Thoughts for both Ben and Catholics to consider:This is a poor argument, Ben. Jesus was clear that the Teaching Authority was valid even when the behavior was missing the mark:
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. Matt. 23:2
The seat is a person. The correct teaching comes from a person. The authority is invested in a person. The authority can be exercised because of who they are, not because they are “correct”, and not because they claim “authority” for themselves.Thoughts for both Ben and Catholics to consider:
Did those many Pharisees hold the singular chair of Moses because they had some claim to authority?
Or did they hold authority because they taught the correct teaching (even if they were incapable of practicing it themselves)?
The problem is that this only takes us back to the original place:Thoughts for both Ben and Catholics to consider:
Did those many Pharisees hold the singular chair of Moses because they had some claim to authority?
Or did they hold authority because they taught the correct teaching (even if they were incapable of practicing it themselves)?
Thank you.The orthodox and other similar Churches teach that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, really and substantially. They don’t use the word Transubstantiation because they believe that the word is too limited; unlike Protestants, who believe it says too much. The Protestants are saying, it never stops being bread and wine; the Orthodox say, (as best I understand it) we don’t know at what moment it became Jesus; maybe it always was, in anticipation of the Consecration.
I think the scripture means more when you look at other scriptures dealing with the same issue. Moses seat comes from Moses judging the people according to the Law he was given . Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees and he says they have bad “doctrine”. I take it to mean that preaching is by the Law, and “doing” is just not the action but action based on bead “doctrine” or wrong tradition, which nullify their preaching from the Law. Jesus talks of this very thing in the gospels. So I believe the verse you give here must be understood in unison with these other scriptures. We both agree I think that Jesus would never admonish anyone to do anything “wrong” and I would think then we are to do what the Pharisees says to do if it is right. He clearly says they do wrong at times, partly because they don’t practice what they preach (hypocrites), but partly because they have bad doctrine which leads to wrong action. We find both these criticisms in “red” words from the Lord…not sure what you mean by modern invention of rejection by apostles(10 of them) not being at the Cross…I like my little dittie. It is quite “Jamesesque”, as in proper apostolic faith has proper apostolic faith and actions.This is a poor argument, Ben. Jesus was clear that the Teaching Authority was valid even when the behavior was missing the mark:
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. Matt. 23:2
Clearly your little dittie of “apostolic is as apostolic does” has no validity whatsoever (except in your own mind). The Apostles did not stop being Apostles when they missed the mark, such as all abandoning Jesus before the crucifixion. It is just a modern invention to legitimize rejecting the authority appointed by Christ.
Jesus did not deny Moses seat and I should not deny anything that comes from a bishop of Rome, provided it is also not hypocritical or based on bad doctrine/tradition (the same conditions Jesus gave for obeying Moses seat). Of course your question is two fold, and I have to add I should listen to any bishop if he is saying anything relevant to the church, with the same conditions. That is another topic, this idea that the OT seat has transferred to the bishop of Rome only.The transferal of Divine Authority from the Seat of Moses to the Seat of Peter was effected by Jesus Christ Himself. In other words, from a higher Authority.
By what authority do YOU claim that the Seat of Peter has been abrogated?
Sorry. No, I meant the first church was Jewish and they had to take a stand against some of the commands/wishes of the Jewish leadership (Sanhedrin,Pharisees etc even Moses Seat. ). Stephen was their first fatalityso what do you mean? What of the current church leadership?
The seat originally began from when Moses literally sat on a seat to judge situations as they came up, and judge according to the Law. He had no tradition, past rulings to rely on but strict adherence to the fresh revelation of the Law from God. He judged righteously because he judged by the Law and that correctly, so scripture tells us. I don’t think the “seat” remained to a singular judge, but seems to have evolved to a select group that did as Moses did, judge according to the Law. The authority was understood not as inherent in the group specifically, but because of what they were supposed to be experts at, correctly interpreting and applying God’s Law. I would say down the road it was hard to separate the two as to authority, but clearly the origin is the Law. The seat is God’s dispenser. The seat is subject to God’s proper intent of the Law. The seat was to judge as Moses would have judged, hence Moses seat. The seat is counterproductive otherwise.The seat is a person. The correct teaching comes from a person. The authority is invested in a person. The authority can be exercised because of who they are, not because they are “correct”, and not because they claim “authority” for themselves.
If they abuse the authority and the teaching by forgetting it’s source, then…Christ has a rebuke for them.
Christ is the Word made flesh, the personification of authority. As the source of all teaching and authority, he breathes his authority into other persons (ecclesia). Else he could have remained spirit and never come down here to communicate his Gospel to others. God the Father could have simply dropped a book from the sky.
Originally yes (Moses) but certainly not by the Lord’s time. That was ok because it is not how many persons but that they do what Mose did, judge righteously by the Law, and strictly by the Law…The seat is a person.
Well yes because of who they are or what graciouslyhas been given to them, like if one is close enough to God to know His proper intent, as Moses surely was.The authority can be exercised because of who they are, not because they are “correct”, and not because they claim “authority” for themselves.
Well, He breathes (baptizes) into persons the Holy Spirit , and He illumines persons to understanding . These persons are the ecclesia, but what I have just described describes every believer. It happens in variations of depth and giftings. There are even offices and perhaps that is what you speak of where authority is given to individuals, and based on experience and maturity and giftings. …By the way ecclesia (church) was originally the “called out ones” as in anyone who became a believer in Christ (called by Him)., not so much the “organization” format that may be inherent or that developed.Christ is the Word made flesh, the personification of authority. As the source of all teaching and authority, he breathes his authority into other persons (ecclesia). Else he could have remained spirit and never come down here to communicate his Gospel to others. God the Father could have simply dropped a book from the sky.
Do you realize how absurd that is? the fish is a tree and the door is a cucumber, too I suppose.The seat is a person.
No, because of a higher authority, not in something intrinsic in them.The correct teaching comes from a person. The authority is invested in a person. The authority can be exercised because of who they are,
not because they are “correct”, and not because they claim “authority” for themselves.
And there are many, many warnings in Scripture about the removal of authority from the unjust. He did not continue the Sanhedrin in New Testament times. What makes you think He would spare the bishops?If they abuse the authority and the teaching by forgetting it’s source, then…Christ has a rebuke for them.
John 14:He did not continue the Sanhedrin in New Testament times. What makes you think He would spare the bishops?
It is trueJohn 14:
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. (John 14:16-20 NASB)
If this is true,
That is directed to the whole church and is not a guarantee to the apostles or bishops of any sort of presumptuous eternal security of their officethen how could the authority leave the apostles and their successors.
Are you there yet?He says he will be with them FOREVER.
HE WILL NOT LEAVE THEM
This spirit will LEAD THEM IN ALL TRUTH
That is not my position.is not with them forever
That is not my position., and they were not lead in the truth
He has not failed the Church. There is not enough space in this thread to show all the places where men have failed Him, however. The divine source is the Bible.If you disagree tell us when the spirit failed the church and what divine source you use to show the failure.
Can you please tell me how you know the divine source is the Bible?It is trueThat is directed to the whole church and is not a guarantee to the apostles or bishops of any sort of presumptuous eternal security of their officeAre you there yet?
But your position as a PROTESTANT is that
The Holy Spirit left them, That is not my position. That is not my position. That is not my position.
He has not failed the Church. There is not enough space in this thread to show all the places where men have failed Him, however. The divine source is the Bible.
That is correct in that the Deacons, the Priests and the Bishops all come from the Church as a whole. But it must remain within the Church and not without the Church. To dissent from the Church is not fruit of the Holy Spirit.That is directed to the whole church and is not a guarantee to the apostles or bishops of any sort of presumptuous eternal security of their office
And we are back to square one…The divine source is the Bible.
By the way…which Bible…the protestant 66 book bible or the catholic Bible?It is
He has not failed the Church. There is not enough space in this thread to show all the places where men have failed Him, however. The divine source is the Bible.
Perhaps not more…just clarity. Since we believe that the Scripture does not contradict itself, all of the content must be reconciled.Code:I think the scripture means more when you look at other scriptures dealing with the same issue.
But that is the exact opposite of what Jesus said…Moses seat comes from Moses judging the people according to the Law he was given . Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees and he says they have bad “doctrine”. I take it to mean that preaching is by the Law, and “doing” is just not the action but action based on bead “doctrine” or wrong tradition,** which nullify their preaching from the Law. **
But that is not what Jesus SAID.Code:We both agree I think that Jesus would never admonish anyone to do anything "wrong" and I would think then we are to do what the Pharisees says to do if it is right.
I don’t think so.He clearly says they do wrong at times, partly because they don’t practice what they preach (hypocrites), but partly because they have bad doctrine which leads to wrong action.
James never said such a thing.I like my little dittie. It is quite “Jamesesque”, as in proper apostolic faith has proper apostolic faith and actions.
Because of the promises He made to His Church - that He would remain with her until the end of the age, and that the HS would guide her into “all Truth”.And there are many, many warnings in Scripture about the removal of authority from the unjust. He did not continue the Sanhedrin in New Testament times. What makes you think He would spare the bishops?
I believe it is true. Jesus promised never to abandon His fledgling Church. But his statements were not directed to the whole Church. They were a private instruction and consecration of the Apostles in the upper room. I think we can all benefit from the promises made to them, to the extent we are in unity with them.It is true. That is directed to the whole church and is not a guarantee to the apostles or bishops of any sort of presumptuous eternal security of their office
We will not be, until the end of the age. There will continue to be a need for a teaching authority as long as we sojourn here.Are you there yet?
Indeed the Bible has it’s source in the divine. But Scripture cannot wield authority, because the properties that are required to exercise authority apply to persons, not books, however Holy.…the divine source is the Bible.
take a look .Jesus said their tradition diplaced the law.i said nullify .find the scripture.But that is the exact opposite of what Jesus said…
Find it .The pharisees had bad doctrine/practice which jesus called leaven. This enabled hypocrisyI don’t think so.
That action depicts a proper faith ?James never said such a thing.
.No one says this . But at the same time if they had an improper practice,tradition that practice/tradition were not to be condoned, even followed, as when Peter still thought the gentile unclean, or casting lots for apostleship. I call that a conditional authority. That they got or recorded everything else correctly does not do away with that.]It is erroneous because all of the Apostles at one time or another failed in their actions, yet this did not disqualify them as Apostles
I think that you raise a really good point here. Namely, that the properties that are required to exercise authority apply to persons, not books. Of course a Protestant might say that it is not the book (the Bible) that exercises authority, but Jesus, whom the bible speaks of. But Jesus never said to make a book of what He taught and distribute it so that all can read it and believe. He commissioned mere humans (the Apostles) to go out to the whole world and teach all that He taught them. And a Church developed so that His teachings could be taught most effectively and the Sacraments could be properly administrated…which are things that a book cannot do, in and of itself.Indeed the Bible has it’s source in the divine. But Scripture cannot wield authority, because the properties that are required to exercise authority apply to persons, not books, however Holy.