$2 challenge. Any takers?

[Gary]

Second challenge. $2 this time.

A Roman Catholic on these forums has claimed:

...There is no problem if there is a small gap in the papacy because as St. Ignatius way back in the early 2nd century says "where the bishop is there is the Church". As long as there are bishops who can elect a pope there is no problem.

Is this statement true? Have all the Roman Catholic popes been elected?

$2 says "No"; more than a handful have not been elected.

Any takers?

:bday: <--- nepotism!

 

[Disciple88]

First you have to remember the time period, second remember the language they used, thirdly remember the context.

Bishop- is another word for pastor or teacher even. Remember, Christianity was around then, not catholicism.

# 67 AD. is the generally accepted date of Peter's death. At that time the Catholic church claims the second "Pontiff," Linus, succeeded Peter as the first Pope in Rome.[footnote 5] They claim this succession gave Rome its primacy over the other centers of Christianity.
# The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. served to remove what would have been a major rival city. Had Jerusalem continued to exist, historians reason that Rome would have had an even more difficult time asserting its primacy. Ultimately, Jerusalem could have claimed to have given the gospel to Rome. Most importantly, Peter would have been sent from Jerusalem to Rome; thus Jerusalem would have been the "alma mater" and the prime city of Christianity. (Tradition claims that Peter visited Rome, like Paul. And tradition also claims that like Paul, Peter died in Rome).[footnote 6]
# In approximately 96 AD., Clement of Rome (the Catholic church's fourth Pope) wrote a letter of rebuke and admonishment to the church at Corinth. Catholics cite this letter as corroborative evidence to prove both the primacy of the church of Rome and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The position taken by Clement is one of "teacher".[footnote 7] He takes it upon himself to admonish the bishops in Corinth on matters of faith and practice. This, they claim, showed that the bishop of Rome was known even at this early date to be supreme.

They claimed these, but their claims are not biblical. Remember that it wasn't till 312 A.D. that Constatine( remember he believed what the Catholics believe today.... for the most part) won the battle that made him emporer of Rome and claiming the Christian faith as the supreme religion.

 

[Gary]

My point is that several times in history, the "pope" appointed himself or the previous pope appointed his successor. There were no bishops involved in the process although they existed at the time.

I seem to remember that one pope who not even a bishop before he took the chair.

:-?

 

[Disciple88]

My point is that several times in history, the "pope" appointed himself or the previous pope appointed his successor. There were no bishops involved in the process although they existed at the time.

I seem to remember that one pope who not even a bishop before he took the chair.

:-?

Pope? who? The catholic faith is unbilical, but I'm not going to get into that discussion.

 

[thessalonian]

Gary, your on ignore now. I love that feature.

 

[Gary]

Gary, your on ignore now. I love that feature.

I wonder if you will mislead me again this time. You said you had used that feature once before but continued to answer threads I wrote in.

I guess time will show (again) if you are honest about what you say you do and what you actually do.

 

[2NCBrother]

Your feelings are correct-there is a gap in the presence.

Two presences from the temple curtain being rent in two

St. Paul describes the temple curtain as Jesus’ flesh.

19 Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the curtain, that is, his flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us approach with true hearts in the full assurance of faith, having had our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and our bodies bathed with clean water (Hebrews 10).

Hearts sprinkled with Jesus’ blood, cleansing the conscience for everlasting life, and bodies bathed with clean water cleansing the flesh for resurrection. Two different baptisms. Now when Jesus died, this curtain, which divided the holy part from the most holy part in the sanctuary of the temple, was rent in two:

50 Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and yielded up [his] spirit.
51 And, look! the curtain of the sanctuary was rent in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rock-masses were split (Matthew 27).

33 And you must put the curtain under the hooks and bring the ark of the testimony there within the curtain; and the curtain must make a division for you between the Holy and the Most Holy (Exodus 26).

Since Paul has told us that the curtain is Jesus’ flesh, and since his wife, the new covenant saints as a group, who eat his flesh and drink his blood, are also his flesh, they are obviously split in two as well. Paul explains further:

6 After these things had been constructed this way, the priests enter the first tent [compartment] at all times to perform the sacred services;
7 but into the second [compartment] the high priest alone enters once a year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people (Hebrews 9).

11 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,
12 he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us] (Hebrews 9).

Jesus entered into heaven with his blood, so the curtain that prevented him from doing this was obviously his fleshly body. So now we understand how Paul deduced this symbolism. But his fleshly body is also his wife, and so his wife is split in two making two presences. Whilst he was alive, the temple curtain of his flesh was in one piece, namely his body, after he died his body became that of his wife and it was split in two.

What this means is that the baptism into the name of Jesus for the New covenant saints ended before the end of the first presence, which ended when the last New covenant saint died.

Then the baptism restarted at the beginning of the second presence, with the baptism of the first of the second group of new covenant saints, Leah's second group of children (Issachar and Zebulun).

This is an enormously significant discovery for all Christians since Jesus' day. This gap in time between the buildings (plural) of the spiritual temple, the gap between the two presences, is prefigured by the gap in time between the two physical stone temples of the Jews, between Solomon's temple and Zerubbabel's temple. Don't forget that the Jews were not under law in Babylon. One cannot be under law without a temple!! It was Ezra who took them back under law, he was a second Moses if you like.

The importance of this is that a lot of people over the last 2,000 years who have claimed to be new covenant saints, by their partaking of the bread and the wine have been badly mislead. If they had listened to Jesus they would have known, because it is like he said:

11 You will always have the poor with you but you will not always have me (Matthew 26 adapted from Greek).

This response was made to the disciples indignation at a woman pouring expensive oil on Jesus' head. The woman is the new covenant, the expensive oil is the baptism in holy spirit, the head is the collection of new covenant saints who are to be the Kings of the Kingdom of God in heaven. So the response, in the symbolic meaning, means you will not always have the new covenant saints. It means, I will not always be present. In the literal meaning of course Jesus died.