Prodigal's Isle

[paul_c]

Are things always as they seem, PC?

No, they are not. That’s why I am beginning to question whether you are as you claim, a person seeking information to find the truth, or someone who is using this personna to in fact, push forward your own agenda. Because I don’t know for sure, I will continue to try to assist you, in the hopes that you are sincere. But I also want you to know how you are currently projecting yourself. And as you know, others are starting to see it that way too.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No, they are not. That’s why I am beginning to question whether you are as you claim, a person seeking information to find the truth, or someone who is using this personna to in fact, push forward your own agenda. Because I don’t know for sure, I will continue to try to assist you, in the hopes that you are sincere. But I also want you to know how you are currently projecting yourself. And as you know, others are starting to see it that way too.

Hey, i just noticed you are from upstate NY! I grew up in Watertown (north of Syracuse and not far from the 1,000 Islands). I’m in Indiana, now.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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. …

Thanks for reminding me. I have to admit i quite forgot how we got started!

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ,

I don’t think we have an engineer on our thread train. That’s okay with me as long as we can try to focus upon and answer those things that concern you most. If the discussion takes us from St. Louis to Chicago, then NY, and finally Miami beach then that’s fine with me. If we are headed to Miami the most direct route is one way to get there, but we would miss a lot in between. It’s all good. I like your passenger on the train analogy. I can identify with that and it works for me. We can all sit and chat in the observation car as we survey the landscape. Do they have a dinner menu, and can meals be taken there or do we need to head over to the dining car?

God bless.

 

[utunumsint]

Now you’re talking nonsense!

My point exactly!!

But seriously, I hope I didn’t sound overly critical. Its hard to get across tonge in cheek via electronic media.

From my perspective, the most solid ground for arguments regarding the early church are based on the available evidence provided by the historical record we have.

We have evidence of development in the early church from the getgo starting wtih Matthias, but not limited to Matthias. I suppose two other point I might raise against the claim that Peter was wrong in appointing Matthias is that there is evidence the Jesus was guiding them after the resurection but before pentacost. One example is from Matthew 28

18 Then Jesus approached [the eleven (see verse 16)] and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

And again, Marc 16

15 He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18 They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God. 20 But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.)

And finally Luke 24

48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father 12 upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." 50 13 Then he led them (out) as far as Bethany, raised his hands, and blessed them. 51 As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.
52 They did him homage and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and they were continually in the temple praising God.

From these three quotes, it seems evident to me that Jesus was personally guiding the apostles. Marc and Matthew do not speak of pentacost, but only Luke. In Luke Jesus tells the apostles that they are witnesses to all of the things they had seen him do and say. So the concept of witness was clearly important to both Jesus and the apostles. So it makes sense that the apostles would want to bring their numbers back up to 12. Especially given the quote from Matthew about the 12 sitting on twelve throwns.

Paul was techinically not a witness of Jesus’ earthly life, but only of one resurection apparition.

So this is my first argument.

My second is that there is no sciptural or historical record of Matthias later on being rejected as an apostle, or the Holy Spirit indicating to anyone that Matthias was less than legitimate. If we are trying to argue from the available evidence, then this is significant.

My third argument is that the choice of drawing straws to chose Matthias does not invalidate his selection. Although it seems bone headed to us, you could also say the same thing aboug Peter’s visions about the gentile giving him the motivation to go to Cornelius’ house and baptising him; or Paul’s dream of the Macedonians calling out to him, prompting him to cross over into Greece.

So the fact that it seems irrational to us, is not really the point. I think the main crux of this argument is that the Apostles made this decision before the Holy Spirit came down upon them (including Matthias).

My final point on this subject is that Paul was not necessarily an uber Apostle. He doesn’t even claim that title for himself, prefering to call himself the least of the apostles. We only consider him the greatest because he wrote so much. But the fact is that there were only a few apostles that actually wrote anything. These being James, John, Peter (with the help of Silvanus), Matthew, and Jude. The others did not write anything, and yet we know from tradition that they did great things. So just because Paul wrote more, does not mean he was a greater apostle. Only that he contributed more to the writing of the new testament. And just to clarify this last point, Paul himself says that he is only handing down what he himself received. He often make a point of saying this in the letter to the Corintians for example. This means his teaching was not really new, but a handing down of what the Apostles had already given to him.

God bless,
Ut

 

[paul_c]

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]

Have you never read Roman 15: 15-16:
15 But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God
16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the holy Spirit.

Paul describes himself as performing the priestly service, does he not?

I don’t disagree ith Hebrews 8, jeremiah, or Matthe 23. I disagree with your faulty interpretations of those passages.

 

[paul_c]

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.

You are falsely interpreting scripture, giving it meaning that was never intended, and then claiming that we Catholics don’t understand scripture. Remember, The bible is a Catholic Book, written to teach the Catholic Faith. It is ridiculous for you to usurp it, misinterpret it, and then call those by which and for which it was written to in error.

In the Old Testament, the prophets spoke through the Holy Spirit. Where else could they get their insight? In the Nicene Creed, we say :
We believe in the Holy spirit, the Lord and giver of life. who proceeded from the Father and the Son and together with the Father and Son is worshipped and gorified. He spoke through the prophets.

You say that telling people that they are recieving the Holy Spirit through baptism is a disservice. Well, what did St. Peter Say in Acts 2:38-39:
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

You are in fact doing people a disservice if you tell them to deny Peter’s Pentacost instructions , thus making them miss the life saving Grace available to them in Baptism.

And sure, John Prophesied about the Pentecostal Baptism of Fire. But that was a one time event to visibly demonstrate the power of God to the first disciples and give them courage. And the reception of the Holy spirit (this time not by fire), by Cornelius household prior to baptism was also a one time experience, needed to persuade Peter and the other Apostles that the Gentiles were welcome in the Church. If you read Acts 10, you will see that the Gentiles were immediately given water baptism, which was still necessary for salvation.

As you can see, there is another way to interpret scripture from what you assumed. We have been taught the Catholic interpretation, which has been passed down for 2000 years from the author’s themselves. Your interpretations don’t have those kind of credentials.

 

[JRKH]

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.

You analogy is an interesting one. Of course, while the mother was WITH the pups she fed them upon the very essence of herself, her milk. She also taught them all they needed to know and (in the case o Christ and the Apostles) placed one of the pups in Charge while she was gone. The “Pups” did not leave, or scatter, but remained as instructed and did as the “Master” prescribed. They prayed. They also acted upon the inspeiration of that prayer to name Mathias to their group of twelve.

You might have some sort of case here if it could be shown that Peter acted incorrectly or made a poor decision. I know of no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that indicates that the selection of Mathias was frowned upon by Christ.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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?

You ask me to be the judge of the book I recommended and whether I think this person, by virtue of what is included in the book, is wise. Do you believe I would recommend to you a book on holiness if I did NOT think it wise? Yes I think he is wise and that the book would be well worth your time. Otherwise I would not have suggested it.
In Fact this book has helped me in so many ways and caused me to purchase more books on spirituality.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

Whether it was the “person” of the Holy Spirit, or the Guidance of Christ, might be splitting hairs since both are part of God the Father. I believe that Peter, and the infant church, was protected from error, even at this point, by the authority Granted Peter/the Apostles/The Church by Christ to Bind and loose.

There were about 120 gathered at this time, All devoting themselves to constant prayer. Are we to assume that thes prayers went unheard by The Father or by Christ simply because “The Holy Spirit” had not yet “decended” at Pentacost?

All in the room were praying, none in the room objected to the call for a replacement, or to the method proposed and used, or to the outcome.

I remain at a loss to understand why this passage, seems so important to you?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

Paul,
Thanks for that summary. It answers the question I asked Soc4Jesus in my previous post. It appears that Soc just wishes to persue whatever line of thoughts/questions that come to him as he reads things.
I too have worried that there may be “traps being laid”, by some of the questions, but so far I can say that I have found Soc to be pretty honest, if not always straight forward and transparent.

I too will continue to discuss with Socrates4Jesus for as long as I am able and am able to be of benefit.

Peace
James

 

[pneuma07]

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!

Soc,

i don’t know what your stance on succession is now.

I am not going to add now new arguments to avoid being guilty of confusion.

i’d rather see your considerations on posts 684 and 600.

And on this:

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

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

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

Bless you
P7

 

[Andy_III]

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?

I reread my post and I find no mention of truth, nor any claim of the inner workings of your mind. These two posts in which you address me exemplify the same behavior that I have noticed throughout this thread. You have made claims based on information that was not the intent (or even literal wording) of the poster, followed that with assumptions, either in “question” form or otherwise, and persisted in them even after objections have been raised (thus seeming to ignore posts).

I am not slinging mud at you, I merely am holding you accountable for your own actions (i.e., posts).

That said, I think I may have some things to contribute, which I’ll post after I catch up.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I reread my post and I find no mention of truth, nor any claim of the inner workings of your mind. These two posts in which you address me exemplify the same behavior that I have noticed throughout this thread. You have made claims based on information that was not the intent (or even literal wording) of the poster, followed that with assumptions, either in “question” form or otherwise, and persisted in them even after objections have been raised (thus seeming to ignore posts). …

Andy, i was referring to your comment:

I must say that this is a very long thread, I have just spent the last few days reading every post. I have a few notes which may help:

@Socrates4Jesus:

It seems that you not only delight in dialog, but also in being on the island, which is a suggestion that could also be made of Gilligan. …

I said in the first post that i in no way like being on Prodigal’s Island–a Christian without a religion. You said you believed i in fact do like being where i am. So i assumed you had some insight into my thought processes to which i was not privy. But it’s now apparent that you are accusing me of deliberate deceit!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

I don’t think we have an engineer on our thread train. That’s okay with me as long as we can try to focus upon and answer those things that concern you most. If the discussion takes us from St. Louis to Chicago, then NY, and finally Miami beach then that’s fine with me. If we are headed to Miami the most direct route is one way to get there, but we would miss a lot in between. It’s all good. I like your passenger on the train analogy. I can identify with that and it works for me. We can all sit and chat in the observation car as we survey the landscape. Do they have a dinner menu, and can meals be taken there or do we need to head over to the dining car?

God bless.

http://www.besttrainride.com/img/Glacier_Express.jpg

I’m enjoying the ride, too, Pax. And the company! Dining car, definitely–let’s watch the world go by as we eat and discuss the view there.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

My point exactly!!

But seriously, I hope I didn’t sound overly critical. Its hard to get across tonge in cheek via electronic media.

No, not at all.

From my perspective, the most solid ground for arguments regarding the early church are based on the available evidence provided by the historical record we have.

We have evidence of development in the early church from the getgo starting wtih Matthias, but not limited to Matthias. I suppose two other point I might raise against the claim that Peter was wrong in appointing Matthias is that there is evidence the Jesus was guiding them after the resurection but before pentacost. One example is from Matthew 28Quote:
18 Then Jesus approached [the eleven (see verse 16)] and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
And again, Marc 16 Quote:
15 He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18 They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God. 20 But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.)
And finally Luke 24Quote:
48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father 12 upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." 50 13 Then he led them (out) as far as Bethany, raised his hands, and blessed them. 51 As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.
52 They did him homage and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and they were continually in the temple praising God.

Great quotes!

From these three quotes, it seems evident to me that Jesus was personally guiding the apostles. Marc and Matthew do not speak of pentacost, but only Luke. In Luke Jesus tells the apostles that they are witnesses to all of the things they had seen him do and say. So the concept of witness was clearly important to both Jesus and the apostles. So it makes sense that the apostles would want to bring their numbers back up to 12. Especially given the quote from Matthew about the 12 sitting on twelve throwns.

Agreed.

Paul was techinically not a witness of Jesus’ earthly life, but only of one resurection apparition.

Yes.

So this is my first argument.

My second is that there is no sciptural or historical record of Matthias later on being rejected as an apostle, or the Holy Spirit indicating to anyone that Matthias was less than legitimate. If we are trying to argue from the available evidence, then this is significant.

True. I see no reason why it was a bad idea to choose Matthias. From Peter’s viewpoint, either he or Joseph would have been the right man for the job. Yet, i’m reminded that, in the Old Testament, the prophet Samuel was certain Jessie’s eldest son was the king God had chosen the moment he laid eyes on him. However God thought otherwise:But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

(1 Samuel 16:7)
The question i’m trying to answer, at the moment, is whether God gave Peter insight into Matthias’ heart, or whether Peter merely looked at the outward appearance and made the practical choice.

My third argument is that the choice of drawing straws to chose Matthias does not invalidate his selection. Although it seems bone headed to us, you could also say the same thing aboug Peter’s visions about the gentile giving him the motivation to go to Cornelius’ house and baptising him; or Paul’s dream of the Macedonians calling out to him, prompting him to cross over into Greece.

Is it really the same thing, Ut? Let’s think about it. What if Peter, in Acts 1, stood up and quoted the Psalms and then said something like this: “Last night, Jesus came to me in a dream, and said that i was to gather together Matthias and Joseph, in the sight of all of you. And He said to me that I was to have them both draw straws, and that the one who draws the short straw is the one He has chosen.”
Well, if Peter *had *said that, you’d get no questions from me! For i’d see Peter really was letting God guide his decision. But he says no such thing. He doesn’t mention any guidance from the Holy Spirit at all, other than reading a passage in the Psalms that could have applied to anyone. He simply makes up his mind that it must be these two (for there’s no one else left) and draws straws.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So the fact that it seems irrational to us, is not really the point. I think the main crux of this argument is that the Apostles made this decision before the Holy Spirit came down upon them (including Matthias).

No, i actually have no issue with that. There is indeed evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding Peter prior to this (e.g., Matthew 16, and elsewhere).

My final point on this subject is that Paul was not necessarily an uber Apostle. He doesn’t even claim that title for himself, prefering to call himself the least of the apostles. We only consider him the greatest because he wrote so much. But the fact is that there were only a few apostles that actually wrote anything. These being James, John, Peter (with the help of Silvanus), Matthew, and Jude. The others did not write anything, and yet we know from tradition that they did great things. So just because Paul wrote more, does not mean he was a greater apostle. Only that he contributed more to the writing of the new testament. And just to clarify this last point, Paul himself says that he is only handing down what he himself received. He often make a point of saying this in the letter to the Corintians for example. This means his teaching was not really new, but a handing down of what the Apostles had already given to him.

God bless,
Ut

Yes, some Protestants try to make the argument that Paul was a better Apostle than Peter. I say it matters not, for Jesus gave Peter special authority in Matthew 16. Good insights, Ut! I enjoyed reading your post.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You ask me to be the judge of the book I recommended and whether I think this person, by virtue of what is included in the book, is wise. Do you believe I would recommend to you a book on holiness if I did NOT think it wise? Yes I think he is wise and that the book would be well worth your time. Otherwise I would not have suggested it.
In Fact this book has helped me in so many ways and caused me to purchase more books on spirituality.

Peace
James

But i thought you said a wise person is one who imitates God. Can’t you see that this man does not?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Whether it was the “person” of the Holy Spirit, or the Guidance of Christ, might be splitting hairs since both are part of God the Father. I believe that Peter, and the infant church, was protected from error, even at this point, by the authority Granted Peter/the Apostles/The Church by Christ to Bind and loose. …

Ahhh, i see! So you are saying that when Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose, He also gave Him the protection from any deception. Am i understanding you, OK?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

i don’t know what your stance on succession is now.

I am not going to add now new arguments to avoid being guilty of confusion.

i’d rather see your considerations on posts 684 and 600.

And on this:

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

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

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

Bless you
P7

Not sure when you got on board this discussion train, P7. I’ve been so busy admiring the view that i’ve lost track of who got on at what stop and who has left! But if you were here at the beginning, you’d recall the reason for this discussion. Can you tell me what that reason is? (Hint: You don’t have to look far; it’s in post #1.)