Protestant arguments against the primacy of Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sebastian04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
David appointed Zadok, the first high priest after Jerusalem became an Israelite city. David wasn’t a pagan, but he was the temporal ruler. In the Hasmonean period, several of the kings, beginning with Jonathan, appointed themselves as high priest. By the time Judea became a Roman province, it was a long established practice that the temporal ruler appointed the high priest. The only restriction was the genealogical qualification: the high priest had to have the right ancestry.
 
mcq72 said:
“Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Mat. 16:12
Click to expand...
Thank you, I didn’t recall that… in my poor defense, doctrine is translated quite differently into my language 😃

Only conclusion I can draw is that their teachings were wrong (at the time, there were clear misconceptions about Messiah who would come to establish Earthly kingdom and so on), but still they ought to “observe everything they tell [them]” as they held authority. Also notice that our Lord mentions “Pharisees and Sadducees” when telling Apostles not to follow their teaching, but about scribes and Pharisees when talking about authority of Moses. Now how do we apply this? In my opinion it is fair to say that while teachings of Pharisees at large were getting out of hand but those in authority (meaning High Priest and hierarchical top of Israelite “Church”) still sat at Chair of Moses and as such did not teach nonsense.
 
mcq72 said:
Ok, but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Click to expand...
You’re part of the community of believers in Jesus Christ. That’s an awesome thing! Yet… what happens once you cut the rose from the bush?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top