GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Peter the Rock  (Read 101205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #805 on: Wed Dec 28, 2011 - 10:31:23 »
The concept of preeminence seems so antithetical to the very words of Jesus. 

"Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'" But *not* so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves."
Lk 22: 24

""...He asked them, 'What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?' But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. And He sat down, called the twelve and said to them, 'If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.'" Mk 9:34-

And of Jesus:
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God and thing to be grasped." Philip. 2

"...the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you..." Mt. 20:25-

THANK YOU.

You couldn't have described the office of the Pope ANY better.  His official Title is "Servant of the Servants of Christ."

Peter was elevated by Jesus himself to be the earthly leader (Matt. 16:16-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19).  Her did not elevate himself to this post . . .

You just have to love Peter - impetuous, bold, quick to speak, first out of the boat, and to pull out a sword - easy to identify with him.  :)

Jesus had warned them that the Shepherd would be stricken and "all of you will be made to stumble."  Peter contradicts the Lord declaring that "even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will *never* be made to stumble.  Jesus assures him that along with stumbling with everyone else, Peter will also deny Him 3 times before the night is over.  Peter then declares that he would not deny Jesus, even if he had to die with Him.

All of Jesus' disciples abandoned Him, failed Him, stumbled -  they couldn't even stay awake for Him while He prayed.  Jesus even forewarned Peter that he would specifically deny Him, not once or twice, but three times.  The other disciples just ran, John hung around but kept a low profile, but Peter denied Jesus three times, just as Jesus had foretold and as Peter had confidently contradicted in front of all.

And then they saw their beloved One beaten beyond recognition and crucified.  All of them had walked with Him intimately for 3 years, and all of them abandoned Him.  But Peter had not only abandoned, he had publicly denied - multiple times.  How crushed and devastated they all must have been, but Peter even more so.  It's all over,  let's just go back to fishing.

Jesus had told them he would make them fishers of men, but here they are back being fishers of fish.  Albeit not very successful ones.

And Jesus, in His loving mercy takes the one who must have assuredly been the lowest of all, for his offense loomed larger than the others, and restores him.  It is interesting that Jesus addresses him "*Simon*, son of Jonah" here.   

Jesus lets him know; it's not over, you haven't destroyed every chance you had.  Peter had denied Jesus publicly 3 times and now Jesus asks him publicly three times, 'lovest thou Me more than these?"  What you see as an establishment of Peter's preeminence can also be seen as Peter's restoration and redemption. 

Jesus had taught them in Mt 10  "whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."  The other guys just ran, they had not committed an act that could result in their being disowned.  Peter had.

And if he who had not only abandoned the Lord, but publicly denied Him 3 times was restored to serve, he who had fallen the farthest yet was redeemed would be able to encourage those other brothers whenever their hearts assailed them. 

Regards,
AsAChild

Not really sure where you are going with this.  Peter sinned - just as we ALL sin. We have ALL abandoned Christ at one time or another.
Every time we sin - we abandon Christ - so what's your point?  That he couldn't have been the leader because he sinned?

That only displays your total ignorance of the Scriptures AND the christian faith . . .

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #805 on: Wed Dec 28, 2011 - 10:31:23 »

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #806 on: Thu Dec 29, 2011 - 13:36:22 »
Quote
That only displays your total ignorance of the Scriptures AND the christian faith . . .

elvisman,

Yet you still think that Peter was a bishop of Rome and that apostolic succession is true. What do you think THAT false stuff displays about your own knowledge of scripture and history of chrisianity. Not much it seems to me. Peace, JohnR

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #806 on: Thu Dec 29, 2011 - 13:36:22 »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #807 on: Thu Dec 29, 2011 - 13:57:46 »
Quote
That only displays your total ignorance of the Scriptures AND the christian faith . . .

elvisman,

Yet you still think that Peter was a bishop of Rome and that apostolic succession is true. What do you think THAT false stuff displays about your own knowledge of scripture and history of chrisianity. Not much it seems to me. Peace, JohnR

WRONG.
I've already given you proof from Irenaeus and others that you simply disregard and claim fraudulent because you can't prove otherwise.  Irenaeus gave us a comrehensive list from the Second Century going all the way back to Peter and you can't handle it.

The historical egg is on your face, my ignorant, anti-Catholic friend . . .

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #808 on: Sat Dec 31, 2011 - 21:59:14 »
Quote
WRONG.
I've already given you proof from Irenaeus and others that you simply disregard and claim fraudulent because you can't prove otherwise.  Irenaeus gave us a comrehensive list from the Second Century going all the way back to Peter and you can't handle it.

The historical egg is on your face, my ignorant, anti-Catholic friend .

elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #808 on: Sat Dec 31, 2011 - 21:59:14 »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #809 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 17:28:34 »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR

There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #809 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 17:28:34 »



Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #810 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 17:31:16 »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR

There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .

Could you on me that list? I'm always on the look out for good reads.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #811 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 17:49:58 »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR


There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .


Could you on me that list? I'm always on the look out for good reads.


Here you go, my brotha.
It's from Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" from the 2nd Century.  You can find it on a LOT of books and sites, but here it is from newadvent.org:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Interesting how the validity of this list is so vehemently challenged - seeing as how the FULL document is called "Against Heresies" . . .

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #812 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 17:57:43 »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR


There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .


Could you on me that list? I'm always on the look out for good reads.


Here you go, my brotha.
It's from Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" from the 2nd Century.  You can find it on a LOT of books and sites, but here it is from newadvent.org:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Interesting how the validity of this list is so vehemently challenged - seeing as how the FULL document is called "Against Heresies" . . .



Oh no I've read Irenaeus' Against the Heresies a little bit already. I was talking about the list of historians who have commentaries on the list. Didn't you say you had a list of names? I would love to check em out.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #813 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 18:34:16 »
It is worth noting that Irenaeus is a doctor of the Catholic Church, as well, and known as the "Father of dogmatic theology".

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #814 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 20:57:02 »
Oh no I've read Irenaeus' Against the Heresies a little bit already. I was talking about the list of historians who have commentaries on the list. Didn't you say you had a list of names? I would love to check em out.

Here is a list of some "reputable historians" that completely disagree with Highriggers charge against Irenaeus's list of Popes up to the end of the 2nd Cenury:

“The Papacy

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #815 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 21:32:32 »
Quote
Here is a list of some "reputable historians" that completely disagree with Highriggers charge against Irenaeus's list of Popes up to the end of the 2nd Cenury:

“The Papacy

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #816 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 21:54:44 »
Quote
Here is a list of some "reputable historians" that completely disagree with Highriggers charge against Irenaeus's list of Popes up to the end of the 2nd Cenury:

“The Papacy

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #817 on: Wed Jan 11, 2012 - 11:33:32 »
Quote
EXCUSE me?  You judge the validity of a historian's claims by the rave reviews printed on their books??

elvisman,

He died in 1923? Sounds old timey to me. Cant you find a modern historian with a reputation? I guess not.

But to your point, of course I consider strongly if the historian is respected by his peers. I like to follow the mainstream of history from the mainstream of historians. When they do not support one of their number I question his suitabilty, particularly when he is out of line with most of the others.

Besides you never told us what this guy said. Hard to analyze when you hide what he said. We only have your word that he supports you. Not very convincing since time after time I have caught you adding words to documents to suit your own views.
Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #818 on: Wed Jan 11, 2012 - 13:44:07 »
elvisman,

He died in 1923? Sounds old timey to me. Cant you find a modern historian with a reputation? I guess not.

But to your point, of course I consider strongly if the historian is respected by his peers. I like to follow the mainstream of history from the mainstream of historians. When they do not support one of their number I question his suitabilty, particularly when he is out of line with most of the others.

Besides you never told us what this guy said. Hard to analyze when you hide what he said. We only have your word that he supports you. Not very convincing since time after time I have caught you adding words to documents to suit your own views.
Peace, JohnR

"OLDTIMEY"??
You diregard a respected historian because he lived 80 years ago?  That is the most IGNORANT approach of history I have ever heard.  I tell you, Highrigger - you expose your own personal ignorance with every post.

What about Dr. Hahn?
Partick Madrid?
Steve Ray?


You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #819 on: Thu Jan 12, 2012 - 11:01:49 »
Quote
You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

elvisman,

1. You have not provided his quote. Dont you think that is important?

2. You have not provided any support that he is a reputable and respected historian. Thats important too.

3. In 1923 Catholic historians were generally afraid of going against the teachings of the Catholic church. History divergance was frowned upon and could result in excommunication. They had to be very careful. Not so today. Today Catholic historians can speak the historical truth without fear. Why dont you find a top modern historian to support you? Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #820 on: Thu Jan 12, 2012 - 11:11:31 »
Quote
You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

elvisman,

1. You have not provided his quote. Dont you think that is important?

2. You have not provided any support that he is a reputable and respected historian. Thats important too.

3. In 1923 Catholic historians were generally afraid of going against the teachings of the Catholic church. History divergance was frowned upon and could result in excommunication. They had to be very careful. Not so today. Today Catholic historians can speak the historical truth without fear. Why dont you find a top modern historian to support you? Peace, JohnR

What are you talking about?
In post #808, you claimed:
"ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome."

I proved you wrong by listing at least FOUR reputable and respected historians who claim the exact OPPOSITE.

As for the respect Adrian Fortescue had among the people of his time, here is an excerpt from his biography:
"Between 1899 and 1905 he passed doctoral examinations in Moral Theology, Dogma, Ecclesiastical History, Canon Law, Arabic, and Biblical Sciencepassing the examination in Semitic languages with great distinction, a rare achievement. On 10 June 1905 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Divinity, making him the very rare recipient of a triple doctorate. The level of his scholarship was so exceptional that he was awarded a prize presented to him personally by the Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria."

Your pathetic attempt to discredit him is simply that - pathetic.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #821 on: Thu Jan 12, 2012 - 11:47:52 »
Quote
You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

elvisman,

1. You have not provided his quote. Dont you think that is important?

2. You have not provided any support that he is a reputable and respected historian. Thats important too.

3. In 1923 Catholic historians were generally afraid of going against the teachings of the Catholic church. History divergance was frowned upon and could result in excommunication. They had to be very careful. Not so today. Today Catholic historians can speak the historical truth without fear. Why dont you find a top modern historian to support you? Peace, JohnR

I'll let PROTESTANT historian Kenneth Samples explain.  Samples wrote the following for the Christian Reasearch Journal, the flagship publication of "Bible Answerman" Hank Hannegraff's Christian Research Institute:

"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."
What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 2)
An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #822 on: Thu Jan 12, 2012 - 14:57:23 »
Quote
"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."
What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 2)
An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism

elvisman,

Your quote never says Peter was a bishop of Rome and of course we all have continuity with first Century christianity, in fact Jesus himself. Does not seem like much to me. And it is from 1923. You are having to go far back to find a quite that does not add much.
Yes of course the protestants splintered from the RCC. What is new about this? Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #823 on: Thu Jan 12, 2012 - 15:18:29 »
elvisman,

Your quote never says Peter was a bishop of Rome and of course we all have continuity with first Century christianity, in fact Jesus himself. Does not seem like much to me. And it is from 1923. You are having to go far back to find a quite that does not add much.
Yes of course the protestants splintered from the RCC. What is new about this? Peace, JohnR

WHAT??
What Think Ye of Rome? by Kenneth Samples was written in the 1990's - NOT 1923.

You claim that you have continuity with First Century Christianity?  Aren't you a Methodist?
Methodism was started by John Wesley in 1738.
HARDLY an unbroken Apostolic line . . .

When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #824 on: Fri Jan 13, 2012 - 18:40:20 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #825 on: Fri Jan 13, 2012 - 19:09:49 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

The bishop is not a bishop just because he's chosen from among the people or predecessor. The bishop is the bishop once he is chosen and properly consecrated.

You seriously need to catch up.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #826 on: Fri Jan 13, 2012 - 19:12:52 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

The bishop is not a bishop just because he's chosen from among the people or predecessor. The bishop is the bishop once he is chosen and properly consecrated.

You seriously need to catch up.

Perhaps you could point to the passage of Scripture that speaks about the consecration of bishops.  I know about the qualifications and character traits that Paul said they needed but I really don't recall anything about being properly consecrated.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #827 on: Fri Jan 13, 2012 - 19:28:33 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

The bishop is not a bishop just because he's chosen from among the people or predecessor. The bishop is the bishop once he is chosen and properly consecrated.

You seriously need to catch up.

Perhaps you could point to the passage of Scripture that speaks about the consecration of bishops.  I know about the qualifications and character traits that Paul said they needed but I really don't recall anything about being properly consecrated.

I got you Big Brother. Coming right up.

John 20:21Jesus, therefore, said to them again, `Peace to you; according as the Father hath sent me, I also send you;'

 22and this having said, he breathed on [them], and saith to them, `Receive the Holy Spirit;  

23if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'


This was how Christ consecrated the disciples.

Acts 13:2and in their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Separate ye to me both Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them,'

 3then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.


And that is how the Apostle consecrate others.

The process of consecration is how the selected candidate is equipped with the Holy Spirit's gifts for the office.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #828 on: Fri Jan 13, 2012 - 21:11:58 »
Quote
3then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.

And that is how the Apostle consecrate others.

The process of consecration is how the selected candidate is equipped with the Holy Spirit's gifts for the office

elvisman,

The story says nothing about consecration. That is your misinformed opinion. I showed you what the experts say about it and I guess you think you know more than they. I am not surprised. You continue to be in denial. Next you will be telling me how Jesus consecrated all the Popes of the RCC. Whatever. Peace, JohnR

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #829 on: Fri Jan 13, 2012 - 22:59:08 »
Quote
3then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.

And that is how the Apostle consecrate others.

The process of consecration is how the selected candidate is equipped with the Holy Spirit's gifts for the office

elvisman,

The story says nothing about consecration. That is your misinformed opinion. I showed you what the experts say about it and I guess you think you know more than they. I am not surprised. You continue to be in denial. Next you will be telling me how Jesus consecrated all the Popes of the RCC. Whatever. Peace, JohnR

Get a clue. Jesus Christ chose His disciples and then consecrated them. The Apostles chose successors and consecrated them. New successors were chosen and then were consecrated. The experts don't support you at all you just head stuck in your four point of contact to see it.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #830 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 09:50:11 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

The bishop is not a bishop just because he's chosen from among the people or predecessor. The bishop is the bishop once he is chosen and properly consecrated.

You seriously need to catch up.

Perhaps you could point to the passage of Scripture that speaks about the consecration of bishops.  I know about the qualifications and character traits that Paul said they needed but I really don't recall anything about being properly consecrated.

I got you Big Brother. Coming right up.

John 20:21Jesus, therefore, said to them again, `Peace to you; according as the Father hath sent me, I also send you;'

 22and this having said, he breathed on [them], and saith to them, `Receive the Holy Spirit;  

23if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'


This was how Christ consecrated the disciples.

Acts 13:2and in their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Separate ye to me both Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them,'

 3then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.


And that is how the Apostle consecrate others.

The process of consecration is how the selected candidate is equipped with the Holy Spirit's gifts for the office.


You are definitely a master at reading into the Scriptures what you want them to say.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #831 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 10:00:00 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

The bishop is not a bishop just because he's chosen from among the people or predecessor. The bishop is the bishop once he is chosen and properly consecrated.

You seriously need to catch up.

Perhaps you could point to the passage of Scripture that speaks about the consecration of bishops.  I know about the qualifications and character traits that Paul said they needed but I really don't recall anything about being properly consecrated.

I got you Big Brother. Coming right up.

John 20:21Jesus, therefore, said to them again, `Peace to you; according as the Father hath sent me, I also send you;'

 22and this having said, he breathed on [them], and saith to them, `Receive the Holy Spirit;  

23if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'


This was how Christ consecrated the disciples.

Acts 13:2and in their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Separate ye to me both Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them,'

 3then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.


And that is how the Apostle consecrate others.

The process of consecration is how the selected candidate is equipped with the Holy Spirit's gifts for the office.


You are definitely a master at reading into the Scriptures what you want them to say.

Or is it that we look at them that way because we are all starting with a certain  mindset? We look at the same scripture readings and you reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #832 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 10:19:15 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

The bishop is not a bishop just because he's chosen from among the people or predecessor. The bishop is the bishop once he is chosen and properly consecrated.

You seriously need to catch up.

Perhaps you could point to the passage of Scripture that speaks about the consecration of bishops.  I know about the qualifications and character traits that Paul said they needed but I really don't recall anything about being properly consecrated.

I got you Big Brother. Coming right up.

John 20:21Jesus, therefore, said to them again, `Peace to you; according as the Father hath sent me, I also send you;'

 22and this having said, he breathed on [them], and saith to them, `Receive the Holy Spirit;  

23if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'


This was how Christ consecrated the disciples.

Acts 13:2and in their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Separate ye to me both Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them,'

 3then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.


And that is how the Apostle consecrate others.

The process of consecration is how the selected candidate is equipped with the Holy Spirit's gifts for the office.


You are definitely a master at reading into the Scriptures what you want them to say.

Or is it that we look at them that way because we are all starting with a certain  mindset? We look at the same scripture readings and you reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.

Oh there is no doubt that we all look at Scripture with a certain mindset.  So far as I am concerned, I don't reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.  But there is orthodox interpretation that I reject.  But I reject it because I don't believe the interpretation that it presents.  You speak about orthodox interpretation as if there is some magic formula that says that orthodox interpretation must be correct.  I reject that also.  The Scriptures were not written such that only a clique of a cult of "religious leaders" can understand them as you seem to imply.

Case in point.  I asked for the Scripture that speaks of consecration of bishops.  The Scripture that LH gave doesn't say anything about bishops.  Nor does it say anything about anyone being "properly" consecrated.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #833 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 10:38:34 »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

The bishop is not a bishop just because he's chosen from among the people or predecessor. The bishop is the bishop once he is chosen and properly consecrated.

You seriously need to catch up.

Perhaps you could point to the passage of Scripture that speaks about the consecration of bishops.  I know about the qualifications and character traits that Paul said they needed but I really don't recall anything about being properly consecrated.

I got you Big Brother. Coming right up.

John 20:21Jesus, therefore, said to them again, `Peace to you; according as the Father hath sent me, I also send you;'

 22and this having said, he breathed on [them], and saith to them, `Receive the Holy Spirit;  

23if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'


This was how Christ consecrated the disciples.

Acts 13:2and in their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Separate ye to me both Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them,'

 3then having fasted, and having prayed, and having laid the hands on them, they sent [them] away.


And that is how the Apostle consecrate others.

The process of consecration is how the selected candidate is equipped with the Holy Spirit's gifts for the office.


You are definitely a master at reading into the Scriptures what you want them to say.

Or is it that we look at them that way because we are all starting with a certain  mindset? We look at the same scripture readings and you reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.

Oh there is no doubt that we all look at Scripture with a certain mindset.  So far as I am concerned, I don't reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.  But there is orthodox interpretation that I reject.  But I reject it because I don't believe the interpretation that it presents.  You speak about orthodox interpretation as if there is some magic formula that says that orthodox interpretation must be correct.  I reject that also.  The Scriptures were not written such that only a clique of a cult of "religious leaders" can understand them as you seem to imply.

Case in point.  I asked for the Scripture that speaks of consecration of bishops.  The Scripture that LH gave doesn't say anything about bishops.  Nor does it say anything about anyone being "properly" consecrated.

I could elaborate further but I doubt it would matter.

Bishops are overseers. They get their office and authority from the Apostles and that office is committed to others in the same manner.

Now look at what Christ. He chose His Apostles and before He sent them out He breathed on them that the may receive the endowment of the Holy Spirit. That is consecration.

Consider then the second verse; St. Paul comes before two disciples he is about to send out in the same manner that Christ sent the Twelve and what does he do; he performs the similar rite of consecration on them.

The consecration is in the reception of the Holy Spirit's gift of office. Some will try purposefully to confuse Christ's words with the normal blessing of the Holy Spirit that we all get in baptism but that is easily refutable. That immersion of the Holy Spirit didn't come to the Apostles at their consecrations it came later in Acts when they started speaking in tongues. These receptions of the Holy Spirit are unique from one another.

One only the Apostles(and I think the seventy were there as well) received and the other the entire Church received.

I know it doesn't matter but I just wanted highrigger to realize the fault in his assertion. He claims that because his clergy are chosen in a similar manner to our earliest that the hold the same abilities. For a Bible student and history student that's obviously false. From the very beginning Apostolic Succession was comprised of valid selection and valid consecration. That is the crux of ordination. Without being consecrated you can not assume the office because you do not have the abilities of the office.

Disregarding the fact that highrigger's clergy are occupying a man made office not established by Christ, an Apostle or a valid successor; even with that huge gapping hole they haven't been consecrated so aren't validly ordained Christian clergy. Well at least not to the way that Christ established in the beginning. God may choose to operate outside of His at His own leisure.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #834 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 11:09:54 »
Or is it that we look at them that way because we are all starting with a certain  mindset? We look at the same scripture readings and you reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.

Oh there is no doubt that we all look at Scripture with a certain mindset.  So far as I am concerned, I don't reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.  But there is orthodox interpretation that I reject.  But I reject it because I don't believe the interpretation that it presents.  You speak about orthodox interpretation as if there is some magic formula that says that orthodox interpretation must be correct.  I reject that also.  The Scriptures were not written such that only a clique of a cult of "religious leaders" can understand them as you seem to imply.

Case in point.  I asked for the Scripture that speaks of consecration of bishops.  The Scripture that LH gave doesn't say anything about bishops.  Nor does it say anything about anyone being "properly" consecrated.

I could elaborate further but I doubt it would matter.

It might.  But given your tendency to redefine the meaning of Scriptures to that which supports your views I would treat your further elaborated very carefully.  I wouldn't disregard it, but I certainly would not take it as preordained truth either.

Bishops are overseers. They get their office and authority from the Apostles and that office is committed to others in the same manner.

Now look at what Christ. He chose His Apostles and before He sent them out He breathed on them that the may receive the endowment of the Holy Spirit. That is consecration.

Consider then the second verse; St. Paul comes before two disciples he is about to send out in the same manner that Christ sent the Twelve and what does he do; he performs the similar rite of consecration on them.

The consecration is in the reception of the Holy Spirit's gift of office. Some will try purposefully to confuse Christ's words with the normal blessing of the Holy Spirit that we all get in baptism but that is easily refutable. That immersion of the Holy Spirit didn't come to the Apostles at their consecrations it came later in Acts when they started speaking in tongues. These receptions of the Holy Spirit are unique from one another.

Here again, I simply reject your [orthodox?] view and interpretation or definition of immersion of the Holy Spirit.  But I guess that is what all of the dissension really stems from doesn't it?  We simply do not all agree on the definition of terms.  When I read, in Acts 20, for example that Paul called for the elders of the church, I see a (relatively small) group of men from the church in Ephesus whose character and qualifications are typified by those that Paul expressed in his letters to Timothy and Titus.  I suspect that you, when you read those same words, see a man or perhaps men who would more likely be described as one who would satisfy the definition what the RCC calls a Bishop.  It might even include all the fancy robes and head gear etc. [pontifical vestments?]

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #835 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 12:05:03 »
Or is it that we look at them that way because we are all starting with a certain  mindset? We look at the same scripture readings and you reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.

Oh there is no doubt that we all look at Scripture with a certain mindset.  So far as I am concerned, I don't reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.  But there is orthodox interpretation that I reject.  But I reject it because I don't believe the interpretation that it presents.  You speak about orthodox interpretation as if there is some magic formula that says that orthodox interpretation must be correct.  I reject that also.  The Scriptures were not written such that only a clique of a cult of "religious leaders" can understand them as you seem to imply.

Case in point.  I asked for the Scripture that speaks of consecration of bishops.  The Scripture that LH gave doesn't say anything about bishops.  Nor does it say anything about anyone being "properly" consecrated.

I could elaborate further but I doubt it would matter.

It might.  But given your tendency to redefine the meaning of Scriptures to that which supports your views I would treat your further elaborated very carefully.  I wouldn't disregard it, but I certainly would not take it as preordained truth either.

Bishops are overseers. They get their office and authority from the Apostles and that office is committed to others in the same manner.

Now look at what Christ. He chose His Apostles and before He sent them out He breathed on them that the may receive the endowment of the Holy Spirit. That is consecration.

Consider then the second verse; St. Paul comes before two disciples he is about to send out in the same manner that Christ sent the Twelve and what does he do; he performs the similar rite of consecration on them.

The consecration is in the reception of the Holy Spirit's gift of office. Some will try purposefully to confuse Christ's words with the normal blessing of the Holy Spirit that we all get in baptism but that is easily refutable. That immersion of the Holy Spirit didn't come to the Apostles at their consecrations it came later in Acts when they started speaking in tongues. These receptions of the Holy Spirit are unique from one another.

Here again, I simply reject your [orthodox?] view and interpretation or definition of immersion of the Holy Spirit.  But I guess that is what all of the dissension really stems from doesn't it?  We simply do not all agree on the definition of terms.  When I read, in Acts 20, for example that Paul called for the elders of the church, I see a (relatively small) group of men from the church in Ephesus whose character and qualifications are typified by those that Paul expressed in his letters to Timothy and Titus.  I suspect that you, when you read those same words, see a man or perhaps men who would more likely be described as one who would satisfy the definition what the RCC calls a Bishop.  It might even include all the fancy robes and head gear etc. [pontifical vestments?]

Exactly! The Orthodox view is the idea of seven sacraments a belief held to this day by the Eastern and Western Christian Rites and others also afilliated with that belief. That to me is what I think orthodox means. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

The Church was what it was in those beginning days, but it did not remain stagnant. It grew, both in size and in the formulation of the Christian doctrine. So, is it wrong that these things happened? The robes you talk about, I think, signify as to what the people wore in the early days of the Apostles, and even of the times of the early Church Fathers. I see no problem with this.

For example, as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion I wear a white alb (robe) over my street clothes. To me, this is fitting, as I am now about to engage in a holy act (distributing the Eucharist) and by wearing this special garment it shows the utmost respect to the distribution of Our Lord in this most holy of sacraments.

« Last Edit: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 12:12:17 by Ladonia »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #836 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 12:09:29 »
elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR

It's really comical how you take Raymond Brown's idea of what Apostolic Succession is and apply it to your 300-year-old sect.

Brown's explanation is about the ONE Church established by Christ - not the tens of thousands of Johhny-come-lately sects that splintered off of the one TRUE Church.

Your "line of succession" only goes back as far as John Wesley in the 18th century . . .

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #837 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 12:40:19 »
Or is it that we look at them that way because we are all starting with a certain  mindset? We look at the same scripture readings and you reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.

Oh there is no doubt that we all look at Scripture with a certain mindset.  So far as I am concerned, I don't reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.  But there is orthodox interpretation that I reject.  But I reject it because I don't believe the interpretation that it presents.  You speak about orthodox interpretation as if there is some magic formula that says that orthodox interpretation must be correct.  I reject that also.  The Scriptures were not written such that only a clique of a cult of "religious leaders" can understand them as you seem to imply.

Case in point.  I asked for the Scripture that speaks of consecration of bishops.  The Scripture that LH gave doesn't say anything about bishops.  Nor does it say anything about anyone being "properly" consecrated.

I could elaborate further but I doubt it would matter.

It might.  But given your tendency to redefine the meaning of Scriptures to that which supports your views I would treat your further elaborated very carefully.  I wouldn't disregard it, but I certainly would not take it as preordained truth either.

Bishops are overseers. They get their office and authority from the Apostles and that office is committed to others in the same manner.

Now look at what Christ. He chose His Apostles and before He sent them out He breathed on them that the may receive the endowment of the Holy Spirit. That is consecration.

Consider then the second verse; St. Paul comes before two disciples he is about to send out in the same manner that Christ sent the Twelve and what does he do; he performs the similar rite of consecration on them.

The consecration is in the reception of the Holy Spirit's gift of office. Some will try purposefully to confuse Christ's words with the normal blessing of the Holy Spirit that we all get in baptism but that is easily refutable. That immersion of the Holy Spirit didn't come to the Apostles at their consecrations it came later in Acts when they started speaking in tongues. These receptions of the Holy Spirit are unique from one another.

Here again, I simply reject your [orthodox?] view and interpretation or definition of immersion of the Holy Spirit.  But I guess that is what all of the dissension really stems from doesn't it?  We simply do not all agree on the definition of terms.  When I read, in Acts 20, for example that Paul called for the elders of the church, I see a (relatively small) group of men from the church in Ephesus whose character and qualifications are typified by those that Paul expressed in his letters to Timothy and Titus.  I suspect that you, when you read those same words, see a man or perhaps men who would more likely be described as one who would satisfy the definition what the RCC calls a Bishop.  It might even include all the fancy robes and head gear etc. [pontifical vestments?]

The office of "bishop" is all over the Bible in some places verbatim infact. I don't really need to read such into the text if the text clearly use the word on its own.

"Pontifical vestments"? Nah I'm more of a St. Ambrose man myself.

"He (St. Ambrose) also considered fine clothes unsuitable for the clergy, and he himself cultivated simplicity in attire."

-The Fathers of the Church: St. Ambrose of Milan, The Mysteries, The Holy Spirit, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, The Sacraments

Introduction page IX

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #838 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 12:54:53 »
Here again, I simply reject your [orthodox?] view and interpretation or definition of immersion of the Holy Spirit.  But I guess that is what all of the dissension really stems from doesn't it?  We simply do not all agree on the definition of terms.  When I read, in Acts 20, for example that Paul called for the elders of the church, I see a (relatively small) group of men from the church in Ephesus whose character and qualifications are typified by those that Paul expressed in his letters to Timothy and Titus.  I suspect that you, when you read those same words, see a man or perhaps men who would more likely be described as one who would satisfy the definition what the RCC calls a Bishop.  It might even include all the fancy robes and head gear etc. [pontifical vestments?]

Then perhaps you need to read Acts 1 where the 11 Apostles choose another to take the "OFFICE" of Judas.
The Greek word used here is επισκοπην (Episkopay), which means BISHOPRIC.

This is CLEAR evidence that proves you wrong.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #839 on: Sat Jan 14, 2012 - 13:29:43 »
Or is it that we look at them that way because we are all starting with a certain  mindset? We look at the same scripture readings and you reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.

Oh there is no doubt that we all look at Scripture with a certain mindset.  So far as I am concerned, I don't reject the orthodox interpretation from the get go.  But there is orthodox interpretation that I reject.  But I reject it because I don't believe the interpretation that it presents.  You speak about orthodox interpretation as if there is some magic formula that says that orthodox interpretation must be correct.  I reject that also.  The Scriptures were not written such that only a clique of a cult of "religious leaders" can understand them as you seem to imply.

Case in point.  I asked for the Scripture that speaks of consecration of bishops.  The Scripture that LH gave doesn't say anything about bishops.  Nor does it say anything about anyone being "properly" consecrated.

I could elaborate further but I doubt it would matter.

It might.  But given your tendency to redefine the meaning of Scriptures to that which supports your views I would treat your further elaborated very carefully.  I wouldn't disregard it, but I certainly would not take it as preordained truth either.

Bishops are overseers. They get their office and authority from the Apostles and that office is committed to others in the same manner.

Now look at what Christ. He chose His Apostles and before He sent them out He breathed on them that the may receive the endowment of the Holy Spirit. That is consecration.

Consider then the second verse; St. Paul comes before two disciples he is about to send out in the same manner that Christ sent the Twelve and what does he do; he performs the similar rite of consecration on them.

The consecration is in the reception of the Holy Spirit's gift of office. Some will try purposefully to confuse Christ's words with the normal blessing of the Holy Spirit that we all get in baptism but that is easily refutable. That immersion of the Holy Spirit didn't come to the Apostles at their consecrations it came later in Acts when they started speaking in tongues. These receptions of the Holy Spirit are unique from one another.

Here again, I simply reject your [orthodox?] view and interpretation or definition of immersion of the Holy Spirit.  But I guess that is what all of the dissension really stems from doesn't it?  We simply do not all agree on the definition of terms.  When I read, in Acts 20, for example that Paul called for the elders of the church, I see a (relatively small) group of men from the church in Ephesus whose character and qualifications are typified by those that Paul expressed in his letters to Timothy and Titus.  I suspect that you, when you read those same words, see a man or perhaps men who would more likely be described as one who would satisfy the definition what the RCC calls a Bishop.  It might even include all the fancy robes and head gear etc. [pontifical vestments?]

The office of "bishop" is all over the Bible in some places verbatim infact. I don't really need to read such into the text if the text clearly use the word on its own.

"Pontifical vestments"? Nah I'm more of a St. Ambrose man myself.


Well see, there you have it.  I don't think I am much of a St. Ambrose man.  I don't even know who that is/was(?).  I am a more of a Christian man myself.   ::smile::

 

     
anything