The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Randy_Carson]

The replacement (not succession) of Judas was uniquely prophecied and the replacement had unrepeatable qualifications; therefore, nothing whatever to do with apostolic succession.

Right.

The prophecy concerning Judas’ “bishopric” was SOOOOOOO obvious that every Jewish scholar in history was on top of it.

Look, Peter was clearly concerned about filling the position left vacant by Judas. Do you think he was any LESS concerned with his own position as head of the Church in light of Jesus clear foretelling of Peter’s martyrdom?

Hardly.

Peter even alludes to his preparations for his own death in the following passage:

2 Peter 1:12-15
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure? He obviously didn’t spend a lot of time WRITING BOOKS, DID HE, DANIEL?

No, Peter prepared his own disciples just as Jesus had prepared him.

And the rest of your post is irrelevant, because the Bishops of the Church who succeeded the Apostles ARE NOT APOSTLES, and thus, they do not have to meet the exact same requirements that scripture specifies for Apostles.

Honestly, Daniel…if you had read the article on the Successors of the Apostles that I referred you to days…weeks…ago, we could be saving a lot of time and keystrokes on things that you should know by now.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Although scripture does say “certain men came form James” this does not establish that James was THE leader of the Jerusalem church. Paul identifes three reputed to be pillars: James, Cephas, and John. There was NO singular leader of the church other than Christ alone.

John had gone to Ephesus, Peter was travelling in Smyrna, Antioch and Rome.

Are you now suggesting that James was not the Bishop of Jerusalem? :banghead:

 

[tukfryer]

I see that you didn’t interact with my rebuttal of your previous posting at all.

Would you like to re-consider your previous statement that the Catholic Church added to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent?

I did not respond for the fact that you ignored 80% of my statement, you selected the one that suits your desired rebuttal.

 

[PRmerger]

I did not respond for the fact that you ignored 80% of my statement, you selected the one that suits your desired rebuttal.

Really, tuk? You don’t respond if someone picks out a quote you made and questions it? What percentage of your quote would merit a response from you?

 

[YADA]

Acts, ch.1
The Prophecy of Judas’ Vacancy
v. 20…it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, ‘May another take his place of leadership.’

The Unrepeatable Qualifications
v. 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

Daniel can so easily see Judas’ “office” foretold in the Psalms … something unique and clearly shown in the "bible’ …

BUT when Jesus quotes Isaiah and the “*office of the Prime Minister” *[an office that is filled by the King as His personal and authoritative representaitive] … it is a catholic “invention” something about the keys and opening and closing what cannot be closed or opened … identified being a “Father” to the people … , this is a figment of the catholic imagination …

[And I am always surprised that the christians who will say Isaiah referes to Christ - demoting Jesus from being the King of kings and Lord of Lords to a mere representative of the King - the Prime Minister ]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Daniel can so easily see Judas’ “office” foretold in the Psalms … something unique and clearly shown in the "bible’ …

BUT when Jesus quotes Isaiah and the “office of the Prime Minister” [an office that is filled by the King as His personal and authoritative representaitive] … it is a catholic “invention” something about the keys and opening and closing what cannot be closed or opened … identified being a “Father” to the people … , this is a figment of the catholic imagination …

[And I am always surprised that the christians who will say Isaiah referes to Christ - demoting Jesus from being the King of kings and Lord of Lords to a mere representative of the King - the Prime Minister ]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Based on your logic, I ask you: if Scripture is the final and sole authority why does it not identify itself with this most important function?

Why did Jesus write down not a single word nor command any of his apostles to write down His teachings?

Jesus said the Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. When there were serious controversies in the church and people were going after a different gospel (Acts 15;Gal.1), did anyone say, look to Peter or hold to Peter? It is very significant that in not a single place does any NT writer tell anyone to look to or hold to Peter or to any office such as Pope. They were given things to read that we now have.

Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, **see that it is also read in the church **of the Laodiceans and that you in turn **read the letter **from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27
I charge you before the Lord to **have this letter read **to all the brothers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

Hebrews 13:22
Brothers, I urge you to bear with my **word of exhortation, for I have written you **only a short letter.

2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my **second letter **to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

John had gone to Ephesus, Peter was travelling in Smyrna, Antioch and Rome.

Are you now suggesting that James was not the Bishop of Jerusalem? :banghead:

Where does scripture say James was a SINGULAR bishop of Jerusalem? Paul says James was one of THREE pillars in Jerusalem.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus said the Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. When there were serious controversies in the church and people were going after a different gospel (Acts 15;Gal.1), did anyone say, look to Peter or hold to Peter? It is very significant that in not a single place does any NT writer tell anyone to look to or hold to Peter or to any office such as Pope. They were given things to read that we now have.

Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, **see that it is also read in the church **of the Laodiceans and that you in turn **read the letter **from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27
I charge you before the Lord to **have this letter read **to all the brothers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

Hebrews 13:22
Brothers, I urge you to bear with my **word of exhortation, for I have written you **only a short letter.

2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my **second letter **to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The Apostles acted under the authority of Peter, who led the Church under the authority of Christ. It was not necessary to say hold to Peter or look to Peter.

Ironic you would post 2 Peter 3:16 which warns against private interpretations…

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The Apostles acted under the authority of Peter, who led the Church under the authority of Christ. It was not necessary to say hold to Peter or look to Peter.

Ironic you would post 2 Peter 3:16 which warns against private interpretations…

Where does scripture say the apostles “acted under the authority of Peter”? Any who write say they are apostles/servants of Christ, never of Peter. Where does scripture say that Peter ever commissioned anyone, any apostle, to act under his authority?

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus said the Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. When there were serious controversies in the church and people were going after a different gospel (Acts 15;Gal.1), did anyone say, look to Peter or hold to Peter? It is very significant that in not a single place does any NT writer tell anyone to look to or hold to Peter or to any office such as Pope. They were given things to read that we now have.

Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, **see that it is also read in the church **of the Laodiceans and that you in turn **read the letter **from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27
I charge you before the Lord to **have this letter read **to all the brothers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

Hebrews 13:22
Brothers, I urge you to bear with my **word of exhortation, for I have written you **only a short letter.

2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my **second letter **to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

What examples of Scripture above point to the sole authority of Scripture? I asked you: if Scripture is the final and sole authority why does it not identify itself with this most important function?

 

[tukfryer]

Really, tuk? You don’t respond if someone picks out a quote you made and questions it? What percentage of your quote would merit a response from you?

I think I touched on the subject when I said that debating differences in theology with Catholics is nothing more than a circular argument in which catholics simply deny SS but use the same scripture to support their claim, “interpretation”. The other circle is they say they follow Christ but as your signature suggest Ever loyal to the Magisterium your allegiance is evident, a man can not serve two masters. To put it yet another way, following catholic doctrine, any logical thinking person will soon realize that the CC teaching “interpretation” is simply designed to keep you in the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

I think I touched on the subject when I said that debating differences in theology with Catholics is nothing more than a circular argument in which catholics simply deny SS but use the same scripture to support their claim, “interpretation”.

Well, of course we use Scripture to support our claim. We just don’t use* only* Scripture.

Just like if you were arguing with an atheist who only believes in scientific evidence. Christians reject* only *science, but we’ll use science where it’s True.

The other circle is they say they follow Christ but as your signature suggest Ever loyal to the Magisterium your allegiance is evident, a man can not serve two masters. To put it yet another way, following catholic doctrine, any logical thinking person will soon realize that the CC teaching “interpretation” is simply designed to keep you in the CC.

You forgot the “ever questioning” part, tuk.

 

[pete_29]

I think I touched on the subject when I said that debating differences in theology with Catholics is nothing more than a circular argument in which catholics simply deny SS but use the same scripture to support their claim, “interpretation”. The other circle is they say they follow Christ but as your signature suggest Ever loyal to the Magisterium your allegiance is evident, a man can not serve two masters. To put it yet another way, following catholic doctrine, any logical thinking person will soon realize that the CC teaching “interpretation” is simply designed to keep you in the CC.

Any logical thinking person would realize personal interpretation without some form of controlling authority (i.e. the Magisterium) leads to everyone having their own interpretation of scripture and no one having the correct interpretation, at least in the fact that one persons interpretation being wrong as compared to anothers interpretation. scriptural anarchy

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where does scripture say the apostles “acted under the authority of Peter”? Any who write say they are apostles/servants of Christ, never of Peter. Where does scripture say that Peter ever commissioned anyone, any apostle, to act under his authority?

Christ gave the authority to Peter. Upon this rock His built His Church and He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and told Him whatsoever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, whatsoever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. The Apostles understood this.

All the Apostles, including Peter, were Apostles and servants of Christ. Peter was still a man, chosen by God to lead His Church, just as the Pope is today through Apostolic succession. It’s the twist and spins of Protestants that attempt to make them anymore than that.

Show me one instance where anyone in the scriptures, or that wrote scriptures, appointed themself or anyone else.

 

[tukfryer]

Any logical thinking person would realize personal interpretation without some form of controlling authority (i.e. the Magisterium) leads to everyone having their own interpretation of scripture and no one having the correct interpretation, at least in the fact that one persons interpretation being wrong as compared to anothers interpretation. scriptural anarchy

The interpreter is the Holy Spirit.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you:
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you,
you shall abide in him.
I John 2:27

Thats why Peter says “it not of private interpretation”
A Protestant will search the scriptures to be curtain that what is taught.

Didn’t Jesus say that it is finished? where is the necessity in adding to scripture.
or better said believing some and ignoring others. I over look some differences in doctrine but when it comes to believing what I read and what someone tells me it says I have to side with my own interpretation “leading In the HS” Thats what the scripture tell me to do.

Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.

Im afraid that in your case… the Magisterium will reveal even this to you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think I touched on the subject when I said that debating differences in theology with Catholics is nothing more than a circular argument in which catholics simply deny SS but use the same scripture to support their claim, “interpretation”. The other circle is they say they follow Christ but as your signature suggest Ever loyal to the Magisterium your allegiance is evident, a man can not serve two masters. To put it yet another way, following catholic doctrine, any logical thinking person will soon realize that the CC teaching “interpretation” is simply designed to keep you in the CC.

The Catholic Church defined the canon of the New Testament, then preserved the Bible for 1500 years. If that had not taken place, Protestants wouldn’t have a Bible today. After defining the New Testament and preserving it for 1500 years, Protestants claim to have the correct interpretation, yet there are thousands of Protestant denominations that do not agree on the interpretation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The interpreter is the Holy Spirit.

Then explain thousands of denominations with interpretational differences. The Holy Spirit cannot lie, nor can the Holy Spirit tell multiple truths that contradict each other.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Didn’t Jesus say that it is finished?

In another thread, on another topic, I explained why Christ said, “It is finished.” I wish to share that with you and hope it opens your eyes to understanding what was really happening when He said that. I’m afraid in your case, you missed the point from a private interpretation…

The Passover meal was part of the covenant from God and men. It required an active participation. In reading Exodus 12:17, we see this was to be done perpetually, for ever. To reject the Last Supper as the adjustment to, or replacement of, or more specifically a fulfillment of, the covenant command of God, means we should still be celebrating the Passover meal as prescribed by God.

We know from Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant was prophesied. This prophesy was brought to mind in the New Testament, in a letter from St. Paul to the Hebrews 8:7 – 12.

The prescription of the Passover meal was detailed and clear from the Lord, as written in Exodus 12.

A lamb without blemish was to be slaughtered at twilight, eaten with unleavened bread, the lamb’s blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts with hyssop, none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken, and this ordinance was to be celebrated perpetually.

The Jewish Passover meal consisted of:

1. The Festival Blessing – Drink from the 1st cup of wine.
2. Passover Narrative and Little Hallel (Psalms 113) – Drink from 2nd cup of wine.
3. Main Meal: roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs and spices – Drink from 3rd cup of wine.
4. Great Hallel (Psalms 114 – 118) and the drinking of the 4th cup of wine, and closed when presiding priest or host says the phrase, “TEL TELESTI” which is interpreted as “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

Now let’s look at the Lord’s Supper that occurred during the celebration of the Passover, or Seder, meal.

3 of the Gospel authors told us about the Lord’s Supper, as Bro. Christopher pointed out. Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about it. All 3 say He gave the cup, of the new covenant, to the Apostles and told them to drink, but it does not tell us that Christ, the High Priest, drank of the cup. Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18, tells us that, during the Passover meal, Christ announced He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until he drank it in the Kingdom of God. After making this announcement, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 tell us, “Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” After singing a hymn, the great Hallel, they went out to the garden, without the High Priest closing the celebration, not only not closing the celebration, but declaring He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. He did not say, “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.
In the garden, our Lord prayed to the father to let this cup be passed from Him, if it was the Father’s will. Matthew 22:44 tells us that Christ prayed this 3 times. What cup was Christ praying be passed from Him? I believe it was the 4th cup that closed the Passover meal, which was fulfilled with the Lord’s Supper.

When God made the covenant with Moses, Moses asked who to tell had told him of the covenant, Exodus 3:13 – 14. God told Moses, “I am, who I am.”

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

Mark 15:22 – 24 told us that Christ was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but He did not drink it.

John 19:28 – 30 explains that Our Lord, aware that everything was now finished, in order that scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst”. Hearing this, they took a sponge and dipped it in common wine, sour wine, fruit of the vine, and held it up to His mouth with hyssop. After taking the wine, our Lord said, “It is finished”, bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

John 19:33 – 38 told us that our Lord’s legs were not broken, so that scripture might be fulfilled.

Mark 15:33 – 34 tells us the time the Lamb of God death, which was twilight, the same time Moses was instructed to slaughter the sacrificial lamb.

Christ came to fulfill the law, and it was fulfilled with the new covenant. A covenant of God and men, that requires participation of those being set free.

 

[tukfryer]

Then explain thousands of denominations with interpretational differences. The Holy Spirit cannot lie, nor can the Holy Spirit tell multiple truths that contradict each other.

I would think that pretty evident to someone as intelligent as yourself.
Not all Have the HS
The doctrine that I chose to overlook usually is not a salvation breaker but perhaps simply a difference in maturity.

You are only kidding yourself if you think that all Catholics are of one mind. Including the Magisterium. At least when I go before the Lord I wont be saying something like.
Well this person told me this and that person told another. I do listen carefully and learn from others but its not done blindly. The only tangible, for curtain evidence of Gods intent is scripture. I was also told to workout my own salvation, that does not mean to ignore what others say or the scriptures ether. But as scripture says the sheep know the Shepherds voice and a stranger they will not follow.