Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 6:13:23 GMT -5
Quote - "While the Catholic Church was having its evil way I expect there were faithful people in the spiritual church that Jesus established."
In many countries the answer to that was "No." Chronicles of the Inquistion showed plainly that such people were exterminated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 6:38:33 GMT -5
I haven't read all this, but it seems fairly balanced: www.bible.ca/ntx-elders-pastors-bishops.htmQuote - "Perhaps there are others that I have forgotten. If those are categories just add up to two then maybe the education system in Australia needs a kick or two, so to speak."I agree - if "bishop" simply means one who is an elder in the church then when the King James Version came out they simply should have said "elder." But by this time "bishop" had become an "English" word so it was retained. Unfortunately, its meaning had been substantially altered from one who helped in the church to a salaried person with this "honorary title Bishop." Quote from website "Each term gives us a little more information about the function of the office: Christians are described as: priests, saints, children citizens, soldiers, etc. In the same way we have different descriptive terms for the eldership. These terms are not honorary titles but descriptions of work to be done:
In the table below, you will notice four individual terms (elder, overseer, shepherd, steward) and one collective term (eldership: which is simply the plural of term elder).
Elder or presbyter - An older man a senior Overseer or bishop - A guardian or superintendent Steward - Metaphoric term (treasurer) - * NO TREASURER IN THE NT. Eldership - Group of older men/elders"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 6:49:46 GMT -5
Quote - " And of course, many others didn't have companions."1. Paul and Silas/Silvanus - Acts 15: 40, Acts 16:19.25.29; Acts 17:4,10; 2. Paul and Sosthenes - I Cor. 1:1 ca 3. Paul and Barnabas – Acts 9:27; 11:30; 11:22, 11:25-30; 12:25; 12:25; 13:1; 13:2-4; 15:1-41; 1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:1,9 4. Paul and Aristarchus – Acts 20:4; 27:2; Col 4:10; Phlm 1:24 See (Seven) 5. Paul and Mark/Marcus/John Mark – 2 Tim 4:11 6. Paul and Timotheus - Acts 16:1-3; 16:21; 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Cor 16:10; Phil 1:1; Phil 2:19; Col 1:1; Paul and Secundus – Acts 20:4 7. Paul and Trophimus – Acts 20:4; Acts 21:29; 2 Tim 4:20 8. Paul and Sopater - Acts 20:4 see below. 9. Paul and Tychicus - Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12 10. Paul and Demas – Philemon 24; Col 4:14 AD61; 2 Tim 4:10 11. Paul and Titus - 2 Cor 2:13; 2 Cor 7:6,13; 2 Cor 8:23; 12. Paul and Epaphroditus - Phil 2:25; 4:18 13. Paul and Luke - 1 Tim 4:11 14. Simon and Andrew – Gospels, Acts 1:13 15. James and John – Gospels, Acts 1:13 16. Philip and Bartholomew (also known as Nathanael?) – Gospels, Acts 1:13 17. Matthew and Thomas – Gospels, Acts 1:13 18. James and Simon Zelotes – Gospels, Acts 1:13 19. Judas and Judas – Gospels, Acts 1:13 20. Matthias (with unknown disciple) – Acts 1:26 21. John and Peter - Acts 3:1-4&11; 4:13&19; 8:14; 22. Timotheus and Erastus – Acts 19:22 23. Gaius and Aristarchus - Acts 19:29 (Paul was present but not a companion) 24. Silas/Silvanus and Timotheus - Acts 17:14,15; Acts 18:5; 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:1. 25. Judas and Silas/Silvanus - Acts 15: 22,27,32; 26. Silas/Silvanus and Luke – Acts 16 (with Paul and Timothy) 27. Barnabas and John Mark - Acts 15: 39 28. Aristarchus and Secundus (Acts 20:4. See Seven) 29. Gaius and Timotheus (Acts 20:4. see Seven) 30. Tychicus and Trophimus (Acts 20:4. See Seven) 31. Peter and Mark - 1 Peter 5:13 32. Andronicus and Junia - Rom 16:7 33. John the Baptist’s two sent to Jesus - ?? 34. Tryphena and Tryphosa – Romans 16:12 35. Urbane and Stachys – Romans 16:9 36. Titus and unnamed “brother” - 2 Cor 12:18 37. Judas and Barsabus - Acts 15:22 38. Euodia and Syntyche – Phil 4:2 39. Timothy and Mark - 2 Tim 4:11 40. Two witnesses – Rev 11:3 Pairs - possibly 41. Paul and Peter - Gal 1:18; 2:3; 42. Paul and Archippus – Philemon 2; Col 4:17 43. Paul and Epaphras - Col 1:7; Col 4:12; Phlm 1:23 44. Zenas and Apollos - Titus 3:13 45. Crispus and Gaius – 1 Cor 1:14 46. Peter and Barnabas - Gal 2:11-14 47. Luke and Demas - Col 4:14 48. Apollos and Cephas - 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22 (Paul is the triple, but he is with Sosthenes) 49. Timotheus and Lucius (2 of 4) Romans 16:21 50. Jason and Sosipater (2 of 4) Romans 16:21 51. Phygellus and Hermogenes - 2 Tim 1:15 52. Two men from Lydda - Acts 9:38 53. Hymenaeus and Alexander - ? 89. The Seventy (on the assumption of being 35 pairs) - Luke 10:1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 7:43:39 GMT -5
Some points from a future Q&A website:
Was Paul really on his own? Be careful how you read the text, ie. Acts 17:13 “… the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea…” This verse implies Paul is alone. But in Acts 17:10 we read, “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea:” Paul is not alone! Now read the following verses, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues…” “And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum” “Jesus.. departed thence by ship into a desert place apart:” “Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.” Jesus was not alone. In a similar vein many stories about Peter, Paul, John, Steven and others often refer to that person alone, but that doesn’t mean they were alone!
Was Phillip the “evangelist” alone? This is not the question to ask: Philip was on seven chosen to care for temporal issues the Apostles had no time for. Soon after Saul persecuted the church. All but the Apostles were scattered, and people “went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:2.) Philip fled to Samaria. He preached to the Samaritans, and baptized some (then later the Eunuch in Gaza.) But Philip could not impart the Holy Ghost because he wasn’t an Apostle and could not pass on this gift himself – Peter and John performed this themselves. Philip did not continue traveling like Peter and John. He later had his own house in Caesarea. He apparently was married and had four daughters. These women might have been in the ministry themselves.
Why are so few preachers mentioned? Acts is not strictly an historic account. It largely tells the story of Paul. Even in this account there are large gaps. The number of converts (and thus preachers) increased from the early beginnings at the beginning of Acts. Other preachers also had Gentile missions, but their story is scarcely mentioned. Acts does not cover the Jewish ministry. This mission would have been extensive, given the number of Apostles who remained in Judea. Only a few of Paul’s letters survive – during the later stages of his ministry. The book of Hebrews, and to a large extent Romans, are largely devoted to doctrine. James, Jude and John do not mention figures at all. Revelation is about the churches and prophecies (but does mention two latter day witnesses.)
Singles - yes 1. Paul. Acts 18:8 2. Paul. Acts 19:1 3. Paul. Acts 20:1
Singles – maybe 4. Phillip. Acts 5; 8:26. Sent to Samaria and Gaza. Problem: not mentioned in ministry but fleeing persecution. The eunuch is similarly seen as being alone but likely had company due to the sheer logistics and danger of his journey. 5. Stephen. Acts 6:3. Stephen is mentioned as chosen by the church to care for widows, but “did great wonders and miracles among the people.”
Singles - no • Ananias. Acts 9:10. Argument from silence and is not determinative. Ananias most likely wouldn’t have traveled alone. Ananias is not called a preacher • Paul. Acts 9:20. Paul began preaching in the synagogues. Unlikely to have been alone. Argument from silence and is not determinative. • Barnabas. Acts 11:22. Barnabas was sent to Antioch to preach. Barnabas then sought Saul at Tarsus and together they preached in Antioch - negating the point. Argument from silence and is not determinative. • Apollos. 1 Cor 16:12. Apollos arriving in Ephesus. Argument from silence and is not determinative.
Triplets – yes 1. Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus – 2 Cor 1:19, 1 Thes 1:1, 2 Thes 1:1, 2. Gaius, Aristarchus and Paul - Acts 19:29 3. Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus - 1 Cor 16:17 – having just arrived at Ephesus and may not have been ready to go preaching.
Triplets - no • Paul, Barnabas and John Mark –Acts 13:1. Mark was an assistant only. • Paul, Aristarchus and (supposedly) Luke – Acts 27:2. These men were bundled as prisoners • Paul, Barnabas and Titus – Gal 2:1. not as ministry but to attend the Jerusalem Council. • James, Cephas, and John – Gal 2:9. part of the Jerusalem Council.
Four - no • Timotheus, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater. Rom 16:21 - This could refer to one group of four, but more likely - two pairs. See above “Four possibly” This has been contested on the TMB.
Five – no • Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen and Saul. Acts 13:1. Pastoral duties in Antioch. The Holy Ghost called for Paul and Barnabus to “separate” for the “work.” This suggests the others were not in the “work” at this stage. John Mark also must have been present – indicating an incomplete list. Argument from silence and is not determinative. • Epaphras, Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas. Phlm1:24. A greeting list only. Argument from silence and is not determinative.
Seven – no. • Sopater; Aristarchus and Secundus; Gaius and Timotheus; Tychicus and Trophimus. Acts 20:4. Paul and Luke are missing due to lack of context, and the six men are in three pairs, two pairs representing Asia and Thessalonica. Paul said he came “to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.” Acts 24:17. Paul calls Sopater (or Sosipater) his “kinsman.” Like other Pauline references this likely means “my fellow in the work.” These men were selected for the safe conveyance of money to Jerusalem.1 Corinthians 16:3-4
|
|
|
Post by Annan on May 4, 2014 8:06:39 GMT -5
~~~ Do you read anywhere in the gospel where Jesus called his disciple or apostle a Bishop or a priest/s? Using this logic, if Jesus did not specifically say something about a certain thing, then that thing should not be considered as right to do or not do, have or not have. This made me laugh. I find this statement to be true in the F&W mindset... at least with my parents who were constantly saying that we couldn't do certain things because Jesus didn't say we could. The Jehovah's Witnesses use the same logic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 9:39:14 GMT -5
Sorry Nathan. The Bible and recorded history say otherwise. The Bible recorded on the word Bishoprick... And how about the rests of the offices such as Pope, Cardinals, priests, and fathers position?I think you are both right. We don't see the RCC and all its titular places in the bible as we do today....far from it, as Nathan points out. What we do see though is the seeds of the RCC being sown in the NT as Stanne points out. While Jesus specifically spoke against offices and heirarchy, the 1st century post-Jesus believers went ahead anyway against the teachings of Christ and started setting up a man made church system which didn't stop developing until the RCC was reasonably well formed a few hundred years later.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 4, 2014 10:11:35 GMT -5
Have you ever asked the workers why a new convert must sit through many months (if not years) of gospel meetings before being invited to fellowship meetings? they must first be fed the milk of the word, then later they can have the meat of the word... 1Co_3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. That is very 'Gnostic'. One of the reasons why some of their beliefs were never written down, but passed down through others. They claimed 'religion' was the milk, but gnosis was the meat.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 4, 2014 10:17:36 GMT -5
The priesthood, such as it was in Jesus' time, ended in two different ways. Judaic and Christian perspectives. 1 - Jesus was the Christian High Priest, no other priesthood was ordained by Him, and in fact, prohibited. 2 - Actual Jewish priesthood ended with the three Roman/Jewish wars. This priesthood was tied to the temple. This is pretty much true. The RCC priesthood is more Pagan based. They were the ones that had more of the rituals etc. we see within that particular branch of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 11:51:17 GMT -5
Sorry Nathan. The Bible and recorded history say otherwise. The Bible recorded on the word Bishoprick... And how about the rests of the offices such as Pope, Cardinals, priests, and fathers position? Priest - offering a sacrifice (the sacrifice of Christ made present at the altar). That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost. leitourgos: a public servant, a minister, a servant Original Word: λειτουργός, ου, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: leitourgos Phonetic Spelling: (li-toorg-os') Short Definition: a minister, servant Definition: a minister, servant, of an official character; of priests and Levites. biblehub.com/greek/3011.htm- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BishopActs 1:20 tells us literally and specifically that the Apostles held the office of bishop. ἐπισκοπὴν (episkopēn) — 1 Occurrence Acts 1:20 N-AFS GRK: καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω NAS: TAKE HIS OFFICE.' KJV: and his bishoprick let another INT: and the Overseership of him let take biblehub.com/greek/episkope_n_1984.htm John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated. John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority. Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death. Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. 1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. 1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 11:56:20 GMT -5
Sorry Nathan. The Bible and recorded history say otherwise. The Bible recorded on the word Bishoprick... And how about the rests of the offices such as Pope, Cardinals, priests, and fathers position? Pope - Chief of the Apostles 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, * and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. * Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Scripture References ... scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.htmlFathers ... 1 Corinthians 4:15 ... Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Jesus also said not to (wrongly) call anyone 'teacher' - teacher is 'doctor' in Latin. Have you ever referred to anyone as 'teacher' or 'doctor' - and I'm sure you knew you were not giving him or her God's place.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 12:15:06 GMT -5
The Bible recorded on the word Bishoprick... And how about the rests of the offices such as Pope, Cardinals, priests, and fathers position? I think you are both right. We don't see the RCC and all its titular places in the bible as we do today....far from it, as Nathan points out. What we do see though is the seeds of the RCC being sown in the NT as Stanne points out. While Jesus specifically spoke against offices and heirarchy, the 1st century post-Jesus believers went ahead anyway against the teachings of Christ and started setting up a man made church system which didn't stop developing until the RCC was reasonably well formed a few hundred years later. While Jesus specifically spoke against offices and heirarchyBiblical and passed down in the Church. a man made church system which didn't stop developing until the RCC was reasonably well formedWe have record that God has worked through man to accomplish his Covenant (Moses) with man. God continues to work through man to accomplish Christ's commission-to and sending-of his Apostles and their successors to bring the grace of the sacraments of the New Covenant to man.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 4, 2014 14:00:48 GMT -5
The priesthood, such as it was in Jesus' time, ended in two different ways. Judaic and Christian perspectives. 1 - Jesus was the Christian High Priest, no other priesthood was ordained by Him, and in fact, prohibited. 2 - Actual Jewish priesthood ended with the three Roman/Jewish wars. This priesthood was tied to the temple. This is pretty much true. The RCC priesthood is more Pagan based. They were the ones that had more of the rituals etc. we see within that particular branch of Christianity. I disagree that Jesus was "the Christian High Priest"! And was no other priesthood..THIS is not what the bible says...the bible plainly states that Jesus' priesthood would be like that of Melchisdek of no beginning and no ending...... Psalm 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 5:6 And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 6:20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood--and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood--why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? Hebrews 7:21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'"
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 14:29:49 GMT -5
The priesthood, such as it was in Jesus' time, ended in two different ways. Judaic and Christian perspectives. 1 - Jesus was the Christian High Priest, no other priesthood was ordained by Him, and in fact, prohibited. 2 - Actual Jewish priesthood ended with the three Roman/Jewish wars. This priesthood was tied to the temple. This is pretty much true. The RCC priesthood is more Pagan based. They were the ones that had more of the rituals etc. we see within that particular branch of Christianity. I disagree that Jesus was "the Christian High Priest"! And was no other priesthood..THIS is not what the bible says...the bible plainly states that Jesus' priesthood would be like that of Melchisdek of no beginning and no ending...... Psalm 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 5:6 And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 6:20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood--and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood--why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? Hebrews 7:21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'" Right you are on many points, sharingtheriches. Bert & Snow - Christ established a priesthood for the church of the New Covenant - the fulfillment of Judaism. The NT priesthood fulfills the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 ... From the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations; Incense offerings are made to my name everywhere, and a pure offering; For my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.Which is EXACTLY what St Paul writes - that he acted as a priest and made an offering (at the NT altar) for the Gentiles: That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 4, 2014 14:32:21 GMT -5
The Bible recorded on the word Bishoprick... And how about the rests of the offices such as Pope, Cardinals, priests, and fathers position? Pope - Chief of the Apostles 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, * and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. * Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Scripture References ... scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.htmlFathers ... 1 Corinthians 4:15 ... Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Jesus also said not to (wrongly) call anyone 'teacher' - teacher is 'doctor' in Latin. Have you ever referred to anyone as 'teacher' or 'doctor' - and I'm sure you knew you were not giving him or her God's place. Why do you think Jesus spoke against religious hierarchy?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 14:35:42 GMT -5
The priesthood, such as it was in Jesus' time, ended in two different ways. Judaic and Christian perspectives. ... This is pretty much true. The RCC priesthood is more Pagan based. They were the ones that had more of the rituals etc. we see within that particular branch of Christianity. The NT church is the fulfillment of Judaism. The liturgy of Judaism had ritual. The liturgy of the NT church had and has ritual. The early Christian Church came into being as a liturgical church because Jews worshipped liturgically. The New Testament records numerous instances of liturgical worship, which range from pure Jewish practices (such as Peter and John going to the Temple because it was the hour of prayer) to Christian liturgical worship (which confirms that the early Christians met and worshipped following Jewish liturgical practices, and added to them the rite of the Eucharist).
Many present-day Christians do not understand why the worship services of the "liturgical churches" are so different and so structured. A common assumption is that in the New Testament, worship was spontaneous. However, worship in the early Christian Church, like Judaism, followed a specific order or form. This "order" has its very roots in the Scriptures. In fact, all of Christianity worshipped this way for 1500 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western Roman Church have been worshiping this way — more or less unchanged — for nearly 2000 years.
Two words need to be kept in mind when one first experiences liturgical worship: origin and changelessness.
www.liturgica.com/html/litEChLit.jsp
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 14:47:49 GMT -5
Pope - Chief of the Apostles 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, * and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. * Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Scripture References ... scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html Why do you think Jesus spoke against religious hierarchy? Why do you think Jesus spoke against religious hierarchy?
Because they were hypocrites. He also taught to DO what they SAY. 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you.
Jesus instituted a new earthly authority - the Chair of Peter. In the verses above - Mt 16.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 4, 2014 15:10:50 GMT -5
This is pretty much true. The RCC priesthood is more Pagan based. They were the ones that had more of the rituals etc. we see within that particular branch of Christianity. The NT church is the fulfillment of Judaism. The liturgy of Judaism had ritual. The liturgy of the NT church had and has ritual. The early Christian Church came into being as a liturgical church because Jews worshipped liturgically. The New Testament records numerous instances of liturgical worship, which range from pure Jewish practices (such as Peter and John going to the Temple because it was the hour of prayer) to Christian liturgical worship (which confirms that the early Christians met and worshipped following Jewish liturgical practices, and added to them the rite of the Eucharist).
Many present-day Christians do not understand why the worship services of the "liturgical churches" are so different and so structured. A common assumption is that in the New Testament, worship was spontaneous. However, worship in the early Christian Church, like Judaism, followed a specific order or form. This "order" has its very roots in the Scriptures. In fact, all of Christianity worshipped this way for 1500 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western Roman Church have been worshiping this way — more or less unchanged — for nearly 2000 years.
Two words need to be kept in mind when one first experiences liturgical worship: origin and changelessness.
www.liturgica.com/html/litEChLit.jsp So then why don't you just call yourself Jews? Why take a different label? Jesus wasn't a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 15:25:56 GMT -5
The NT church is the fulfillment of Judaism. The liturgy of Judaism had ritual. The liturgy of the NT church had and has ritual. The early Christian Church came into being as a liturgical church because Jews worshipped liturgically. The New Testament records numerous instances of liturgical worship, which range from pure Jewish practices (such as Peter and John going to the Temple because it was the hour of prayer) to Christian liturgical worship (which confirms that the early Christians met and worshipped following Jewish liturgical practices, and added to them the rite of the Eucharist).
Many present-day Christians do not understand why the worship services of the "liturgical churches" are so different and so structured. A common assumption is that in the New Testament, worship was spontaneous. However, worship in the early Christian Church, like Judaism, followed a specific order or form. This "order" has its very roots in the Scriptures. In fact, all of Christianity worshipped this way for 1500 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western Roman Church have been worshiping this way — more or less unchanged — for nearly 2000 years.
Two words need to be kept in mind when one first experiences liturgical worship: origin and changelessness.
www.liturgica.com/html/litEChLit.jsp So then why don't you just call yourself Jews? Why take a different label? Jesus wasn't a Christian. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."Ver. 17. Not to destroy the law, &c. It is true, by Christ's coming, a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices, and circumcision, were to cease; but the moral precepts were to continue, and to be complied with, even with greater perfection. (Witham) --- To fulfil. By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies, and perfecting all that was imperfect. (Challoner) haydock1859.tripod.com/id19.html 'Christian' distinguished those who converted to Christ's doctrine from the practices of the Law that were to cease.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 17:40:07 GMT -5
I think you are both right. We don't see the RCC and all its titular places in the bible as we do today....far from it, as Nathan points out. What we do see though is the seeds of the RCC being sown in the NT as Stanne points out. While Jesus specifically spoke against offices and heirarchy, the 1st century post-Jesus believers went ahead anyway against the teachings of Christ and started setting up a man made church system which didn't stop developing until the RCC was reasonably well formed a few hundred years later. While Jesus specifically spoke against offices and heirarchyBiblical and passed down in the Church. Yes, biblical and greatly added to as the centuries went on. However, against the teachings of Jesus. Agreed. And we also have record that man worked against God just about as often. In this case,setting up hierarchies and new traditions were against God. Man should have no authority to act against the teachings of Christ, but they seem to have chosen to do so anyway.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 17:57:51 GMT -5
While Jesus specifically spoke against offices and heirarchyBiblical and passed down in the Church. Yes, biblical and greatly added to as the centuries went on. However, against the teachings of Jesus. Agreed. And we also have record that man worked against God just about as often. In this case,setting up hierarchies and new traditions were against God. Man should have no authority to act against the teachings of Christ, but they seem to have chosen to do so anyway. The Christ-given authority to the Chair of Peter to govern the earthly NT church: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16)
"Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32) "Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17)
Christ proclaimed to His Apostles (and thus to those ordained in the line of the Apostles who would govern his church):
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you."(John 14:26) "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. (John 16:13) Jesus said his church built on the earthly authority of the Chair of Peter would be here for all time ( the gates of hell will not prevail against it...). Jesus does not lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 18:06:54 GMT -5
[/i]
[/quote]
True. The Spirit is fully capable of leading individuals without the go-between of a human authority and the Holy Spirit was to guide all people. Jesus came to destroy the corrupt go-between, not set up a new one.
Where does Jesus talk about the "Chair"? No need to answer.....he doesn't.
Agreed, Jesus doesn't lie. Only self interested interpreters of the meanings of his words will be active in adding to them and changing their meanings.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 18:17:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on May 4, 2014 18:26:44 GMT -5
St. anne wrote- Many present-day Christians do not understand why the worship services of the "liturgical churches" are so different and so structured. A common assumption is that in the New Testament, worship was spontaneous. However, worship in the early Christian Church, like Judaism, followed a specific order or form. This "order" has its very roots in the Scriptures. In fact, all of Christianity worshipped this way for 1500 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western Roman Church have been worshiping this way — more or less unchanged — for nearly 2000 years.
Two words need to be kept in mind when one first experiences liturgical worship: origin and changelessness.
Worship was VERY spontaneous in the few examples below. VERY spontaneous. Alvin
Mat 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Mat 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. Mar 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 18:54:27 GMT -5
St. anne wrote- Many present-day Christians do not understand why the worship services of the "liturgical churches" are so different and so structured. A common assumption is that in the New Testament, worship was spontaneous. However, worship in the early Christian Church, like Judaism, followed a specific order or form. This "order" has its very roots in the Scriptures. In fact, all of Christianity worshipped this way for 1500 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western Roman Church have been worshiping this way — more or less unchanged — for nearly 2000 years. Two words need to be kept in mind when one first experiences liturgical worship: origin and changelessness. Worship was VERY spontaneous in the few examples below. VERY spontaneous. Alvin Mat 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Mar 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, ... With the exception of your citation of Mt 2:11 - I would say that you are correct. Those men traveled a long ways with valuable gifts to present to their King. That said - worship takes many forms. The falling down on the knees or prostrate before the Lord is indeed worship - any time, anywhere. However, the worship referred to in the site I quoted is the liturgical worship to which Christians are called (on the Lord's Day for sure but Daily too) - the Liturgy of the Eucharist - as St Paul writes of offering the oblation in Romans 15:16.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 18:55:20 GMT -5
St. anne wrote- Many present-day Christians do not understand why the worship services of the "liturgical churches" are so different and so structured. A common assumption is that in the New Testament, worship was spontaneous. However, worship in the early Christian Church, like Judaism, followed a specific order or form. This "order" has its very roots in the Scriptures. In fact, all of Christianity worshipped this way for 1500 years; the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western Roman Church have been worshiping this way — more or less unchanged — for nearly 2000 years. Two words need to be kept in mind when one first experiences liturgical worship: origin and changelessness. Worship was VERY spontaneous in the few examples below. VERY spontaneous. Alvin Mat 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Mat 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. Mar 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, that was all right and good while he was ALIVE and in front of him in the flesh but now we do it with hymns, preaching the word, and the emblems there is no other way to do it...
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on May 4, 2014 19:15:19 GMT -5
Wally, St. Anne...... Is anyone suggesting there is a ever a WRONG way or time or place to worship HIM," in spirit and in truth?" I think also, Wally, you do believe Jesus is alive today? Alvin
edit- not familiar with the "liturgy of the eucharist", but probably quite okay to worship Him in that "form", in spirit and in truth, but not the only "required" way any more than the "forms" that Wally suggested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 19:26:16 GMT -5
It doesn't say "apostles", it says "disciples" and all the disciples were there including the apostles. The use of the word "Chair" is not quoted. That is just a man made misinterpretation of "rock". Of course it is limited to both time and people. The meaning is self-evident. What it is "meant" to mean is a man made misinterpretation. Unity and truth are two quite different things. Unity has nothing to do with truth and more often than not, it is evidence of a lie. The problem with the hand-me-downs is that the teachings got changed as it went further and further from the correct source: Jesus. It's little wonder that restoration and reformation movements have occurred over and over through the centuries, but always to fail when they set up their own corrupt political structures.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 19:34:34 GMT -5
Wally, St. Anne...... Is anyone suggesting there is a ever a WRONG way or time or place to worship HIM," in spirit and in truth?" I think also, Wally, you do believe Jesus is alive today? Alvin edit- not familiar with the "liturgy of the eucharist", but probably quite okay to worship Him in that "form", in spirit and in truth, but not the only "required" way any more than the "forms" that Wally suggested. Good thoughts, Alvin. Jesus gives us His Eucharistic doctrine in John 6 - and tells us that He is the living bread that came down from heaven. He specifically tells us that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. He gives the command to " do this" and the words of institution to his Apostles to consecrate the Eucharist - recorded in Luke 22:19; Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22. St Paul tells us that he offers the oblation, that we participate in the body and the blood of the Lord, and the Greek verb estin tells us that it is really the body of the Lord (properly consecrated by those of valid Holy Orders).
|
|