by Amazing 124 Replies latest jw friends
Qcmbr,
My use of Israeli Kings was intended as an example. There was the Priestly-King line of Melchezidek, of which Jesus was ... and so, perhaps in a way, the illustration works even better because both lines of authority was covered. That is, from Christ to the Apostles and so forth.
Jim Whitney
Q:
I'm certain even the "superior footnotes" of your LDS version of the KJV bible don't alter the fact that there was an Aaronic priestly line as well as a later Kingly line. There were plenty of bad High Priests (e.g. Eli), and yet that was the system that continued down to 70AD. Did God take away their authority?
We must also look at things from the angle that the divisions between the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are not strictly religious but political that are then justified by being given a religious dimension. Eg the Catholics and Orthodox split up because the former were based on the realities created by the conquest of the West by the Germanic tribes something that the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) never accepted. The emperor of the East was also the head of the West and this claim obviously created conflict. Could the Popes for example enthrone and call a Frank a Roman emperor when the real emperor, according to the Byzantines, was in Constantinople? How could the Popes overlook him?
LT - I think the authority was removed or do you still believe it resides in physical Israel? You're playing quite nasty so far- I'm not hiding anything to 'be exposed'. I am interested in the justification of apostolic succession based upon the act of passing it on rather than the act of God chosing one who is worthy. I think perfection is not my point (I at no stage said that was a requirement but you cannot expose me by forcing my position to an illogical end.) Please feel free to point out any examples where authority was lost and then say why it was lost assuming you think it was for reasons other than unworthiness?
Would my point be LESS valid if I were not LDS?
What is the Church? I am glad you asked Jim.
The church is the "body of believers". It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the true living God based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. Another term for body of believers is "body of Christ" . So all those "in Christ" make up the church. Inclusion into the body of Christ or the true Church is not by membership in ANY denomination. It is not recieved by any rituals or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is recieved by faith (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8). The invisible Church is the church made up of all true believers who have been born again by the spirit of God.
The word church comes from the Greek "ekklesia" which means "assembly" or "gathering". But the church is more than a meeting place. And more than a place for believers to gather who profess faith in God or a place to attend weekly services. The Church is the "living temple" of the true God. It is not the building, meeting place, an organization or a denomination. The Church IS the totality of all true believers regardless of denominational affiliation. The entire body of believers IS the church and as such, it is the dwelling place of the Holy and Infinite God. The church is a mystery to some but understood by true believers.
The church came into its existance at Pentecost and was purchased by God with his own blood (Acts 20:28) and Jesus is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22,23). The church is the dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2:22). If you are "in Christ" and have God living in you (Holy Spirit), you are IN the Church as much as you ARE the church.
All the denominations that were put into place well after Pentecost by men have done nothing to unite the body of Christ and have in fact divided the body into sects, with each one following another leader. Just because the Apostles laid some foundation stones for those in the true faith did not mean they anticipated the creation of the monsters we see today in religious organizations complete with a detailed hierarchy and filled with rules, doctrines, traditions, and other commands of men for the church to follow. Anyone saying that Christ gave them authority over his body to do such a thing is just deceiving themselves. The church has been in existance since Pentacost and will continue on until the Lord arrives to gather it. And this will be done under the noses of those who claim they ARE the true church but cannot grasp the spiritual understanding of what the church really is.
Thanks Jim for this thread to discuss this issue.
For those used to the church systems, protestant, catholic, baptist, etc. it will be hard to grasp this concept for they have always been taught to look for an "outward" proof of the church (such as a building, denomination, etc.). Or a place they must go to in order to be taught about God. In contrast to the fact that Jesus himself said "the time is coming, when we will worship in spirit and truth" and Paul who stated "God does not dwell in man-made temples". The truth is God is within all true believers because we have been indwelled with his Holy Spirt. And it is that Spirit that teaches the church, not any man or organization. While the Apostles and older men have helped in setting some ground rules, we must continue learning by yielding to the Spirit of God that dwells inside of us. Again, the body of believers IS the temple of God or the Church. Peace, Lilly
Q:
I agree with your position of apostolic succession not resting with the RC Church. I go further to say that I don't believe in apostolic succession, period. I just find it amusing that you targeted this doctrine of the RC when your own religion holds the same tenet but on flimsier grounds. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in the Holy Grail where Arthur is arguing about his right to be King and is told that some watery tart throwing a sword at him is no grounds for a governmental system (or somesuch).
Nasty? Naw, I play hard and fair, but not nasty
Lovelylil - I'm puzzled - am I as an LDS member also part of the body of Christ? Do your words reject or include me? Do my beliefs exclude me or include me? I think its a nice idea but I see no correlation with the orderered God of sacraments, law and Priesthood with the all inclusive body of like thinkers co-joined by the Holy Spirit(and I've yet to meet any christian who exactly matched their beliefs with those of another - especially regarding this unifying Spirit.)
LT - just wondering why references to LDS footnotes and LDS leaders has anything relevant to do with the Catholic churches publicised claims to apostolic succession. I'm more than happy to debate LDS claims to succession elsewhere - I just don't see them adding to this topic. I'm still interested in whether anyone supports the idea of authority passed by right rather than by virtue, ritual rather than heavenly choice?
Q,
I am sorry I do not think I fully understand your questions. Can you be more specific?
Also the thought that every believer has to be in agreement with every interpretation of scripture is incorrect. The identifying mark of true Christians is not head knowledge of the Bible nor the ability to interpret every word "correctly" - it is LOVE. Because true Love will cover over any disagreements about.
If you as a Mormom have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, which only you know for sure, than you are IN the church. Having Holy Spirit in you means you have been "born again". Have you? If you have, you are in Christ's body.
The problem with the religious systems is that many in them believe they are true Christians yet, do not have the spirit dwelling in them. But it is certainly not for me to say who is and is not a true Christian. When Christ arrives, he will sort that out (Matthew 7:21) Lilly
Q:
Who has virtue? Your Prophets, Apostles and Priests are just men. They have no more succession than the Pope. Or are not all Christians to be Priests and Kings, under the Older brother who is Lord of Lords and King of Kings?
In the OT the Priestly line continued, regardless of whether the High Priest was bad. As far as I can tell the office didn't stop until the temple curtain was rent in twain by the great High Priest of the order of Melchizadek.
As for your comments about unity, does God sweat the small stuff when it comes to a full range or beliefs, or is that a very human preoccupation? It seems to have been a far simpler thing in the 1st Century, as evidenced by the thief on the cross. On this ground I'm generally speaking with Lil (albeit she erroneously seems to believe that most mainstream Protestants center their worship on a Church rather than Christ).
