Posts by JosephMalik

3

For Rud Persson on Passover

by JosephMalik in

on channel c where i do not have posting privileges rud persson indicated that i did not understand the date and time that our lord died.

he and others were showing that i did not measure time the way the scriptures indicated along with other details provided in my book.

since my posts were being delayed by days, not posted in their proper locations and many of them were not posted at all this discussion could not be resolved there.

On Channel C where I do not have posting privileges Rud Persson indicated that I did not understand the Date and Time that our Lord died. He and others were showing that I did not measure time the way the scriptures indicated along with other details provided in my book. Since my posts were being delayed by days, not posted in their proper locations and many of them were not posted at all this discussion could not be resolved there. For example this most recent comment was made by him:

Rud Persson said: You claimed that the Gospel did speak about a prolonged imprisonment for Jesus. I had denied that and I deny it now. Such a long period is certainly not mentioned, and for that reason the overwhelming majority of Bible readers have never had a clue about such a thing. You have been misled by the plural form of the word Sabbath in parts of the Greek text about the Passion. The plural in question does not refer to two consecutive Sabbaths, as claimed by a few. This will be dealt with in a separate post.

So Rud Persson if you would like to deal with this in a separate post then you should do it here where I do have equal privileges and where I can respond in real time and can speak more freely. How about it Rud. I have already shown you that our Lord did not die on the day of the feast or the Sabbath on which it occurred that year . He died on a day of preparation which was days later. And I know that topic will expose most denominations, cults, and scholars as not being accurate sources of truth. Our discipleship is not dependent upon their association or information.

What I have learned from simply reading the scriptures is that our Lord ate the Passover with his disciples according to Law. The date was Nisan 15. This made the meal a feast day and part of a 7 day festival. Our Lord did not die on such a holy feast day. The Romans imprisoned our Lord for some six days as they interrogated him, scourged him and passed him between Pilot and Herod. Then our Lord after appearing with Pilat on the 12th hour made that difficult journey to Calvary where they nailed up our Lord on the third hour which would be 9PM our time approximately. It took 18 hours for our Lord to die on this day of preparation for the 7th day of this feast which was a Thursday afternoon or Nisan 20 on that year. This resulted in three days and three nights in the grave.

So if you have a problem with any of this then JWD is where you should speak up so that many more can appreciate your views. This is the only place that I have to clear my name from your many accusations.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

But, as far as the book of Acts is concerned, the fact remains that there is no hint to their 'accepting him as one of the Twelve'. (And Paul doesn't claim that either.)

Narkissos,

Paul claimed it in nearly all of his letter. There is no need for him to claim it in Acts. Why? Because Jesus did that for him. Paul was Jesus Apostle and this was not dependent upon any of the others accepting him as such. Peter accepted him as shown earlier.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

But, I would not say that he considers himself a part of "the Twelve."

Kenneson,

Why not? Jesus did not choose Matthias. No! Matthias was chosen by men. And Galatians considered material that appeared also in Acts such as the meeting over circumcision and guess what else? The choosing of an Apostle by men. So it says; 1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And in such discussions not only what happened but the corrections that were made as a result were discussed in Galatians the way Paul does here, quickly, simply and to the point.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

"this one is an instrument/vessel of choice to me". A pretty impersonal wording, stressing the quality of the "instrument" in view of a certain task ("bearing my name...") rather than the idea of personal choice by Jesus. So you will need to stretch your point yet a little more, but I'm sure you can do it.

Narkissos,

Even your own interpretation of the Greek text proves my point. Jesus chose Saul/Paul His instrument/vessel or whatever else you care to call him but this still made him an Apostle of Christ as this tool this instrument/vessel was human. What else would that be other than an Apostle appointed by the personal choice by Jesus which makes him Jesus' 12th selection? Other translations confirm. All we have from you is your insistence that the words mean something else. Well here is what I know to be the truth:

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

Ga 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

2Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

Peter knew all this and agreed with Paul’s writings: So we have confirmation from Peter as well who identified himself in a similar way..

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

So Peter said: 2 Per 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

That is real proof. This is real evidence that your views are unsupported and unscriptural. You may not like Paul or believe his writings but Peter did. He had wisdom given him we are taught and only they that are unlearned and unstable wrest with it. This also goes with a warning so I will leave it at that.

As to your criterium, that was a revelation by Luke of the problem and their wrong thinking that led them to draw lots. Jesus corrected this problem which corrected their wrong thinking as well.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

The Lord doesn't introduce Saul to Ananias as an "apostle" but as "an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel".

Narkissos,

And that meant what? Apostle! It is the definition for Apostle spelled out and chosen by Chirst Himself.

Narkissos said: Paul is only called an "apostle" in chapter 14, along with Barnabas (who was not one of the Twelve). So, yes, the idea of Paul as the twelfth apostle instead of Judas/Matthias is entirely foreign to the book of Acts.

On the contrary, it is imbedded in the book of acts and miraculously at that. This does not mean that Paul, Barnabas or anyone else cannot also be made apostles for some other special function by the Church of Antioch which they were.

Narkissos said: It's too bad you don't read the context of 1 Corinthians 15: first, in this passage "the apostles" are distinct from "the twelve" (v. 5, 7; apparently including James as in Galatians 1:19), second, in that passage "Paul" compares himself not just to the above groups, but also to the "500"....

It is good to see that you have psychic powers and know what I have failed to read in the text. But James and the 500 were not part of the 12 Apostles. The context was simple and directly given to us like this: 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. So this is a direct reference to the office of the 12 apostles (not James or the others) as you try to imply. This also shows up in Galatians. James was an influential leader in Jerusalem but James was not identified as an Apostle of any sort. He was simply identified as being in Jerusalem. 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. Did you notice? "But other of the apostles saw I none?" And this goes for James who was there but was not included with such apostles.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

Never, in this book (and contrary to Galatians), is Paul depicted as an "independent" apostle, let alone integrated to the Twelve in replacement of Judas/Mathias; both his missionary action and his theology (which Acts put on Peter's lips, in chapter 15) are presented as a (direct and indirect) commission from the Twelve. We may of course prefer the Pauline version, but we cannot read it into Acts.

Narkissos,

There was no need to do this in Acts since our Lord did this personally and even informed Ananias of His selection. But to this point Paul shows how he was included with the 12 in a discussion of the 12 as if born out of time. 1 Cor. 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

Wow, you all have been busy while I was away. And the best that anyone can do is insist on it or show that everybody does it as they have no scriptural proof. Well the matter was already answered. There is no Apostolic succession because there are only 12 of them. It is that simple. Using the term Apostle in that context limits this number to 12 period. The only thing that can be done is take verses that use the word Apostle in other contexts and try and force them to be something else more significant like an Apostle of Christ. But where are any of the others called an Apostle of Christ? Nowhere! Of course the Churches do it to gain power over their flocks and to control them. The WT does this with it’s GB doctrine. JosephMalik can appoint an Apostle to represent Joseph Malik and speak for him but you cannot. The Apostles could not. And they tried to do this before the special and visible holy spirit was poured out on them. The scriptures did not say that they made an error but the scriptures did show how Christ corrected their selection. Paul was chosen by Christ and is called an Apostle of Christ. Errors are documented in other places in Acts as well regarding other matters. If this was not the case then we would all be shaving our heads and taking vows in the temple to show we obey the Law. Luke was Paul’s associate and received his authority to write from this Apostle.

Burn the ships said: Was Mark an Apostle? Or Luke? Yet you accept their writings as Scripture.

Of course. Everyone who wrote any of the NT texts can be traced directly to one of the 12 and would receive their authority from them. They used them as their secretaries in fact to write in their behalf. The book of Hebrews does not give its author’s name but it supported Paul’s doctrinal views and not the views of most of the other Apostles. It did however correct the matter for them once and for all. Even James had to change his views as a result and reveal that in his letter. So who among them would have authorized it?

Burn the ships said: You trust Apostolic writings, however you do not trust the Apostolic appointment of successors. Don't you think that is contradictory?

No! Apostles (in context one of the 12) could not appoint more of themselves. And the authority that such appointees made from such an Apostle could not be passed along any further. This came to an end when the Apostles died. Personal or physical contact was a strict requirement.

Burn the ships said: Massive, massive eisegesis. Apparently you think that only Paul's appointments are valid.

Valid? Yes, and temporary as well. Only Paul made such appointments to put a stop to the false doctrine he was facing in his territories. And Paul also trained his appointments personally and/or by letters as to who to appoint. Such appointments that had Apostolic authority over others teaching false doctrine ended when Paul died. The anointments made by others was to care for other functions in the Faith. So there were many Apostles floating around but there was no Apostolic succession as claimed here by some posters.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

Since you seem to dismiss the Early Church Fathers out of hand (as in your previous post), I thought that was what you were saying.

Ruth,

Why should I do otherwise? Look at what has resulted to the Faith as a consequence of their doctrinal views. There is no need to follow such early Fathers as we have scripture that has its roots in the Apostles directly. Would you consider the disciples in Corinth even better informed than such early Church Fathers? They were after all right there in Jesus day and personally involved with the disciples. Well the Apostle Paul spent most of 1 Corinthians correcting their false doctrinal views and procedures when he answered the letter they sent him. If the writings of such Corinthians cannot be trusted then how is it that the writings of such early Church Fathers can? And why do such writings deviate from what our Lord and the Apostles taught?

Narkissos said: Apostolic succession claims no more (and no less) than continuation of apostolic authority through a line of bishops (not apostles). And this is exactly what the Pastorals were already about.

And this means what? That Apostolic authority can be passed on by someone that is not an Apostle? Or that such bishops appointed by ordinary men have apostolic authority over that of a disciple? Are we to believe and teach their false doctrines? This is why Paul made such appointments in the first place. To put a stop to such men teaching falsely in his day. This is also why our Lord knowing that His Apostles would die off said: Mt 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Yes, He knew that conditions would be like this and warned his disciples about them. We can either be on our own if that is our circumstance or more like the Bereans who did not take someone Else's word for what we should believe and teach. This is how one gets to be a faithful and wise servant and not entrapped in apostasy the way many are today. We are not free to say anything we want. We should not teach every whim and doctrine expressed by others as we already have: Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; And: Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

NanaR,

Apostleship is not required to satisfy any of your questions. The goal of the Faith was not to make more Apostles but to make more followers which were called disciples and this would propagate the faith to the end of the world. Notice what our Lord taught: 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Ruth said: If Apostolic Succession did not happen, what was the purpose of the "laying on of the hands"?

The laying on of hands was a means of passing authority or responsibility to another and it did not require an Apostle. I have already shown how the Church of Antioch passed their authority to Paul and Barnabas to speak in their behalf. This is not a smoking gun but a primary doctrine of the faith. In the case of Timothy who had authority to appoint Bishops and deacons: 1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Ruth said: Where was the Christian Church for the time between the death of the 12 original apostles and the beginning of whatever you believe to be the Christian Church now? In what group did the Holy Spirit abide for all that time, since Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be the Helper of Christians?

In was in the hands of disciples as our Lord taught. It is still in the hands of disciples today. For some reason you think it started and stopped. You may also think that it is dependent upon membership to some denomination. But that is not what our Lord said as each disciple that was taught to: "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" individually and/or collectively is the Church and a member of the body of Christ.

Joseph

72

Apostolic Succession ?

by a Christian in

james c,.

you wrote: the belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly roman one.

the orthodox as well as the anglicans hold to it.

JosephMalik

Justahuman,

And we have the Koran, Book of Mormon, false doctrines of every description many of which came out of such writings, and no scriptural proof whatever for Apostolic succession. Jesus was an Apostle and yet Jesus was not one of the 12. There is no successor to Jesus. We even had serious apostasy within the Christian faith with James taking the lead in keeping the Law as a basis for salvation and their error in doing this was recorded in scripture. Such Christians Jews in Jerusalem nearly killed Paul. The Faith had a real fight on its hands from its early beginning trying to establish what was really truth. And it got worse after the death of such Apostles who were the only ones authorized to establish it's foundation and appoint others like Timothy or Luke to enforce it. All this shows us that there were so called Church fathers that were not part of the 12 or appointed by any Apostle that had personal views that did not become part of the inspired record. And for good reason. It is amazing to me that from all this we have what is now called scripture as the basis for our Faith. Someone greater than any of them had a hand in this. And this text like what they had in the first century is still poorly understood and mangled by so many professing to follow and believe its content. Perhaps this is why our Lord could say to John regarding a future time in history: Re 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Joseph