Prodigal's Isle

[michaelsmth626]

Comparing Joseph Smith’s use of Seer stones to find treasure or to translate the gold plates to St. Peter’s using the drawing of lots to decide between two viable candidates is a bit of a stretch.

The same can be said of draging the old covenant into the new.
Is this perhaps an indicator that Peter had not yet fully understood the new covenant? By resorting to the old?

In comparing all three Smith, Peter and as the Mormons refer to the stones as the umin and Thumin. The secular court called them seers stones it was a common ploy by some and believed by others that you could find the spirits that protected treasure buy using seers stones. Some people were taken in and lost money to the former that used it as a way to embezzle money.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds** I will remember no more.”[c]
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete.** Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ,

I think your very fine thread(pun intended) is a bit frayed and unfocused. Can you bring us back a stitch or two?

P.S. Broadband in now fully operational…that does not mean, however, that my communiques will contain any greater clarity or help.

 

[paul_c]

Please I’m the one pitting Apostles? The entire foundation of the CC is based on pitting one Apostle against the others and against all other churches right up the the chair of Peter in Rome. The post on this site that reflect Peters exclusive inherited office is endless. So please don’t accuse me of saying I follow Paul when you clearly profess Peter as the backbone of authority for the CC. As I mentioned Paul did not support such childish games. 1 Cor 1-10 and 3-4. Certainly the concept was not accepted by the NT Apostles.

We talk about Peter’s leadership because it is the truth. The apostles weren’t competing with each other for leadership. That was defined by Christ. And the leaders among them were the servants of all. Remember, this whole discussion started because yo and Socrates came up with the theory that Peter was in error because he named Matthias as Judas’ replacement and not Paul, who you think is more worthy. This puts you in the position of both Second guessing Peter and also judging the relative worth of two apostles.

I did make many statements about their only being 12 Apostles. That from the Resurrected Christ Paul was chosen. Paul even says that he layed a foundation on Christ. Wow is that part of the picture I was sharing with Socrates? In the english it says THE not A as I just mentioned, but I respect the words he spoke before the statement, about following or elevating a single Apostle.

Paul knew that Christians should worship Christ, not the earthly leaders. No Catholic would disagree with that.

Looking back we see the 12 tribes looking into the future, John described the wall surrounding the new Jerusalem it contained the 12 names of the Apostles on its foundation just as Paul said above. Do you think Jesus chose 12 simply because it struck Him as a nice number? You asked me why John didn’t see himself in Rev, I replied that it is interesting that he never mentions people by name. But in the case of the New Jerusalem he sees both the 12 tribes and the 12 Apostles names. You dismiss that scripture as well as over looking Pauls statement [For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?]

Revelations is meant to be taken as Symbolism, not literally. When he says the 12 apostles names are written there, he is saying the the Apostolic Teaching is the foundation. And sure enough, there were 12 original Apostles. And numbers do have symbolic significance. Notice, though that he does not list the names of the Apostles. Nor does he mention the 12 tribes by name. Afterall, 10 of them apostasized and all trace of them has disappeared. Yet, we know that the Word incarnate came through the gates of Israel and that is the symbolic meant.

You may be the one thats not being sincere as you recently accused Socrates4Jesus of.

What did I say that seemed insincere?

You ask me why I don’t follow the 2000 year old church like that is some kind of proof of authenticity. The Apostles spoke frequently of apostates. I might just very well be catholic If I could see the knitted harmony of the scriptures reflected in its teachings, but I dont. I do see a very carefully knitted plan and message in the scriptures.

The scriptures you refer to ARE Catholic teaching, or at least a subset of it. It can’t be lost on you that Catholics wrote the New Testament (Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, James and Paul) and that other Catholics in council defined what books would make up the scripture, using the criteria that the contained books must be Apostolic and conform to Catholic Tradition. That Criteria insures that the Bible supports Catholic teaching. Where you see contradiction, is simply where you are interpreting scripture in a way not intended by the authors.

I just referenced Pauls foundation above. I also ask you is 12 an insignificant number in scripture. Paul was elected by Jesus Himself as an Apostle, in a single statement He passed the 12th mantel to Paul, the same Apostleship the others took 3 and half years to obtain, Paul suffered in blindness for 3 days, do you also think 3 days is an insignificant number? or is it implying something else? Are 3 days just a random number a fluke if so why is it mentioned? Why not say Paul suffered has affliction for a number of days?

Numbers have symbolic meaning in the Bible to be sure. But Jesus never declared Paul an apostle. This is what he says in Acts 9: 15-16:

15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites,
16 and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.”

You guys take that to mean that he was meant to be Judas’ replacement. Well it never says that . This is just your inference. And Judas had been replaced a couple of years earlier, at a time probably before Saul even had started his persecution of the Church. After all, Matthias was in place before Pentacost, when the church was founded. This is not to say that we don’t recognize Paul as an apostle. we do. We also recognize Barnabas as well (consistent with Acts 14:14).

You make it clear here what your motivation is, it’s not the same as Socrates4Jesus who carefully studies what was written. Perhaps you have more faith in what the CC says than discussing what the scriptures say. That is fine and well lets just say that, I dont consider that a derogatory statement towards the church ether, I could post many Catholics post here that say the bible is not complete or it requires a catholic interpreter. Disreguarding passages that apparently contradict CC teaching doesn’t convince me of the churches authenticity or infallibility. Someone looking for the continuity in scripture is not a fool or a dreamer. Instead threw people like yourself it becomes apparent that your teaching foundation and interpretation is based on supporting your church.

There are no bible passages that contradict CC teaching. The bible is a Catholic book, put together as a teaching tool to spread the Faith. We can demonstrate the correct interpretation for every scripture passage that supports the Catholic teachings that were intended by the Inspired authors. When you find an apparent contradiction, it is the result of an improper interpretation on your part. Because the Bible was written to teach Catholic teachings. Bring up the points, we will show you the continuity.

Our motivation on Catholic ANSWERS FORUM is to give CATHOLIC Answers to your questions. There is no hidden motivation. If you want a protestant view, their are other places to look…

 

[JRKH]

Your grabbing for straws Acts is the accepted sequential account.
Are you proposing that they received the Holy Spirit twice?
Or did one take place and not the other?
It follows by saying Tomas was not with them, would the Lord exclude him?
When Jesus did appear to Tomas it says nothing about the HS. Those three words seem strangely out of context don’t you think?

People a lot smarter than me call it the Quote; Johannine “great commission” Which serves as the culmination of the entire Gospels presentation of Jesus as the one sent from the Father, the Sent One has now become the sender. When Jesus breath on them and said receive the Holy Spirit it is best understood as a foretaste of what would happen when the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost; end Quote:

Their were not two accounts or two instances of receiving the Holy Spirit but their are 2 baptisms. One administer by men representing repentance and one entirely under the control of the Father and Son the giving of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me[a] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Frankly I expected this response from you and do not disagree with pretty much anything you say here, but the fact remains that Jesus DID, according to John, Breathe on them and invoke the Holy Spirit so there is evidence to support the idea that Peter was NOT acting “completely on his own” as you said in your previous post.
As to the issues raiesd by the account in Acts, it may well be that Jesus, while planting “the seed” of the Spirit in Johns account, left it to The Father to send the Paraclete in full force onto the Apostles and into the world.
In any event, since Jesus Promised the Apostles that He would not leave them orphans, and would be with them until the end of time, it seems unlikely that, when the selection of Mathias was made, Jesus was absent. After all, weren’t, “two or three gathered together in His name”? (Mt 18:20)

Peace
James

 

[michaelsmth626]

Frankly I expected this response from you and do not disagree with pretty much anything you say here, but the fact remains that Jesus DID, according to John, Breathe on them and invoke the Holy Spirit so there is evidence to support the idea that Peter was NOT acting “completely on his own” as you said in your previous post.
As to the issues raiesd by the account in Acts, it may well be that Jesus, while planting “the seed” of the Spirit in Johns account, left it to The Father to send the Paraclete in full force onto the Apostles and into the world.
In any event, since Jesus Promised the Apostles that He would not leave them orphans, and would be with them until the end of time, it seems unlikely that, when the selection of Mathias was made, Jesus was absent. After all, weren’t, “two or three gathered together in His name”? (Mt 18:20)

Peace
James

The highlighted part above. If they had not fully receive the Holy Spirit> I would like to try my hand at a parable. Would not Jesus be like a mother that left her pups hidden until she returned? One of the litter the boldest grew impatient wanting to hunt and explore on his own and we all know how dangerous that can be. He had left them but He encourage them told them to wait, wait for what? the Holy Spirit. To be weened from mother. But one jumped the gun and acted in his limited strength. I understand your catholic and what I say may not enhance all that is taught in your faith, but I offer you more than Peter is the leader as an explanation for scripture.

Sorry about the edit again But Peter must have prayed for an answer but Jesus did not answer. All that you said about being gathered together = no definite answer = no decision dont you think? The mother fox was off bringing home the Holy Spirit to give to her pups.

 

[paul_c]

The same can be said of draging the old covenant into the new.
Is this perhaps an indicator that Peter had not yet fully understood the new covenant? By resorting to the old?

In comparing all three Smith, Peter and as the Mormons refer to the stones as the umin and Thumin. The secular court called them seers stones it was a common ploy by some and believed by others that you could find the spirits that protected treasure buy using seers stones. Some people were taken in and lost money to the former that used it as a way to embezzle money.

You are making way to much of this, in my opinion. Peter, with the support of the other 10 apostles, chose this method to determine between Matthias and Joseph because they felt it would give them God’s Choice. You are free to debate whether they were correct in doing so, but there is no scriptural support that they were wrong. Your statement that Jesus personally called St. Paul to witness to him, is correct. But it is incorrect to say that this in any way calls Matthias elevation to Apostle improper.

 

[michaelsmth626]

You are making way to much of this, in my opinion. Peter, with the support of the other 10 apostles, chose this method to determine between Matthias and Joseph because they felt it would give them God’s Choice. You are free to debate whether they were correct in doing so, but there is no scriptural support that they were wrong. Your statement that Jesus personally called St. Paul to witness to him, is correct. But it is incorrect to say that this in any way calls Matthias elevation to Apostle improper.

So you ether did not see or you completely disagree with Hebrews chapter 8 and Jeremiah.
You must also disagree with Jesus in Mathew 23 also.
Did not the temple and the priest hood end?
mat 23-37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”[g]

 

[Pax]

So you ether did not see or you completely disagree with Hebrews chapter 8 and Jeremiah.
You must also disagree with Jesus in Mathew 23 also.
Did not the temple and the priest hood end?
mat 23-37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”[g]

michaelsmth626 in Christ,

The priesthood of the OT ended and was replaced by the priesthood of the NT. There is much to be said on this and on many other topics that you’ve touched upon. Unfortunately, none of these things are directly related to the discussion started by the OP. It would be beneficial for the sake of this thread to start other threads on the issues that concern you.

I mean no offense by any of this…it is only a practical matter and suggestion.

God bless.

 

[michaelsmth626]

You are making way to much of this, in my opinion. Peter, with the support of the other 10 apostles, chose this method to determine between Matthias and Joseph because they felt it would give them God’s Choice. You are free to debate whether they were correct in doing so, but there is no scriptural support that they were wrong. Your statement that Jesus personally called St. Paul to witness to him, is correct. But it is incorrect to say that this in any way calls Matthias elevation to Apostle improper.

What I think is that you dont have a full understanding of the New Covenant. Many people make the same mistake they dont understand the whole concept of the Holy Spirit and its absents from all believers in the OT. The relation ship to the law it absolute necessity in the OT was entirely replace with believing in Jesus ALONE. Mosses errored in the picture being give by God in the OT. The Rock that was ordered struck by God to Mosses the first time brought forth water, this was Jesus being struck for our sins. The second time God command Mosses to speak to the Rock but instead Mosses struck it twice. You see God intended to demonstrate that after the Rock was struck you need only to speak to the Rock to receive living water just as Jesus offered the woman at the well. “If you would have asked I would have given you living water”. God was so displeased with he forbid Mosses leading Israel into the promised land, across the Jordan.
Teaching that people receive the HS by simply being baptized is a great injustice IMO it is not true IMO and I have seen it lead to all sorts of emptiness in people that dont hear or search for the truth but simple want to go threw the drive threw church and grab a happy meal to go. They leave churches after going threw all the hoops to be as empty as they entered. Jesus Himself makes the distinction between water and Spirit baptism in the very first part of Acts and chapter 10 fully supports what Jesus said to the woman at the well and what God demonstrated in the desert to Israel by drawing water from stone living water from the Rock not Peter the rock.

Acts 1-He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.
Notice Jesus did not say He would send the Spirit but the Father, He also did not say that they would baptize with the Holy Spirit. I’ll say it again this is the Fathers and the Sons Baptismal Just as John the baptist said.

Acts 10-44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

Speak to the Rock
Num 20:7 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 8 “Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield its water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock, and give drink to the congregation and their animals.” 9 So Moses took the rod from before the LORD as He commanded him.
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank.
12 Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”
13 This was the water of Meribah,[a][Literally Contention] because the children of Israel contended with the LORD, and He was hallowed among them.

 

[michaelsmth626]

michaelsmth626 in Christ,

The priesthood of the OT ended and was replaced by the priesthood of the NT. There is much to be said on this and on many other topics that you’ve touched upon. Unfortunately, none of these things are directly related to the discussion started by the OP. It would be beneficial for the sake of this thread to start other threads on the issues that concern you.

I mean no offense by any of this…it is only a practical matter and suggestion.

God bless.

Point taken, the original poster is still active.
If Socrates4Jesus wants to address it I’ll be happy comply or even quit replying all together if that what he wants.

 

[pneuma07]

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/EC...5E1178BDA65AC1BDB194D5C4FE0FE6529E79887609E4F

James:

Thanks for trying to understand where i’m going with all this. I must admit, i don’t know myself! But i trust God will get me there in the end, as He always does (to my great astonishment!) with discussion threads like this.



I’m looking at the events of Acts, chapter 1 and trying to figure it all out. I’m wondering why Peter chose such an odd way to choose the next Apostle. Maybe you can help me understand that it’s really not as queer as it seems to be. :

Dear Soc,

      I am with Pax and the others who have already  expressed concern about  the focus of the thread.

Are you proposing that Matthias’ appointment is key in understanding the whole question of apostolic succession ’

I cannot get precisely why and what was wrong with that, whether the nomination method, or the fact in itself that they had to wait for a person called directly by Jesus, Who some years later appeared to Saul.

In any case even if the supposition that Peter and the Eleven made a mistake had substance 8 a big even if IMHO 8, that would not speak against apostolic succession.

After Pentecost we see people appointed by the apostolic authority. If we agree that the Eleven after Pentecost could not go on mistaking, that is the method.

Paul’s case is the exception. We know Jesus would not appear again in the years following Paul’s conversion, to personally appoint believers or persecuters to special ministers. 1 COR 15

*7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect*

Besides, everything which is added to Paul’s glory is added … to the Roman church.

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man:
says Ignatius in his letter to the Romans just after 100 AD.

Roman primacy was founded on petrine primacy … plus Paul 8 not plus Matthias 9, who preached and received his martyrdom there as well. This is often forgotten.

In Christ
P7

PS Please don’t forget post 684

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

There is on important fact that is left out of your search in these passages.
Peter had not yet received the Holy Spirit ether.
He was completely under his own power.

Thank you for pointing that out, Michael. But i’m not sure i understand. What does it mean to receive the Holy Spirit? And did Peter receive the Holy Spirit once, or more than once?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That depends on whether you want good advise or not.

I’m still trying to figure out how this relates to the book and links that I presented.

Peace
James

Perhaps it doesn’t. You be the judge, James! You told me that wise men are those who imitate God, and i agree. You’ve told me that i should seek the advice of such men, and i also agree. And i suppose that if i were to ask you whether i should avoid taking the advice of those who are unwise, you’d say that it would be wise if i did so.

Now this author, whose book you recommend that i purchase and read, has wisdom in the book that might benefit me, you say. So i’m wondering, why do you think this man is wise?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… You consider that Peter, in accepting nominations and drawing lots, somehow left God, or God’s will out of the equation. Are you forgetting what Jesus gave to Peter in Mt 16? The Power to Bind and Loose? When Peter, chose to do it this way (with guidance from the Holy Spirit) the selection was “Bound in Heaven”, just as Christ Promised.

Does that Help?

Peace
James

Yes, James, you are helping me start to see, but i’m not yet certain what you are saying. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit guided every decision that Peter made? That is, do you think the Holy Spirit revealed the will of God perfectly to Peter because, after all, Jesus gave him the authority to convey His will? Please tell me if i’m correct in thinking that this is what you are saying.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

I think your very fine thread(pun intended) is a bit frayed and unfocused. Can you bring us back a stitch or two?

P.S. Broadband in now fully operational…that does not mean, however, that my communiques will contain any greater clarity or help.

Pray for wisdom, Pax, and don’t sell yourself short by thinking yourself unworthy or otherwise doubting God’s ability to give you what you ask!

:thumbsup: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, emphasis added)

Regarding the frays, i suppose you are correct. But it’s a price i’m willing to pay. You see, i’ve learned to go with the flow and let others stitch the discussion for me. In the past, when i’ve tried to keep a discussion on track and stick to the topic, i’ve been accused of having some kind of agenda. The upshot was that people (never you, of course!) stopped trying to reason with me and started slinging mud. Abuses against my character included:

• Ad hominem - using alleged character flaws as an excuse to avoid a thoughtful and sincere discussion
• Tu quoque - claiming i was a hypocrite as an excuse to avoid a thoughtful and sincere discussion

Rather than focus on the topic with a goal of getting to the truth, the discussions degraded into focusing on me with the goal of getting me to stop asking questions.

And it’s not that i was offended; i wasn’t! I enjoy a good scrap and can take it better than i can dish it out. Rather, my fear was that i was doing some harm to those who went on the offensive and stopped considering the truth."And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!”

(Matthew 18:5-7)
So i’m willing to suffer some frayed ends if it will, ironically, keep the thread from breaking and doing harm, or keep the discussion from being derailed. You see, if the discussion has gone off track, it’s really not my fault. I’m not the engineer driving the train, here, i’m only a passenger. I’m just looking out the window of the passenger car, and talking about the view as it rolls by. I’m merely asking questions about where we’re going and what the next stop on the trip will be. I’m simply reacting to whatever anyone brings to my attention, and trusting that the train will get to destination Truth on time. If you have an idea how to get the discussion back on track, please do so! Where you go, engineer, i will of course follow. I’m sure i’ll enjoy the ride just the same. What would you like to discuss next?

http://www.etftrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/locust_point_train_tracks.jpg

 

[Andy_III]

Sir, i can see you are a prophet, for you know things about me that i don’t even know myself! But i’m reminded of Jesus’ warning:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.”

(Matthew 715-16)

Therefore, i think it prudent to test your spirits to see if they are from God. What proof can you give me that you do indeed have access to wisdom from God regarding my state of mind that i don’t even have myself? Can you predict my future in detail, as the prophets of the past? Can you tell me something nobody else but i know about myself? If not, then how can you claim you know me better than i know myself?

It is you who claimed I was a prophet, not I. False prophets proclaim themselves as prophets. And besides, I made no claim to know what you are thinking, just what your behavior in this post seems to indicate.

You mentioned before about how easy self-deception is. Isn’t an outside perspective helpful?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

      I am with Pax and the others who have already  expressed concern about  the focus of the thread.

Are you proposing that Matthias’ appointment is key in understanding the whole question of apostolic succession ’

I cannot get precisely why and what was wrong with that, whether the nomination method, or the fact in itself that they had to wait for a person called directly by Jesus, Who some years later appeared to Saul.

In any case even if the supposition that Peter and the Eleven made a mistake had substance 8 a big even if IMHO 8, that would not speak against apostolic succession.

After Pentecost we see people appointed by the apostolic authority. If we agree that the Eleven after Pentecost could not go on mistaking, that is the method.

Paul’s case is the exception. We know Jesus would not appear again in the years following Paul’s conversion, to personally appoint believers or persecuters to special ministers. 1 COR 15

*7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all *he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect

Besides, everything which is added to Paul’s glory is added … to the Roman church.

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man:
says Ignatius in his letter to the Romans just after 100 AD.

Roman primacy was founded on petrine primacy … plus Paul 8 not plus Matthias 9, who preached and received his martyrdom there as well. This is often forgotten.

In Christ
P7

PS Please don’t forget post 684

P7:

I appreciate your concern, but i have no idea why PC brought up Peter’s choice of Matthias several posts ago. I’m just asking him questions. If you want to know why he brought it up, please ask him. If you’d like to discuss something else, please let me know!

 

[Andy_III]

I agree that we should imitate God!



And do you think, James that i should seek advice from someone who does not try to imitate God?

This certainly sounds like if we answered a simple “Yes” or “No” that you would start judging people as to whether or not you thought they were trying to imitate God. Is that what you intend to do?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It is you who claimed I was a prophet, not I. False prophets proclaim themselves as prophets. And besides, I made no claim to know what you are thinking, just what your behavior in this post seems to indicate. You mentioned before about how easy self-deception is. Isn’t an outside perspective helpful?

Andy:

You claimed to know something about me that i do not even know myself. You claimed that i already knew the truth! Naturally, i assumed you must be a prophet, for no one but God can read my subconscious mind. Please explain how you know what is going on inside my head. If the Holy Spirit did not reveal it to you, then who or what did?

 

[paul_c]

P7:

I appreciate your concern, but i have no idea why PC brought up Peter’s choice of Matthias several posts ago. I’m just asking him questions. If you want to know why he brought it up, please ask him. If you’d like to discuss something else, please let me know!

You asked for scriptural proof that the Apostles believed in succession to show whether or not there was precedence for the Papal lineage… I showed you that they did when Peter called on the Old testament prophesies and replaced Judas with Matthias to keept the Apostolic office full.

At this point, you left the discussion of whether the Apostles believed in succession to engage in some second guessing about whether the succession was the correct one… You an Michael Smith then concocted a line a reasoning, using Revelations and Acts 9, to declare that Peter has been in error in replacing Judas with Matthias and that St. Paul had been God’s choice in this regard. Michael Smith went so far as to link Peter’s use of drawing lots to decide between Matthias and Joseph to Joseph Smith’s use of Seer stones to find treasure and to translate the Book of Mormon. He also tried to make the case that Paul was more qualified to lead than Peter.

So we went from a question of whether Papal succession was legitimate to a line of discussion trying to discredit St. Peter’s leadership. So that’s where we are.