can see why we can suppose Abraham or Moses were foundations without having a line of succession. That’s to say, for the nature itself of the role this being foundations/rocks of theirs had produced in each of them.
Let’s think of that and ask ourselves: does succession lines of “greatest prophets in the OT”, or of “fathers of the believers” make sense ?
On the other hand: can according to you, a priori, a line of general pastors of Jesus’ flock make sense, once acknowledged there was one appointed by the Lord ?

Or does the motivation for having a person who confirms his brethen, who feeds Jesus’ sheep ( which BTW is what I see B16 is doing in our time … ) end after the very first generation of Christians ? Why ?

Does what above make sense ?

(As for Aaron, whether we want to consider him a foundation or what else, his case does show that the person selected in the OT to serve as the highest among God’s ministers, does precisely have a succession line).

P7

"I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, ‘What am I saying?’ For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to ‘look fore and aft’ in the words of aforesaid Homer.

(Socrates, Cratylus, 428)

“What am i saying?” is what i, like Socrates, find myself now saying. For after doing a thorough search, i find no mention in the Old Testament of either Abraham or Moses or Aaron being called rocks, pillars, or foundations. Moses does strike a rock, but that rock was symbolic of Christ. Moses does met with a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, but that pillar was God. The LORD was the foundation on which Moses stood, rather than the foundation on which the Jewish religion stands.

So, i wonder if this idea of a man appointed by God to be a rock, a pillar, a foundation was something completely new. I wonder if the idea had never been considered before our Lord said to Peter:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Matthew 16:18)

And i find it curious that there was a kind of democratic idea of a separation of powers in the Old Testament. The Judges, being kinds of commanders in chief, were heads of the military something akin to a modern President. The Priests, being kinds of representatives of to the people, were something like modern Congressmen. The Prophets, being spokesmen for God, were a little like our Supreme Court Justices. Each had different purpose and different power, but none had absolute power. It seems that the Pope has the power to be God’s spokesman, the power to minister to the people, and the power to lead the forces of good in battle against those of evil (albeit in spiritual, rather than material, warfare).

So, are you Mr. Howel thinking, like me, Gilliagan, that there is no precedent in the Old Testament for the papacy? Are you thinking that Jesus was giving Peter a new command when He said he was the rock?

 

[pneuma07]

"I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, ‘What am I saying?’ For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to ‘look fore and aft’ in the words of aforesaid Homer.

(Socrates, Cratylus, 428)

“What am i saying?” is what i, like Socrates, find myself now saying. For after doing a thorough search, i find no mention in the Old Testament of either Abraham or Moses or Aaron being called rocks, pillars, or foundations. Moses does strike a rock, but that rock was symbolic of Christ. Moses does met with a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, but that pillar was God. The LORD was the foundation on which Moses stood, rather than the foundation on which the Jewish religion stands.

So, i wonder if this idea of a man appointed by God to be a rock, a pillar, a foundation was something completely new. I wonder if the idea had never been considered before our Lord said to Peter:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Matthew 16:18)

And i find it curious that there was a kind of democratic idea of a separation of powers in the Old Testament. The Judges, being kinds of commanders in chief, were heads of the military something akin to a modern President. The Priests, being kinds of representatives of to the people, were something like modern Congressmen. The Prophets, being spokesmen for God, were a little like our Supreme Court Justices. Each had different purpose and different power, but none had absolute power. It seems that the Pope has the power to be God’s spokesman, the power to minister to the people, and the power to lead the forces of good in battle against those of evil (albeit in spiritual, rather than material, warfare).

So, are you Mr. Howel thinking, like me, Gilliagan, that there is no precedent in the Old Testament for the papacy? Are you thinking that Jesus was giving Peter a new command when He said he was the rock?

Dear Soc,

*Man is a mere phantom as he goes to and fro: He bustles about, but only in vain; *( Pslam 36) , comes to mind now, after answering …on the supposition that you suppose Abraham and Moses to be foundations.
Anyway, , I do hope the previous post makes some sense for our discussion and on the absence of "successors of the prophets. "

---

Do you believe that a pope has “absolute power” ?
Compare please a pope and a reformer, or any founder of a new faith community. Who, according to you, claims ( explicitly OR implicilty, that is) more power, who is “absolutus”, unbound ?
(BTW does the Church claim that the pope is a prophet ?)

are you Mr. Howel thinking, like me, Gilliagan, that there is no precedent in the Old Testament for the papacy?

I’d say that the papacy was a new institution with OT precedents.

• Aaronite high priesthhod is one. ( Although our High Priest is Jesus Himself, as we know from Hebrews)
• The position of prime minister of the King is a second one.

You could say we have now the earthly prime minister of our High Priest and King.
You will note both offices used to have succession lines… .

Are you thinking that Jesus was giving Peter a new command when He said he was the rock?

I am thinking no human being ever received such solemn words with such a formidable task as Simon Peter did in the framework of his unique relationship with the Incarnated Logos, Who ( I suppose) is the source of any .legitimate authority within Christianity.

Bless you
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

*Man is a mere phantom as he goes to and fro: He bustles about, but only in vain; *( Pslam 36) , comes to mind now, after answering …on the supposition that you suppose Abraham and Moses to be foundations. …

Good Psalm, that.
Psalm 39

**For the director of music. For Jeduthun. A psalm of David. **

1 I said, “I will watch my ways
and keep my tongue from sin;
I will put a muzzle on my mouth
as long as the wicked are in my presence.”

2 But when I was silent and still,
not even saying anything good,
my anguish increased.
3 My heart grew hot within me,
and as I meditated, the fire burned;
then I spoke with my tongue:
4 "Show me, O LORD, my life’s end
and the number of my days;
let me know how fleeting is my life.
5 You have made my days a mere handbreadth;
the span of my years is as nothing before you.
Each man’s life is but a breath.
Selah
6 Man is a mere phantom as he goes to and fro:
He bustles about, but only in vain;
he heaps up wealth, not knowing who will get it.
7 "But now, Lord, what do I look for?
My hope is in you.
8 Save me from all my transgressions;
do not make me the scorn of fools.
9 I was silent; I would not open my mouth,
for you are the one who has done this.
10 Remove your scourge from me;
I am overcome by the blow of your hand.
11 You rebuke and discipline men for their sin;
you consume their wealth like a moth—
each man is but a breath.
Selah
12 “Hear my prayer, O LORD,
listen to my cry for help;
be not deaf to my weeping.
For I dwell with you as an alien,
a stranger, as all my fathers were.
13 Look away from me, that I may rejoice again
before I depart and am no more.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
are you Mr. Howel thinking, like me, Gilliagan, that there is no precedent in the Old Testament for the papacy?
I’d say that the papacy was a new institution with OT precedents.

• Aaronite high priesthhod is one. ( Although our High Priest is Jesus Himself, as we know from Hebrews)
• The position of prime minister of the King is a second one.

You could say we have now the earthly prime minister of our High Priest and King.
You will note both offices used to have succession lines… .
…

When the Pharisee rabbis confronted Jesus regarding the teachings about divorce, asking why did God allow divorce if it was wrong, Jesus’ reply was this:
“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

(Matthew 19:8)

The point He was making: What God allows is not always what He wants.

---

The same is true of the ancient Jewish Kings, for Samuel said:
6 Then Samuel said to the people, "It is the LORD who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your forefathers up out of Egypt. 7 Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence before the LORD as to all the righteous acts performed by the LORD for you and your fathers.
8 "After Jacob entered Egypt, they cried to the LORD for help, and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your forefathers out of Egypt and settled them in this place.
9 "But they forgot the LORD their God; so he sold them into the hand of Sisera, the commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hands of the Philistines and the king of Moab, who fought against them. 10 They cried out to the LORD and said, ‘We have sinned; we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtoreths. But now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve you.’ 11 Then the LORD sent Jerub-Baal, Barak, Jephthah and Samuel, and he delivered you from the hands of your enemies on every side, so that you lived securely.
12 "But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, ‘No, we want a king to rule over us’-even though the LORD your God was your king. 13 Now here is the king you have chosen, the one you asked for; see, the LORD has set a king over you. 14 If you fear the LORD and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the LORD your God-good! 15 But if you do not obey the LORD, and if you rebel against his commands, his hand will be against you, as it was against your fathers.
16 “Now then, stand still and see this great thing the LORD is about to do before your eyes! 17 Is it not wheat harvest now? I will call upon the LORD to send thunder and rain. And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of the LORD when you asked for a king.”
18 Then Samuel called upon the LORD, and that same day the LORD sent thunder and rain. So all the people stood in awe of the LORD and of Samuel. 19 The people all said to Samuel, “Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king.”

(1 Samuel 12)

According to the Prophet Samuel, what God allowed (that the Jewish people have a succession of kings) is not what God wanted. God’s desire was that they have Judges and prophets, like Samuel, whom He would appoint when needed. The people wanted a dynasty of kings, and they bear witness against themselves that such a desire was evil:
“Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king.”

---

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.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

http://grumpygamer.com/images/gilligan.jpg

Q.5.

Is the desire for a Pope evil?

(How do we know that what God allowed
–the papacy–is what God wanted?
How do we know that it is untrue that
the real reason God allowed a succession
of popes is because our hearts were hard?)

 

[Thing]

When the Pharisee rabbis confronted Jesus regarding the teachings about divorce, asking why did God allow divorce if it was wrong, Jesus’ reply was this:
“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

(Matthew 19:8)

The point He was making: What God allows is not always what He wants.

---

The same is true of the ancient Jewish Kings, for Samuel said:
6 Then Samuel said to the people, "It is the LORD who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your forefathers up out of Egypt. 7 Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence before the LORD as to all the righteous acts performed by the LORD for you and your fathers.
8 "After Jacob entered Egypt, they cried to the LORD for help, and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your forefathers out of Egypt and settled them in this place.
9 "But they forgot the LORD their God; so he sold them into the hand of Sisera, the commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hands of the Philistines and the king of Moab, who fought against them. 10 They cried out to the LORD and said, ‘We have sinned; we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtoreths. But now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve you.’ 11 Then the LORD sent Jerub-Baal, Barak, Jephthah and Samuel, and he delivered you from the hands of your enemies on every side, so that you lived securely.
12 "But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, ‘No, we want a king to rule over us’-even though the LORD your God was your king. 13 Now here is the king you have chosen, the one you asked for; see, the LORD has set a king over you. 14 If you fear the LORD and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the LORD your God-good! 15 But if you do not obey the LORD, and if you rebel against his commands, his hand will be against you, as it was against your fathers.
16 “Now then, stand still and see this great thing the LORD is about to do before your eyes! 17 Is it not wheat harvest now? I will call upon the LORD to send thunder and rain. And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of the LORD when you asked for a king.”
18 Then Samuel called upon the LORD, and that same day the LORD sent thunder and rain. So all the people stood in awe of the LORD and of Samuel. 19 The people all said to Samuel, “Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king.”

(1 Samuel 12)

According to the Prophet Samuel, what God allowed (that the Jewish people have a succession of kings) is not what God wanted. God’s desire was that they have Judges and prophets, like Samuel, whom He would appoint when needed. The people wanted a dynasty of kings, and they bear witness against themselves that such a desire was evil:
“Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king.”

---

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.”

24 And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. 25 And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent.

26 But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. 27 For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth: …

…31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

This very topic came up here; who was to be the greatest, or the leader. And leader there was to be as Jesus said here, and he that is the leader, as he that serveth.

Then Jesus almost immediately turns to address Peter and tells him that He has prayed for him and that he must ‘confirm thy brethern’.

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.