What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

WHY DID CHRIST SEND HIS DISCIPLES OUT WITH THE GOOD NEWS?

jeremiah1five said:
Water is human birth.
Spirit is God’s birth.
Click to expand...
Jn 3:5 your version
Born of water born again of the spirit alone?

Real Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Are you going to twist Mk 16:16 too?
Use the second part of the verse to delete the first?
 
donadams said:
Jn 3:5 your version
Born of water born again of the spirit alone?

Real Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Are you going to twist Mk 16:16 too?
Use the second part of the verse to delete the first?
Click to expand...
Born of water AND of the spirit.

But your belief can't get past what Peter said, your first Pope:

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Pe 3:21.

We are not born again by water AND Spirit but by the Spirit ONLY.

THAT'S the answer of a good conscience (which the Holy Spirit renews in our conversion.)

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, Eph 2:3–5.

The Holy Spirit resurrects a dead person in trespasses and sins.

Not water. H2O doesn't do anything.
 
donadams said:
Thanks
I don’t accept the sola’s but I stick to the Bible alone for the sake of those who do.

The authority of Peter and the apostles

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Matt 18:17 acts 1:8 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20 acts 2:42 1 Tim 3:15

Peter, the apostles and their successors have the same authority, power, and mission as Christ! Jn 20:21 as my father sent me, even so send I you!

1 Corinthians 16:22
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

This extends to the truth and to the church founded by Christ to teach all
men!

Cos Jesus Christ is the truth and cos His church is of divine origin, commissioned to teach the truth!

Christians must be taught and that requires humility! Lk 1:4 matt 28:19-20 matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 acts 2:42 acts 8:31

Teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors founded in the one true church by Jesus Christ!

Jesus Christ is the head of the church, (eph 5:23) the body of Christ,
(col 1:18) the new and eternal covenant, (pre-figured Jer 31:31) (Heb 8:8) new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant, (Heb 8:13) holy mother church replaced Israel Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Christ replaces David as king, (Lk 1:32-33) Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men, (1 Tim 2:5 & Heb 12:24) but a mediator remains on earth mediating between God and His people, but Christ ascended to heaven, (acts 1) before He did He founded His church, on Peter, and the apostles, and their successors!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 2:42 acts 8:31 & 35 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 16:13
Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20


Jesus Christ extends his mission, power, and authority to His church of His apostles! The apostles have the same mission, ministry, power, and authority as Christ! Jn 20:21 as the father sent me, so I send you!

Even His judging!
Matt 19:28 and 1 cor 6:2
His teaching authority!
Matt 28:19 and Jn 20:21
His power to forgive sins!
Jn 20:23
His being the light of the world!
Matt 5:14
Must hear church Matt 18:18
His ministry of reconciliation!
2 cor 5:18
His authority in governing the church and administering the kingdom!
Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 Jn 21:17
Lk 22:29
Apart from me you can do nothing. Jn 15:5
Acts 2:42 doctrine of the apostles!
So the church is subject to Christ!
Eph 5:24
Christ shares His glory! 2 thes 1:10 rev 12:1

The pillar and foundation of TRUTH!
1 Tim 3:15
Click to expand...
We have Scriptural evidence that the apostles were given authority, but no evidence for a line of succession from there
 
TMal3 said:
We have Scriptural evidence that the apostles were given authority, but no evidence for a line of succession from there
Click to expand...
Jesus said so Matt 28:19 “behold I am with you (the apostles) to the end
Acts 1:8 “my witnesses to the ends of the earth”
Requiring successors
Moses had successors Matt 23
Mathias is successor to judas acts 1:15-26
Timothy is successor to paul
Polycarp to John
Linus to peter
 
donadams said:
Jesus said so Matt 28:19 “behold I am with you (the apostles) to the end
Acts 1:8 “my witnesses to the ends of the earth”
Requiring successors
Moses had successors Matt 23
Mathias is successor to judas acts 1:15-26
Timothy is successor to paul
Polycarp to John
Linus to peter
Click to expand...
NOT successors.
Additions.
In their own right.

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Ac 2:47.

You seem to have succession covered. WHO replaced James?

Acts 12:1-2
1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

The Church began in Jerusalem.
Not Rome.
 
Right jeremiah1five, Matthias was a replacement, not a successor.

I do understand the 'succesor' inference though and appreciate your view on the matter donadams. I think Protestants do the same thing with sola Scriptura. It's not expressly stated, they infer it.

That's why I propose in the spirit of fairness that it be acknowledged that both succession & sola require inferences, but neither is expressly taught in Scripture. That's seems a fair and accurate, true statement.
 
TMal3 said:
Right jeremiah1five, Matthias was a replacement, not a successor.

I do understand the 'succesor' inference though and appreciate your view on the matter donadams. I think Protestants do the same thing with sola Scriptura. It's not expressly stated, they infer it.

That's why I propose in the spirit of fairness that it be acknowledged that both succession & sola require inferences, but neither is expressly taught in Scripture. That's seems a fair and accurate, true statement.
Click to expand...
What about the successors of Moses Matt 23 Jesus commanded they be obeyed?
 
I don't see a command in Matthew 23, but a warning to "be careful to listen to them" (because they're in charge and have the power). And then a command in the next verse to *not* follow them---not do as they do because they don't practice what they preach. And the entire last half of Matthew 23 is about how the Pharisees are hypocrites and "woe to them!"

Plus, the Pharisees "sit in the seat of Moses," meaning they function in the same type of role when it comes to the Law (Torah). But there is no line of succession in the sense of being "handed down" by the "laying on of hands." Moses handed down his authority to Joshua, but it ended there. Then, we have the period of judges when there was no centralized leadership but dispersed by tribes with judges over tribes. And if that weren't enough, the Babylonian Exile certainly ended any line of succession. The Pharisees were an entirely new sect (and not the only one; e.g., Sadduccees) that did not receive their authority from Moses through an unbroken line of authority handed down. The Pharisees gained prominence and authority as a result of political-religious events related to the Macabbean revolt. It was not handed down to them from Moses.

Similarly, after the fall of Rome in 70 AD, there was no central Jerusalem church. Antioch was next best, but still not a central "headquarters" of leadership power from the top-down. There was no single, top-down leadership structure in Christianity after the fall of Jerusalem. Not for several centuries.
 
TMal3 said:
I don't see a command in Matthew 23, but a warning to "be careful to listen to them" (because they're in charge and have the power). And then a command in the next verse to *not* follow them---not do as they do because they don't practice what they preach. And the entire last half of Matthew 23 is about how the Pharisees are hypocrites and "woe to them!"

Plus, the Pharisees "sit in the seat of Moses," meaning they function in the same type of role when it comes to the Law (Torah). But there is no line of succession in the sense of being "handed down" by the "laying on of hands." Moses handed down his authority to Joshua, but it ended there. Then, we have the period of judges when there was no centralized leadership but dispersed by tribes with judges over tribes. And if that weren't enough, the Babylonian Exile certainly ended any line of succession. The Pharisees were an entirely new sect (and not the only one; e.g., Sadduccees) that did not receive their authority from Moses through an unbroken line of authority handed down. The Pharisees gained prominence and authority as a result of political-religious events related to the Macabbean revolt. It was not handed down to them from Moses.

Similarly, after the fall of Rome in 70 AD, there was no central Jerusalem church. Antioch was next best, but still not a central "headquarters" of leadership power from the top-down. There was no single, top-down leadership structure in Christianity after the fall of Jerusalem. Not for several centuries.
Click to expand...
Not speaking about their impeccability only the jurisdictional authority and keys and power to bind that was taken from them Matt 21:43 and given to Peter and the app and their successors to be obeyed. Matt 16:18-19 18:18 eph 2;20
Thanks
 
Yes, I agree the apostles were endowed with a special authority. I just don't see where it's clearly stated in Scripture that this authority would be handed down in an unbroken line of apostolic succession. As witnesses of Christ's resurrection, the apostles were unique and had a unique authority. And again, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, there was no centralized leadership for Christianity anymore. It was dispersed to local churches. There is no evidence of churches being accountable to any one "Leader" over the whole Church as represented by all the individual local churches.
 
TMal3 said:
I don't see a command in Matthew 23, but a warning to "be careful to listen to them" (because they're in charge and have the power). And then a command in the next verse to *not* follow them---not do as they do because they don't practice what they preach. And the entire last half of Matthew 23 is about how the Pharisees are hypocrites and "woe to them!"

Plus, the Pharisees "sit in the seat of Moses," meaning they function in the same type of role when it comes to the Law (Torah). But there is no line of succession in the sense of being "handed down" by the "laying on of hands." Moses handed down his authority to Joshua, but it ended there. Then, we have the period of judges when there was no centralized leadership but dispersed by tribes with judges over tribes. And if that weren't enough, the Babylonian Exile certainly ended any line of succession. The Pharisees were an entirely new sect (and not the only one; e.g., Sadduccees) that did not receive their authority from Moses through an unbroken line of authority handed down. The Pharisees gained prominence and authority as a result of political-religious events related to the Macabbean revolt. It was not handed down to them from Moses.

Similarly, after the fall of Rome in 70 AD, there was no central Jerusalem church. Antioch was next best, but still not a central "headquarters" of leadership power from the top-down. There was no single, top-down leadership structure in Christianity after the fall of Jerusalem. Not for several centuries.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Essenes.
And you have a typo saying the fall of Rome in 70AD.
The central place where Christianity began was Jerusalem, not Antioch.
Too bad the RCC are not part of the origin of the Church which began in Jerusalem.
Not Rome. They're only trying to elbow themselves into history but they've failed with those who know Church history and the Word of God.
Good response, TMal3.
 
jeremiah1five said:
Don't forget the Essenes.
And you have a typo saying the fall of Rome in 70AD.
The central place where Christianity began was Jerusalem, not Antioch.
Too bad the RCC are not part of the origin of the Church which began in Jerusalem.
Not Rome. They're only trying to elbow themselves into history but they've failed with those who know Church history and the Word of God.
Good response, TMal3.
Click to expand...
Actually if you reread you'll see that I said it began in Jerusalem. Antioch was Paul's home base of operations. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Antioch would be the next best alternative, but still insufficient without the apostles themselves, given their earlier martyrdom of most before 70 AD.

I'm not sure about the RCC "elbowing" into history. I'd say it's a lot more complicated than that. And I'm not sure their failures are much different from Protestants' failures.
 
jeremiah1five said:
Born of water AND of the spirit.

But your belief can't get past what Peter said, your first Pope:

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Pe 3:21.

We are not born again by water AND Spirit but by the Spirit ONLY.
Click to expand...
You should have said..."We are not REborn again by water AND Spirit but by the Spirit ONLY.
jeremiah1five said:
THAT'S the answer of a good conscience (which the Holy Spirit renews in our conversion.)
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, Eph 2:3–5.
The Holy Spirit resurrects a dead person in trespasses and sins.
Not water. H2O doesn't do anything.
Click to expand...
When the "water" is part of 1 John 5:8, it does do something.
 
donadams said:
What about the successors of Moses Matt 23 Jesus commanded they be obeyed?
Click to expand...
Matt 23 goes on to cite Jesus calling them hypocritical, blind guides, serpents, and vipers.
Are they really succeeding Moses?
The fruit determines the seed from which it is born.
 
TMal3 said:
Yes, I agree the apostles were endowed with a special authority. I just don't see where it's clearly stated in Scripture that this authority would be handed down in an unbroken line of apostolic succession. As witnesses of Christ's resurrection, the apostles were unique and had a unique authority. And again, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, there was no centralized leadership for Christianity anymore. It was dispersed to local churches. There is no evidence of churches being accountable to any one "Leader" over the whole Church as represented by all the individual local churches.
Click to expand...
What special authority did the apostles have?
 
Hopeful 2 said:
What special authority did the apostles have?
Click to expand...
They included the original disciples chosen by Jesus and who Jesus commissioned; they were witnesses to the resurrection; and certain apostles were given special authority as foundational leaders of the Church, particularly the Twelve with Peter as the "rock" upon which Jesus said He would build His church. So they definitely were given special authority by the Lord Jesus. In short, the special authority is their personal commissioning by the Lord Jesus Himself, and the special authority their words and teaching carry as the original founders and 'pillars' of the Church. They stand at the origin of the Church and the whole of Christianity.

BUT what there is no Scriptural evidence for is that this authority was to be handed down in an unbroken succession. There's no real Scriptural evidence for that.
 
Hopeful 2 said:
Matt 23 goes on to cite Jesus calling them hypocritical, blind guides, serpents, and vipers.
Are they really succeeding Moses?
The fruit determines the seed from which it is born.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant! So they are not impeccable nor are the apostles,
It’s their kingdom authority
Jurisdictional authority of the keys and the power to bind and loose
Which was to be obeyed
But this was taken from them Matt 21:43 and given to Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18-19 18:18 Jn 21:20-23 eph 2:20 and they are to be obeyed
And the apostolic have successors
Amen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top