(Ron) Consistent Since Its Inception?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 12:57 PM 5/7/98 -0400, Brian Dean wrote:

>TILL

>Well, let's suppose that such a hierarchy existed in the first generation

>after the apostles.  My postings have shown that the generation of the

>apostles and those who wrote the NT books did not have any such 

>hierarchy in the churches that they established.  You can, of course, 

>disprove this by showing that my analysis of NT writings on this subject 

>are incorrect.  Call it a protestant view if you wish; that will not alter the 

>fact that there are certain documents that have been collected as the 

>"New Testament," and they were purportedly written by first-century 

>Christians.  In their writings, they show a view of church organization

that is 

>different from the organization of the RCC.  Therefore, the structure of this 

>church has changed.

>

>RON

>  You suggested that the Catholic Church contradicted Scripture with it 

>heirarchy of bishops and priests, etc. I showed, and Prof. Tylor argued 

>much more eloquently, that this was not the case. You admit that 

>"bishop" and "priest" were offices in the early Church. I don't see how 

>the expansion of these roles and their adaptation to historical 

>circumstances would go against Jesus' intentions. After all he gave 

>Peter (the first "pope") the authority to shepherd the flock as he saw 

>fit. How does the adaptation of these offices contradict Scripture or 

>Jesus' teachings? 


TILL
There were no priests in the NT church in the sense that you're talking
about.  The book of Hebrews presents Jesus as the "high priest" of
Christians, and 1 Peter 2:5, 9 describe Christians in general as a "holy" or
"royal" priesthood.  This view is also taught in Revelation 1:6 (see also
Revelation 5:10 and 20:6).  So in the NT church all Christians were priests,
just as all Christians were saints, but there were no priests who got their
jollies from sitting in booths listening to people catalogue their sins.
If I'm wrong, then show me where the NT teaches that there was any such
office.  I have shown that the NT used the terms "elders" and "bishops"
interchangeably.  Despite Taylor's etymological comments, he did not remove
the fact that the terms were used interchangeably in the NT, as I showed in
my posting on the subject.  Read Titus 1:5-7 again and try to notice that
"Paul" told Titus to appoint "elders" in every city.  He then proceeded to
give the qualifications that they should have: blameless, the husband of one
wife, children who believe and are not accused of being riotous or unruly
(v:6).  He then stated why these qualifications were necessary: "For
[because] the BISHOP must be blameless...."  That's clear enough that even
you should see it.  "Elders" were to be appointed who had certain
qualifications, and the qualifications were essential because a BISHOP
should be blameless.    I also pointed out that Acts 20:17 states that when
Paul was in Miletus, he called to him the ELDERS of the church at Ephesus
and made a speech in which he said that the Holy Spirit had made them
BISHOPS.  Now that is also clear enough that you should see that these
elders were bishops, and these bishops were elders. The concept of A bishop
who was THE top dog in a congregation began to develop in the 2nd century.

Peter was the first pope?  I'd like to see your proof of that.  It's very
telling that you said nothing about my posting that showed clear indications
that James was the big wheel in the Jerusalem church and that even Peter
recognized this.  Apparently your way of responding to postings that
disprove your Catholic views is to ignore them.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: (Ron) Consistent Since Its Inception?
• Next message: (Ron) Consistent Since Its Inception?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]