When did Baptist come to be?

[Jimmy]

..There is nothing in the NT writings that establishes the point you are trying to make. Nothing....

Well, how can the NT be used to demonstrate the development of the Church during times AFTER the NT was written?!!!

It really doesn't matter except in an historical sense.   The existance of the Church, the body of Christ, is not dependent upon any continuum of earthly organization and/or structure.

[Tu Es Petrus]

It really doesn't matter except in an historical sense.   The existance of the Church, the body of Christ, is not dependent upon any continuum of earthly organization and/or structure.

Really. then why did Jesus and later the aposltles give it structure?

BTW: It certainly DOES matter if people are going to make claims about which group broke away from who.

[Jimmy]

It really doesn't matter except in an historical sense.   The existance of the Church, the body of Christ, is not dependent upon any continuum of earthly organization and/or structure.

Really. then why did Jesus and later the aposltles give it structure?

BTW: It certainly DOES matter if people are going to make claims about which group broke away from who.

I don't really care who broke away from whom.  That really has no bearing on the Body of Christ either.

And the structure which you present in the from of the RCC heirarchy is certainly not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented.

[Tu Es Petrus]

I don't really care who broke away from whom.  That really has no bearing on the Body of Christ either.

Perhaps not is the spiritual sense. But it CERTAINLY has a bearing on who is teaching correct doctrine and who is not, and who the legitimate leaders of the Church are and who are not..

And the structure which you present in the from of the RCC heirarchy is certainly not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented.

Wrong. Man, haven't you read Acts? In Acts, the hierarchy of those who follow the original apostles develops into three basic levels:

Bishops: Greek - episkopos (also rendered as Overseers in some translations)
Priests: Greek - presbyteros  (also rendered as Elders or Presbyters in some translations)
Deacons: Greek - diakonos

Those are the exact same levels in the Catholic Church.: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.

Timothy was a bishop. Tell me: Does YOUR Church have bishops like the NT Church did, and the Catholic Church does?

[Tantor]

I don't really care who broke away from whom.  That really has no bearing on the Body of Christ either.

Perhaps not is the spiritual sense. But it CERTAINLY has a bearing on who is teaching correct doctrine and who is not, and who the legitimate leaders of the Church are and who are not..

And the structure which you present in the from of the RCC heirarchy is certainly not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented.

Wrong. Man, haven't you read Acts? In Acts, the hierarchy of those who follow the original apostles develops into three basic levels:

Bishops: Greek - episkopos (also rendered as Overseers in some translations)
Priests: Greek - presbyteros  (also rendered as Elders or Presbyters in some translations)
Deacons: Greek - diakonos

Those are the exact same levels in the Catholic Church.: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.

Timothy was a bishop. Tell me: Does YOUR Church have bishops like the NT Church did, and the Catholic Church does?

Overseer and elder are pretty much interchangeable in the texts.

Christ called us all to be priests.

[Tu Es Petrus]

Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

[Tantor]

Where do you get cardinals and the pope from then.. they aren't any way in scripture.

Seems to me that when Peter died, his colleges didn't know what to do so they invented a method for succession.  If what you say is true about Peter having the keys.. Jesus omitted a pretty big part about his successors.. and I tend to believe that Jesus left it that way on purpose.

I would be happier if there were actually texts from Peter himself that discussed his method and selection of training of his would be 'successor'... but alas we do not have such a thing.

When I read the Old and New Testament I always come away with the feeling that all the teachings and what was written although not always sufficient in man's eyes.. was left that way by God for a purpose.

The Apostles were not very specific about succession.. neither was Jesus.. so I feel its is an avenue that we should have had restraint in and not gone beyond what is written.

I take the same approach to church buildings and pretty much everything else.. what God has revealed is sufficient and there is no need for man to add to it... when we do add to it, I find it disrespectful to God himself.


I think of the care and exactness of the dimensions for the temple in the Old Testament.. the depth of detail of the levitical law..  In Catholic eyes I guess they view God as having forgotten to lead them so they make up things to fill the void.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jimmy]

Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

You proved no such thing.  The passage in Acts 20 makes reference to elders .  In that passage (Acts 20:17-28) Paul is speaking and references those men in terms of all of those designations.  They are designations of the same men, the same office, only different functions of that office.

Act 20:17  From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbuteros also translated as bishop] of the church.
   .
   .
   .
Act 20:28  "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[episkopos], to shepherd [poimaino]the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

All three, [presbuteros], [episkopos], and [poimaino]  interchangeable insofar as the men and the office is concerned.  There is really no other way to interpret this.

[ole Jake]

I don't really care who broke away from whom.  That really has no bearing on the Body of Christ either.

Perhaps not is the spiritual sense. But it CERTAINLY has a bearing on who is teaching correct doctrine and who is not, and who the legitimate leaders of the Church are and who are not..

And the structure which you present in the from of the RCC heirarchy is certainly not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented.

Wrong. Man, haven't you read Acts? In Acts, the hierarchy of those who follow the original apostles develops into three basic levels:

Bishops: Greek - episkopos (also rendered as Overseers in some translations)
Priests: Greek - presbyteros  (also rendered as Elders or Presbyters in some translations)
Deacons: Greek - diakonos

Those are the exact same levels in the Catholic Church.: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.

Timothy was a bishop. Tell me: Does YOUR Church have bishops like the NT Church did, and the Catholic Church does?

Overseer and elder are pretty much interchangeable in the texts.

Christ called us all to be priests.

Christ did not call us all to be presbyters.

[ole Jake]

Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

You proved no such thing.  The passage in Acts 20 makes reference to elders .  In that passage (Acts 20:17-28) Paul is speaking and references those men in terms of all of those designations.  They are designations of the same men, the same office, only different functions of that office.

Act 20:17  From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbuteros also translated as bishop] of the church.
   .
   .
   .
Act 20:28  "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[episkopos], to shepherd [poimaino]the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

All three, [presbuteros], [episkopos], and [poimaino]  interchangeable insofar as the men and the office is concerned.  There is really no other way to interpret this.

No other way to interpret this? That means it is perspisuous.

The man who concocted the doctrine sola scriptura and the first to declare that scripture is perspicuous would have decalred you heretical for this assertion.

Kinda funny, aint it?

[James.]

Bob & weave.

[Jaime]

Bob & weave.

Who's weave?

[James.]

Bob's hairdresser.

[Jimmy]

Jimmy said the structure in the Catholic heirarchy is not anything to do with what either Jesus or the apostles presented. I proved he was wrong. We have three levels of pastors, just as they do in Acts. We have bishops, just like Timothy was a bishop.

You proved no such thing.  The passage in Acts 20 makes reference to elders .  In that passage (Acts 20:17-28) Paul is speaking and references those men in terms of all of those designations.  They are designations of the same men, the same office, only different functions of that office.

Act 20:17  From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbuteros also translated as bishop] of the church.
   .
   .
   .
Act 20:28  "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[episkopos], to shepherd [poimaino]the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

All three, [presbuteros], [episkopos], and [poimaino]  interchangeable insofar as the men and the office is concerned.  There is really no other way to interpret this.

No other way to interpret this? That means it is perspisuous.

The man who concocted the doctrine sola scriptura and the first to declare that scripture is perspicuous would have decalred you heretical for this assertion.

Kinda funny, aint it?

Why would I give a hoot what he would have declared?  You guys pay more attention to what one of your popes or priests of some ancient writers think and say than you do to what the Bible says.  And therein lies the source of so much of what you seem to have gotten wrong.

[Tu Es Petrus]

..... You guys pay more attention to what one of your popes or priests of some ancient writers think and say than you do to what the Bible says......

Boy, you just don't get it, do you.

A Bible does not have a mouth and lips and a tounge - it does not speak and it does not say anything. It is a book which must be interpreted by the reader.

You say we only pay attention to what popes say. I say that you only pay attention to what YOU say. Either way, whether it is what YOU say or what a POPE says, it is a man doing the saying. You need to wrap your mind around that concept.

The question is not "What does the Bible say", but rather, who has been ordained by Christ to intepret and teach the revelation which Christ gave us: Is it each individual? ...or is it those who have succeeded the original teachers who Jesus appointed?

The Bible says that Jesus appointed teachers. The Bible does NOT say that every individual has the right to formulate doctrine and establish denominations based on those formulations. Now you can spin it any way you want, but that is the truth.