Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet,

Pope is just a title coming from the Greek Papa. The pope's office is still that of bishop.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet - interesting work schedule you got there. How do you know when it's night or day?

"Priest is never mentioned as an office in the church (same with "Pope"). Both are man-made, and both continue the bondage that the old testament priests had begun with their man-made traditions."

Yes, presbuteros is an elder, but etymologically, this is where we get the English word for 'priest.' It's just unfortunate that the Greek word 'hieros' which is translated into Latin as 'secerdos' is translated into English as 'priest' as well. So while reading in Greek or Latin, they are two different words, in English the same word is used.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H and Prophet,

Sorry, but it took a while for me to get back. I don't know how you two guys (as well as numerous others on these threads) do it; I see you guys on other threads as well - this could be a full-time job. BTW, I still have my job. My wife and I both survived the round of lay-offs. There may be a second round later, but for now, we've made it through. Thanks and praise to God.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H - "There are many things that Jesus/God recognized or mention but never sanctioned or approve of in scripture... this tradition is no different..."

Yes, I know that Jesus and others referred to things, topics, or events that were not written in the OT. But in this instance, Jesus is referring to a tradition that touches on religious discipline; He's not merely bringing this up as a point of history or culture, but rather as an authoritative truth, which is why He acknowledges it as well as admonishing His disciples to acknowledge it.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet - "Sorry for the miscommunication. I wasn't necessarily commenting on the topic that you and Online were having. I was merely pointing out that the office of the Catholic priest is anti-scriptural and just a continuation of a man-controlled and man-made sect."

I wasn't aware that we were discussing the Catholic priesthood. I respect your opinion, but obviously I have to disagree with you. The office of Catholic priest is not anti-scriptural. The bible talks about episcopos and presbyteros in various places in the NT. This is equivalent to bishop and priest (presbyter).

As a Catholic Christian in Lake Jackson (about one hour south of Houston), I belong to the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo is my bishop, or head pastor, if you will. My local parish community (which would have been roughly equivalent to a house church in the first century when the Christian population was much smaller) where I worship is St. Michael the Archangel in Lake Jackson - one of about 150 parish communities within the "church" of the Galveston-Houston diocese. So the "church" in Galveston-Houston includes all those bishops, priests, deacons, and lay members who profess the catholic and apostolic faith. And of course, the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is just one local "church" within the Universal (Catholic) Church throughout the world.

Let us suppose for a moment that you were a Christian living in Crete in the first century A.D. (say, about 65 A.D.) You would then have attended "church" under the leadership of your bishop Titus, appointed by St. Paul . Local house churches would have met under presbyters (elders) with deacons assisting.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

Again, I think we are off topic of what I was originally attempting to cover. I am not addressing the extent to which the Pharisees' teaching is true or in error or whether the Pharisees used Jewish tradition authoritatively in their teaching. I am referring to an instance in which Jesus points to a Jewish tradition (namely, that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat), does not refute it, and admonishes His disciples to acknowledge it. Neither the issue of the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat nor the topic of Moses' seat even existing and/or being available for successors to authoritatively teach from are demonstrated in the OT. This is only known through Jewish tradition, and apparently a tradition that Jesus did not find fault in.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H,

I don't particularly have a problem with any of those commentaries that you cited. In one sense, one could obviously say that some of the Pharisees 'teachings' are wrong. In another sense, one could say that the Pharisees teachings are correct, but their hypocritical practice of their teachings are what is wrong. Scripture uses both senses. It doesn't seem that all the teachings of the Pharisees were so much in the wrong as it was their application of certain teachings or their hypocritical practice of them. For instance, when Jesus criticized the Pharisees for certain teachings, it was not necessarily because the teaching itself was wrong, but rather that the Pharisees were using a certain teaching (which was true) as a loop hole around another teaching. So if the Pharisees were to teach that you are to offer your tithe to the temple or offer some other gift to God (which is a true teaching), the disciples were to heed this teaching as true. If the Pharisees were using this teaching as an escape clause so that they did not have to honor their parents, it was the false application of the teaching that was in error; i.e., it was not the tradition itself that was wrong; it was the nullification of a commandment by that tradition that was wrong. In other words observe and obey what they teach (in this example, make tithes and offerings to God AND honor one's father and mother), but do not do what they practice (make tithes and offerings to God BUT use this as a loop hole to release one's obligation to offer support to one's father and mother). Remember, that it was this same Jesus castigating the Pharisees for their hypocrisy that also commanded them to do the latter without neglecting the former; i.e., do not use one teaching as an escape clause to justify not following another teaching.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H - "... what he told the disciples to observe was obviously the teaching from the law and the prophets. This tradition as we both acknowledge did not come from Moses or from the Lord... so, it was not the position which they were to observe but rather the law and the prophets which they read from. This is what Jesus told them to observe; it is actually pretty clear."

Then why didn't Jesus say to His disciples to observe and practice what the Law and the Prophets command? Why convolute the point with the presumed authority of the Pharisees and interject them into the mix. Or why point out the Pharisees at all? Would this not apply to anybody who faithfully taught from the Law and the Prophets?

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H - "Since historically the (chair of Moses) in the synagogue came into use far after the actual time of Moses, is it not clear that reference to this chair cannot be cited in support of an oral tradition that goes back to Moses?"

Then from where does Jesus come up with this idea, and why does He admonish His disciples to acknowledge it? If the tradition of the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat was another man-made tradition, why did Jesus not call them out on it?

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H - "Did you know that synagogue worship first emerged in postexilic times, long after the time of Moses?"

Yes. And I never stated that the tradition came from the time of Moses. Only that some tradition regarding the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat must have existed since Jesus refers to it, does not claim that it's not true, and admonished His disciples to acknowledge it.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophat - "An[d] that, as well as priests, were done away with after the Sacrifice."

I agree, but that is not germane to the topic at hand. At the time that Jesus stated this, those things had not yet passed away.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H - "I sincerely desire to know what they authoritatively taught... do you have any information on this?"

Remember how this part of the discussion started. I'm not talking abouth the Pharisees teaching authoritatively something from rabbinic tradition that happened to be true. I'm talking about Jesus referring to the Jewish tradition of the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat. I 'm not addressing anything about what the Pharisees taught; not yet anyway. The point was made the Jesus or the apostles never referred to tradition in their teachings. And I'm saying here is one instance.

You have already mentioned that we are short of information from the OT scriptures that would have allowed us to come to the conclusion that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat and not some other indiviual or another body, such as the Sadducess, or the Scribes, or the Zealots, or the priests, or whoever. The only way this was known was through Jewish tradition, and apparently it was authentic because not only does Jesus not refute it, explicitly points it out and admonishes His own disciples to acknowledge it as well.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

O4H - "I think it is an assumption to say that the Pharisees were given rightful authority to sit in Moses seat..."

It is not an assumption; Jesus said as much. He's the one that said that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. This wasn't merely an historical observation. Jesus derives a conclusion based on this being true. Namely, that because this is true (not an assumption) His disciples are to yield obedience to their commands.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet - "... So, yes, Peter was teaching a false doctrine."

No he wasn't. Peter is accused of being hypocritcal here. Some other Jews followed in Peter's hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. Peter cannot be considered a 'hypocrite' unless he taught one thing and then acted against his own teaching; that's what a hypocrite is - one who does not practice what he preaches.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet,

They were compelled by example to follow along; they were compelled by his poor example... they were not compelled by formal teaching and instruction. They were not forced to follow by way of command or directive.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet,

It's like I stated previously, if I cheated on my wife, I would not by my action be teaching that it is morally licit to commit adultery. Yes, my actions, if made public, would cause scandal and set a bad example, and if I were in a position of leadership, could cause some to be led astray or even fall away from the faith. I would cause confusion to those who were new or young in the faith, and by my poor example, it would appear that I'm compromising the gospel by confusing the message. But I would not be said to be fornally or officially teaching that adultery is morally acceptable.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet - "Ummm....no. Peter forced (a quote from the Bible)..."

Ummm... no, others followed Peter's bad example. 'Force' is not a quote from the Bible, rather it's an English translation of a Greek word, and an overly strong one at that. I believe that most other English translations render compel. I need to check the tense though, because it seems that it's the others that felt compelled by Peter's bad example; again, Peter did not force them to do anything.

"Otherwise you would know, that Peter didn't "lead them astray". He was purposely teaching them and making them follow incorrect teachings."

No, it says that Branabas was led astray or carried away (depending on translation). And purposely???... Peter did this out of fear of those that same with James. Peter was not standing there preaching that Jews are not allowed to have table fellowship with Gentiles and that Jewish converts to Christianity are still required to maintain Jewish customs. He was not makeing any official declaration or teaching in any proper sense.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet - "By the way...is there a difference between leading and teaching? Isn't leading someone into sin, the same as teaching them it's ok?"

Yes, there is a difference. Poor conduct is not the same as teaching in any official or proper sense.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet,

Some were led astray and felt 'compelled' to follow Peter's conduct; Peter did not force anybody to do anything.

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

irenaeus »

Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet,

You are not bursting my bubble. This is the impression I get from you because I was not even addressing the issue of the papacy (or any other distinctively Catholic doctrine), but that is where you seem to be trying to steer the discussion. I am strictly speaking about Peter (as well as some others) who taught and interpreted scripture infallibly, yet you want to continue focusing on Peters' failure in conduct. I acknowledge Paul's confrontation of Peter's inappropriate conduct, but all this proves is that God can use a fallible man to infallibly make known His revelation. Therefore, as I said prior, Peter spoke infallibly in his sermon on Pentecost. Peter spoke infallibly regarding the revelation revealed to him concerning the Gentiles becoming Christians and that the Holy Spirit had been poured out and was available to the Gentiles just as it was for the Jews, that Peter infallibly interpreted scripture on a number of occasions, and that he penned two infallible letters. What is your beef with this point without jumping to examples of where Peter sinned?

BTW, Peter was not 'teaching' false doctrine.I suppose one could say that he was 'teaching' by bad example, but we know that he was not teaching in any proper or official sense as teacher and apostle. Paul clearly says what Peter did... Peter was eating with the Gentiles (in accordance with the revelation that had been made known), but when James and some of the Jews arrived, out of fear, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and sat with the Jews. Peter's actions led others astray including Barnabas such that others behaved similarly. In other words others felt compelled to follow Peter's (poor) example, but Peter did not force them to act that way. In fact, this actually demonstrates Peter's prominence in that since Peter was a leader, he should have known better; since he was the chief apostle, he should have known better; since he personally received the revelation regarding the Gentiles, he should have known better. Otherwise, why did Paul single out Peter? Why not also admonish the other Jewish Christians who were present? Why did he not berate Barnabas for doing the same thing? Because Peter being a leader should have known better and should have acted in a manner becoming of his position.