RT

@TDisputations Okay, I do not disagree. When I read the New Testament, that is the only leadership office given for the church. There are deacons, but the text implies they are servants, assigned a specific job or task.

@CorgiSquirrel You’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’m not saying that Ignatius of Antioch was an apostle or that there were apostles after the apostles. i’m simply saying that there were bishops after the apostles.

“if he refuses even to hear the Church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” - Matthew 18:17

The apostles. Ignatius of Antioch, for example. Ignatius was not an Apostle. He was not inspired. Maybe he was an elder/bishop. Those are two different offices. The qualifications for elder/bishop have been noted already. Historically, the eventually expanded the leadership from the original apostles. Again, Acts 1:21-22 rules this out. The office of Apostle was limited in time by those verses: eventually no one alive would meet the qualifications as one had to have been with Jesus and an eyewitness to His resurrection. There were elders that led the individual congregations. That is the only leadership structure given in the New Testament. Again, there was no need for Apostles once the Gospel had been fully given.

@CorgiSquirrel The apostles. Ignatius of Antioch, for example. Historically, the eventually expanded the leadership from the original apostles.

But we know from history that there were Bishops that followed them. Followed who?

@CorgiSquirrel But we know from history that there were Bishops that followed them.

Well, Christ said he’d send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. That’s not quite “uninspired men.” Yeah, that was a reference to the Apostles (cf. John 14:26). However, the only example of an Apostle being replaced is given in Acts 1. In Acts 1:21-22, the qualifications for that replacement are given. Clearly, no one alive today meets those qualifications. There are no inspired men today. There is no need for them. The Gospel has been delivered once and for all (cf. Jude 3: Galatians 1:8). And you’re right about there being shepherds, but the problem is how do we determine who are the shepherds and who are the wolves? It just can’t be any elders of any group The qualifications are given in the verses cited.

@CorgiSquirrel Well, Christ said he’d send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. That’s not quite “uninspired men.” And you’re right about there being shepherds, but the problem is how do we determine who are the shepherds and who are the wolves? It just can’t be any elders of any group

Literally "hierourgounta": priestly services. Seems lile you just don't know the Bible. You're not very good at this. Time out for your heretic ass, I've had enough of your snide insinuations and general asshattery. He blocked me so I cannot respond to his last post. Look the word up yourself. It does not mean what he claims.

Spare me your venom, heretic. Stating facts is not "venom." Well, maybe it is to "Catholics." And explain why references to "elders" (presbyteros) and bishops are all over the epistles. You just are not very good at this (i.e., you do not know the Scriptures). Elder and bishop represents the same office. I suggest you read 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 to determine the qualifications for elder/bishop. Rom 15:15-16 is also a clear reference. Again, the Greek word for 'priest' is not used in R15:16. The Greek word for 'priest' is hiereus and is not used in the verses you cite.

Protestant “priests” CAN’T “administer” the Eucharist. They don’t even know what the Eucharist IS. You can keep your “unity”. Catholics don’t need it.

And poster's response I have found is typical of "Catholics." When they show you who they are, believer them. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of (Luke 6:45)

@CorgiSquirrel @MrCasey62 You straight lie like a cunt, asshat.

So then no one leads the Church and That makes more sense to you? Just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks I see. Elders are given the role of leading/shepharading the New Testament church (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9). people like you get to make up your own interpretations of the Bible and claim it’s the authority? No, the difference is that I can clearly articulate by position from Scripture. See above. You on the other hand have to add to and take away from verses in order to get your narrative to fit. Big difference. That makes more sense to you? Well yes it does. Getting my instructions from God's word make more sense that taking instructions from uninspired men. So there is that too.

@CorgiSquirrel “Makes no sense to be that Jesus who "knew what was in man" (John 2:24-25) would build His church on such.” So then no one leads the Church and people like you get to make up your own interpretations of the Bible and claim it’s the authority? That makes more sense to you?

Umm, the problem is that your interpretation (which is your opinion, fyi) It is not. I have simply quoted and interpreted the verse correctly. You, on the other hand, have imputed context and words into the verse that are not found. where rock doesn’t refer to Peter makes it unknowable why Jesus named him Peter. Again, it does not matter. Peter is not the 'rock' in M16:18. Your response is just a big “Nuh uh!” pretending to not be your opinion. Actually, it is right the opposite. You have presented nothing but your opinion and then try to change the subject by arguing about things that are not relevant. So there is all that.

@CorgiSquirrel Umm, the problem is that your interpretation (which is your opinion, fyi) where rock doesn’t refer to Peter makes it unknowable why Jesus named him Peter. Your response is just a big “Nuh uh!” pretending to not be your opinion.

Kharg keeps building inventory slowly. 3 to 4 weeks before forced shutdowns.

@TDisputations Again, your opinion does not matter.

@CorgiSquirrel …cornerstone of this community. I would be referring to John as the cornerstone, but I wouldn’t be renaming John Cornerstone. Turns out you don’t have to rename someone to refer to them as something.

And why did Jesus name him “rock” in your estimation? Don't know and my opinion does not matter. All that matters is what God's word states. What’s you’re saying doesn’t actually make any sense. It does not make sense to you because you have a man made tradition to protect. The feminine is used there because Christ isn’t using it as a proper noun. That doesn’t mean it cannot be referring to Peter. Right, thus is is not Peter that is the focus. Again, your opinion does not matter. If the Holy Spirit had wanted the verse to read as you claim, then we would have: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [Petros, Cephas] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. [my bold] However, that is not the way that the Holy Spirit gave us the verse. Thus, the meaning that "Catholics" try to impute into the verse has to be wrong and Jesus had to have meant that His church was built on something other than a man. Makes no sense to be that Jesus who "knew what was in man" (John 2:24-25) would build His church on such.

@CorgiSquirrel And why did Jesus name him “rock” in your estimation? What’s you’re saying doesn’t actually make any sense. The feminine is used there because Christ isn’t using it as a proper noun. That doesn’t mean it cannot be referring to Peter. For example, if I said John is the…

@joderL3043 @MrCasey62 "Priest" is given in Scripture. It is just not given as a New Testament leadership office. So there is that.

@CorgiSquirrel @MrCasey62 But hey, by that same token do you reject the Trinity? After all that word is nowhere in the Bible.

The apostles choose people to whom they give authority by a laying on of their hands. You are still wrong. There is no leadership office mentioned in the verses. Actually, quite the opposite. They were assigned jobs. They were not "ordained" into leadership positions as you claim as nowhere in the verses you cited states as much. It is clear to anyone reading the verse you yourself quoted that you are wrong. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word What was the "responsibility" they were turning over to the men? To "to wait on tables." If you look up the servant position 'deacon,' you will find similarities. Again, nowhere in the section cited by the poster does it mention a 'priest' or duties of a 'priest' etc. Just more "Catholic" world play. They add things into Scripture that are not there and change context to fit their man made traditions.

@CorgiSquirrel @MrCasey62 Lmao, it's right in front of your nose and you're too blind to see it. The apostles choose people to whom they give authority by a laying on of their hands. It's an ordination. It's not "Pastor Bob starts his own church after reading some passages".

They make it up as they go along. Note how duplicitous the Casey guy's post is: Now, their authority does not come from Scripture but "directly from Jesus Christ." Doublespeak that would make Orwell proud. When you show them what they claim is not consistent w/ Scripture, they (or he) run to some undefined "Jesus" said somewhere else and by some other means.

This is why it’s important to fight against the RCC/EO argument that scripture didn’t exist or that no one had any clue what it was prior to the councils. It’s a lie and gives way to other false claims about God’s word. Christians began to recognize scripture vs not scripture almost immediately as these books were written. Yes, there was some debate over a few books, but the overwhelming majority were immediately recognized. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of non-inspired text were immediately recognized as such. Early Christians had a good idea of what God’s word was.

No mental gymnastics needed. All one has to do is read the verse and not try to impute their man made traditions into the verse. Matthew 16:18: And I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, Cephas; masculine], and on this rock [petra; feminine] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. [my bold] Peter is referenced in the first part of the verse, in correct grammar, being referred to by the Greek word Petros or Cephas, which are both masculine in the original Greek/Aramaic. However, the 'rock' later in the verse uses a different Greek word, petra. Petra is feminine in the Greek and thus cannot be a reference to the man Peter. Also, Peter was married by the way. Note, petra is used in 1 Corinthians 10:4: and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock [petra] that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ [my bold] There now. The more you know. QED

@CorgiSquirrel The word “Peter” means rock. You’re doing mental gymnastics; not reading the context.

@puHHembIDSepoH @CatholicDrip___ James does not quote Ecclesiasticus. There are no quotes given in James. If James had quoted the verse, we would have quotes, as all the inspired writers did when they quoted the Old Testament. Please read for comprehension.

@CorgiSquirrel @CatholicDrip___ Oh gonna pull some chains with this. Apostle James 👇 the Lord’s brother teaching wisdom not as something new or invented. He speaks as one continuing what God had already taught: listen first, restrain the tongue, master anger, walk patiently.

Because it’s not a full canon

I do not need to. The "Catholic" etymology came after the Scriptures were written. 'Priest' is given nowhere as a New Testament church office. Another example of why one should always check any verse referenced or quoted by a "Catholic." Acts 6:1-7: In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith. Nowhere is the topic discussed in the referenced verses.

@CorgiSquirrel @MrCasey62 Look up the etymology of priest. Look up also Acts 6:1-7.

My goodness. My statement is not the negative. Here is the very first post: The thief on the cross differs. This statement is effectively saying that the thief was NOT baptized. It is the original negative statement to which I was responding.

@CorgiSquirrel @JackmanRobert "You cannot show from Scripture that the thief was not" the "not" is a negative

The thief on the cross differs.

He literally said Peter (the guy Jesus renamed “rock”) isn’t the rock. That is because Jesus never stated that in Matthew 16:18. You might try reading the verse in context along w/ the prior few verses as well. He doesn’t seem to understand scripture at all. It is pretty clear that he understands them better than "Catholics."

@CorgiSquirrel He literally said Peter (the guy Jesus renamed “rock”) isn’t the rock. He doesn’t seem to understand scripture at all.