[dwashbur]

Do you think Divine Justice rewards by throwing you off like a used snot rag?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The canon of the New Testament finished with the passing of the apostles, and there is nothing in their writings to indicate that they had any kind of successors. I don't give a hoot what the Catholic church says, because history shows they're as corrupt and fallible as any other church that has ever come along.

And such a limited view too, completely devoiced from the Divine Church's history and doctrine. It must be lonely, just you and what you think is Christ.

First, there is no "Divine Church." That's a doctrine that said church made up out of whole cloth in order to control people. Obviously, in some instances it's working. Second, it's not lonely at all. Jesus is my best friend, and I know what he's like because his closest friends told me what I needed to know. Too bad that's not enough for you, because your "saints" often contradict each other, as do the edicts that get handed down from Rome. The laity can have the cup. No they can't. Yes they can. Do this before you receive the host. Oh wait, that's not enough, now do this afterward. Hardly "Divine." More like "typical human jumble." You're welcome to believe it's divine if you want to, but that doesn't make it so. Nor does them claiming it make it so. There are many reasons the Reformation happened, and the Catholic church was at the heart of all those reasons.

I would be happy to discuss the verse of John if I knew what it was.

It's right there in the post you responded to earlier. It's not my fault you didn't read it.

[dwashbur]

Incidentally, I don't know where you got that idea that the gospels and the rest of the NT are third-generation from Christ, but it's dead wrong. Two were written by apostles, the other two by companions of apostles. That was the criterion that your precious Catholic church used to include them in the canon in the first place. Maybe you should pay attention to the church councils, too.

[JoeT777]

Incidentally, I don't know where you got that idea that the gospels and the rest of the NT are third-generation from Christ, but it's dead wrong. Two were written by apostles, the other two by companions of apostles. That was the criterion that your precious Catholic church used to include them in the canon in the first place. Maybe you should pay attention to the church councils, too.

The word given by Christ, first generation
The Christ's word taught by the Apostles, second generation
The word taught by the Apostle's successors, third generation.

Three generations. And the only reason you have those words in writing today is because of the Catholic Church. Scripture is a part of Catholic Sacred Tradition. And the meaning of those words is kept as true today as it was for 'The Way' by the Catholic Church. Yes, indeed the Catholic Church is precious.

Christ didn't come to write a book, that's obvious as He didn't leave one. He came so that we could partake His Sacraments thereby becoming members of His Body.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

The word given by Christ, first generation
The Christ's word taught by the Apostles, second generation
The word taught by the Apostle's successors, third generation.

This is so artificial I have no words. And again, the apostles had no successors.

Christ didn't come to write a book, that's obvious as He didn't leave one. He came so that we could partake His Sacraments thereby becoming members of His Body.

You won't find sacraments in the Bible, either. That's another artificial construct.

[JoeT777]

This is so artificial I have no words. And again, the apostles had no successors.

Maybe you don't recall, in the Scriptures they are called Bishops.

You won't find sacraments in the Bible, either. That's another artificial construct.

The Sacraments are ordained by Christ as a visual sign of graces received. Each is Scriptural. If you are a Sola Scriptorist, then you should hold to the Sacraments. Sacred Scripture isn't an artificial construct.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

Maybe you don't recall, in the Scriptures they are called Bishops.

First, nothing in the Bible suggests that anyone is any kind of successor to the apostles.

Second, "bishop" as defined by the Catholic church is not a biblical term.

[JoeT777]

First, nothing in the Bible suggests that anyone is any kind of successor to the apostles.

Second, "bishop" as defined by the Catholic church is not a biblical term.

There is a good example of succession in Acts 1:21-26 where Joseph and Justus were appointed.

The office of Bishop is discussed in four locations, 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25. And on several occasions 'Saint' is used to signify a Bishop. The office of Bishop is conferred by laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14.

For generations the Bishops kept Christ's teachings pure without benefit of Scripture, simply by word of mouth. The Catholic Tradition of apostolic succession keeps and maintains the original intent of Christ's Word.


JoeT

[dwashbur]

There is a good example of succession in Acts 1:21-26 where Joseph and Justus were appointed.

Um, maybe you should read it again. Joseph and Justus were the same person. The other candidate was Matthias, and he's the one who was chosen. But more important, what were the criteria for being the successor to Judas?

Acts 1:21-22
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

So, apostolic succession requires 1. Someone who was with them the whole time, 2. Someone who was there for John's ministry, 3. Someone who actually saw the Lord after he rose, and 4. Someone who can personally testify as a witness to the resurrection. How many of your successors through church history meet these guidelines?

Furthermore, if we read on in the book of Acts, we notice several things. For one, Matthias is never mentioned again. For another, we never actually see the Lord sanctioning this move. Why? Because he had his own replacement: Paul. And none of the apostles or Paul are ever called anything resembling bishops, so this passage has nothing to do with it anyway.

The office of Bishop is discussed in four locations, 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25. And on several occasions 'Saint' is used to signify a Bishop. The office of Bishop is conferred by laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14.

I'll treat the most obvious one first. 1 Timothy 1:6 says "Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk." I suppose I could ask if that's a Freudian slip, but I'll try to be nice ;-) Anyway, I think either you're a little confused or your source is.

1 Tim 4:14 never mentions the word "bishop" or any of its cognates. The laying-on of hands in this passage refers to his spiritual giftedness, and has nothing at all to do with any kind of office.

I Timothy 3:1, 2 and Titus 1:7 all use the same word, "episkopos." It means "overseer." When we take the commands to Timothy and Titus that surround this word into account, it's obvious what this "office" is: pastor. Shepherd of the local congregation. That's all. No wider scope, no special authority, just the church's primary teacher/preacher.

And I'm amazed that you included 1 Peter 2:25, since that is obviously talking about Jesus, the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. This is a good example of how not to use a concordance.

The first verses of Timothy and Titus tell us what those men's jobs were: they were special emmissaries from Paul, sent to specific places to deal with specific problems. They did not hold any "office" in any church, nor where they in any way "successors" to Paul. They were trouble-shooters sent in to deal with specific occasions. There is no biblical office of "bishop." In reality, "Bishop" is a much later, artificial construct that got applied to this word so some people could justify their desire for power. But again, it is not a biblical term, and the office as practiced by the Catholic church has nothing to do with the word's use in the New Testament. Let's face it: they made up the whole hierarchy thing out of whole cloth. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible to justify it.

For generations the Bishops kept Christ's teachings pure without benefit of Scripture, simply by word of mouth.

Wrong again, Joe. The church had written documents within less than a generation of Jesus, especially the letters of Paul. There are some historical and linguistic hints that Mark may have been written as early as AD 45 or so. The documents were there, and the churches were in constant communication with each other. "Hey, we got a letter from Paul. Want a copy?" "Sure! And the church in the next town could use one, too." NOTHING was preserved "simply by word of mouth" for "generations." The plethora of ancient copies of the NT books that we have prove that this statement is just wrong in all of its particulars. And by the way, the Eastern Orthodox church preserved a lot more of the NT books in much better condition than the Catholic church in the west did. Look it up under basic New Testament textual criticism. I don't know who told you this stuff about word-of-mouth preservation, but they're probably going to try and sell you some oceanfront property in Nebraska while they're at it.

The Catholic Tradition of apostolic succession keeps and maintains the original intent of Christ's Word.

Right. That's why the current pope is offering indulgences in exchange for following him on Twitter, right? Because Jesus definitely talked about that. Remind me again what he said about indulgences? Oh, right. NOTHING. This keeping of "the original intent of Christ's Word" is why the famous Renaissance document "Julius Exclusus," usually attributed to Erasmus, includes an exchange like this one:

Peter: Why did you start those wars?

Julius: I needed the money to support my sons.

Peter: What! A pope with wives and sons?

Julius: No wives, just sons.

And we know it was true. The Catholic church has preserved its own traditions, nothing more. And the vast majority of those traditions have nothing whatsoever to do with "the original intent of Christ's Word".

Let's face it. The Bible knows nothing of the majority of Catholic teachings, including church hierarchies, popes, bishops, indulgences, succession or any of the rest. You are free to hold those beliefs and accept your church's authority to tell you to hold them, but don't try to claim that they are biblically based, because they aren't.

[freeman4]

As I read I understand the Holy Spirit being Christ in us and guiding us in His way. That is what helps us understand what we need to understand. Without Him we are not as you say, saved.

[classyT]

Freeman,

What do you mean?. "as you saved not saved".

Not trying to argue ( or maybe I am) but It is the bible that coined the term "SAVED".

Let me ask you... do you believe someone can be saved and know it until the day his heart stops and ceases to breathe? Just a question, trying to understand your theology.

[freeman4]

I believe that once a person is truly converted ( changed) they will not be in danger of completely falling away from God. Sure, people will continue to sin, but forgiveness is not far away.

But I believe that some feel that they may have been saved and have not. God only knows.

I Cor. 10:12, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

I believe that there are those who believe that they are OK in the sight of God but when it comes down to real persecution they need to be careful or they could fall. ( Scripture above)

[classyT]

Freeman4,

In the book of John he clearly tells us that our spirit bears witness with his that we are his. NO... God isn't the Only one that knows. We too can know because it isn't about what we do, it is about what we believe and who we are after we believe.

[freeman4]

Freeman4,

In the book of John he clearly tells us that our spirit bears witness with his that we are his. NO...God isn't the Only one that knows. We too can know because it isn't about what we do, it is about what we believe and who we are after we believe.

It will not be very long until we will all experience some drastic changes in this Nation and world. But those who are so engulfed in their own little world of religious belief's will soon be shaken to the reality of what the truth is.

Our Nation is a special Nation to God and He is angry because we have forgotten Him and have gone to pagan gods and belief. If one can not see this coming then I do question the spiritually of some individuals. Time will tell and soon.

[Wondergirl]

It will not be very long until we will all experience some drastic changes in this Nation and world.

Such as?

[freeman4]

Such as?

We are now on the verge of WW 111. We are going to witness a Comet, a sign that something big is in the process and that the Man of sin is soon to appear.

Comet Ison will appear and could be as large as the Moon to our sight in October and November.

Our nation is on the verge of a state of Captivity and will be accomplished from within. In fact Russian troops are here now and they will be used for crowed control at various attraction. That is just a few of the things that will happen and soon.

[Wondergirl]

We are now on the verge of WW 111. We are going to witness a Comet, a sign that something big is in the process and that the Man of sin is soon to appear.

Comet Ison will appear and could be as large as the Moon to our sight in October and November.

Our nation is on the verge of a state of Captivity and will be accomplished from within. In fact Russian troops are here now and they will be used for crowed control at various attraction. That is just a few of the things that will happen and soon.

And you know all this how?

[hauntinghelper]

Look, anybody who seriously believes in the Bible knows things are coming. Things will change. However, you're wording makes it sound like if we don't believe that these things are IMMEDIATELY coming upon America, well then we just don't know anything about salvation.

Just because I'm not guaranteeing the Anit-Christ and the false prophet are to rise in the next few weeks doesn't mean I don't know my place in Christ.

Freeman, it seems that every time you get backed into a corner with scripture or common sense you quickly change the subject or add something that really has nothing to do with what anybody was talking about.

If you have trouble answering most of the questions people shoot at you, you might want to think about your doctrine some.

[dwashbur]

Seriously? You're freaking out about another Kohoutek-style comet, that may not even survive its trip around the sun? The orbital elements we have right now tell us it could swing around and come back our way, or it could plunge into the sun. But let's switch to reality for just a moment: a comet is a comet. It's a dirty snowball wandering around in space. Nothing more. No omen, no significance unless, like me, you're an astronomy buff. You know what a comet signals? It signals that there's a comet up there! That's it. If that's what has you all worried, relax. Comets are meaningless, at least theologically speaking. And if this one turns out to be the same kind of non-event that Kohoutek was, we'll all be laughing about it soon anyway.

[freeman4]

Seriously? You're freaking out about another Kohoutek-style comet, that may not even survive its trip around the sun? The orbital elements we have right now tell us it could swing around and come back our way, or it could plunge into the sun. But let's switch to reality for just a moment: a comet is a comet. It's a dirty snowball wandering around in space. Nothing more. No omen, no significance unless, like me, you're an astronomy buff. You know what a comet signals? It signals that there's a comet up there! That's it. If that's what has you all worried, relax. Comets are meaningless, at least theologically speaking. And if this one turns out to be the same kind of non-event that Kohoutek was, we'll all be laughing about it soon anyway.

I am not worried , I am just giving out information and if one does not want to accept that , that is their choice. I will continue to do so because weather you believe it or not one who understands about what is going to happen is to help in giving warning. God is not going to verbally give it out.

It is OK for someone like Billy Graham to give warnings but when someone who people think is someone who does not know anything, they say he don't know what he is talking about and it is because they don't know what he is talking about. That is exactly what they thought about Jesus Christ. I don't feel bad at all, just doing what he did, what he commanded to be done.

When one does not know who they are how can they expect to know what is going to take place.

[dwashbur]

Guess what: many, many of us have also said that Billy Graham is way off with predictions and stuff. Status is nothing. Truth is everything. And you're still way off.

Remember The Bible Code? He had a thing about comets, too; somehow he found Comet S/L9 in his code, as if that was some big revelation that had an impact on human history. But guess what: except as a fascinating phenomenon for amateur astronomers like me who used our telescopes to observe the holes that were ripped in Jupiter's atmosphere, the event was meaningless. It had exactly zero effect on Earth, and we wouldn't even have known about it except for the invention of the telescope a few hundred years ago.

Once again: comets are dirty snowballs. There's a gazillion of them out there, and every so often one of their orbits brings them within view. Big deal. They mean exactly squat in terms of any effect on human history. I like to look at them. But no one who really understands the Bible attributes any spiritual or historic significance to them.