Christian: Interpretation (priests, Moses, tradition, Epistles, grace)

[writer]

48 But you're the one who brought it up.
If you want to know what attendees believe or feel, u should ask them.
Then mebbe u could share here what they told u


Who are the "mere attendees," and why should we seek to identify them?
To help them experience the Lord. U'd have to ask or speak with attendees personally to find out if they're born again or not


My assertion is that the apostles chose replacements for themselves. Your opinion (which I clarified as an opinion) is that Matthias was some kind of "special case."
Matthias was a "special case" in that Judas, uniquely of the 12 "special cases" Jesus chose, "turned aside to go to his own place." None other of these were replaced.
In support of my opinion I offer Acts 1:15--26
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers and said (there was a group of persons gathered together, about 120), Men, brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who seized Jesus; for he was numbered among us and was allotted his portion of this ministry. (Now this man acquired a piece of land with the wages of unrighteousness; and falling headlong, he burst in the middle...) For it is written in the book of the Psalms, "Let his habitation become desolate, and let no one dwell in it"; and, "His overseership let another take." It's necessary therefore that of the men who accompanied us all the time in which the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He was taken up from us, one of these should become a witness of His resurrection with us. And they proposed two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, You Lord, Knower of the hearts of all, show us clearly the one whom You have chosen of these two to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place...and Matthias was counted with the eleven apostles.
And also Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had 12 foundations, and on them the 12 names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb.
Thanks


This is all an argument of semantics. The names changed slightly when the Church grew larger than a local college of bishops could reasonably oversee.
To the contrary, Ignatius misspoke the apostles' semantics and thus their teaching and example in that regard. Clement didn't. Polycarp, another of Ign's contemporaries, didn't. Jerome, 2 centuries+ later, pointed out the change.
In addition, a larger church is all the more reason to have plural "bishops" (episkopos). Not to have only one


It was a change of practicality, not theology.
I didn't call it "theology." And you state my point: it was a change from the apostles teaching and pattern


Anciently, one elder was in charge of one congregation.
Anciently in the New Testament, just the oppostite. Plural elders were "in charge" of one congregation (cf Acts 20:17, quoted above, concerning the elders Paul put in charge in the one Ephesus). Also 14:23 and Titus 1:5 concerning elders per church and elders per city. One church, one city.


One elder cannot personally oversee more than one congregation.
Amen. Not only cannot. Should not. Per the NT. In any case, in the NT is plural elders per one congregation, one church


So the elder (overseer) became a bishop (episkopos)...
I encourage u to doublecheck your Greek. "over" = "epi;" and
"sight, seer" = "skopos."
As in our English word "scope."
Additionally, "elders" were always "overseers" ("bishops") in the NT.
Overseers were always elders. They're the identical persons


a bishop (episkopos) over several congregations, and presbyters were appointed to oversee individual congregations under the bishop's care.
This teaching and practice is both unapostolic and even antiapostolic, anti-NT. It is a deviation. In the NT, presbyters and episkopos are the identical persons, plural per church, and not "under" any hierarchy

The presbyer acts on behalf of the bishop, so the office is really one -- carried out by two people.
Not in the NT


Again, a change that does not necessarily bring division (or, particularly, deviation from scripture, except as necessitated by circumstance).
It's not necessitated either by circumstance nor by Scripture. As the Lord said to Moses, referring to the old covenant types: "See that you make all things according to the pattern that was shown to you in the mountain," Hebrews 8:5; Exodus 25:40.
Thanks

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by writer

Meaning Christ hates such a practice and teaching of clergy-laity: that there is, or should be, a special class of believers who are "priests" and the majority who are an audience or subjects, as in a secular model.
Such a religious institution, practice, and even teaching within RC, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or any and all of Christianity, deviates from the NT church and apostles' pattern

Interesting.... good stuff writer..... but.....

How do you see our faith being "run" today? I can relate to the desire to conform to Holy Scripture, but times have obviously changed in 2,000 or so years... I do believe that we are all called to be priests... but I also see the need for authority so we don't splinter off into millions of different beliefs... how, in your theology, do we stay "one" as the Lord desired?

Peace,
S

[writer]

How do you see our faith being "run" today?
100% by the Spirit of Christ, who is God, Gal 5:25; 1 Cor 6:17; 15:45; Rm 8

I can relate to the desire to conform to Holy Scripture, but times have obviously changed in 2,000 or so years
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, 'n forever,
n' the Mediator of a new covenant. Since He's ever fresh as He always is, His Scriptures couldn't change either. He's alive,
all Scripture's God-breathing (2 Tim 3:16)

we are all called to be priests...
you're a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired for a possession, so that you may tell out the virtues o' Him who's called you out of darkness into His marvellous light; who once were not a people but now're the people o' God; who'd not previously been shown mercy but've now been shown mercy.
From JC, the faithful Witness,the Firstborn from the dead...To Him who loves us and's released us from our [my] sins by His blood and made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father, to Him be the glory and the might forever...

but I also see the need for authority so we don't splinter off into millions of different beliefs...
All authority's been given to Me... Mt 28:18.
He subjected all things under His feet and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church, which is His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all, Eph 1:22-23.
Grow up into Him in all things, who's the Head, Christ, out from whom all the Body... 4:15-16.
He's the Head of the Body, the church; He's the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, that He Himself might have the first place in all things. For in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell...holding the Head, out from whom all the Body, being richly supplied and knit together by means of the joints and sinews, grows with the growth o' God, Col 1:18-19; 2:19.
The Lord's with your spirit, grace's with you,
i (we) hav to learn to live by our spirit

how, in your theology, do we stay "one" as the Lord desired?
We're already one. He who's joined to the Lord is one spirit, 1 Cor 6:17. We jus have to get there (our spirit). Thanks Scott

[Scott1]

I agree, of course, with you writer... but you answered a practical question with a spiritual answer.

However well intentioned, faith in Christ does not ensure that we all agree..... or do you mean that with "stonger" faith (on my part I'm assuming) we'll all eventually "get there" and agree on Scripture, leadership, liturgy, etc.?

[writer]

Isn't that why the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit:
To be practical/practiced?

However well intentioned,
Our human spirit, where Christ is, is deeper than our will, Heb 4:12; 1 Thes 5:23

faith in Christ does not ensure that we all agree
faith's the substantiting of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen

or do you mean that with "stonger" faith (on my part I'm assuming) we'll all eventually "get there" and agree on Scripture, leadership, liturgy, etc.?
Christ is there. Christ's here. Christ's alive. Christ's risen. Christ's real. Christ's present. He is our oneness (Jn 17:20-23), He is our Faith. He is in our spirit.
He is: "keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace...until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, Eph 4:3, 13.
Thanks for askin Scott

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by writer

faith's the substantiting of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen

Super... but does not come close to answering the question... or is the Christian faith a secret your trying to hold all to yourself? Please explain yourself without quoting yet another Bible verse.

Thanks for askin Scott

I'm still askin.... I don't understand your reply.

[writer]

is the Christian faith a secret your trying to hold all to yourself?
Faith comes out o' hearin, and hearin thru the word o' Christ.
Cuz Christ is alive, faith's simply responding to Him, as Paul wrote.
Hebrews 11:1.
Thanks

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by writer

is the Christian faith a secret your trying to hold all to yourself?
Faith comes out o' hearin, and hearin thru the word o' Christ.
Cuz Christ is alive, faith's simply responding to Him, as Paul wrote.
Hebrews 11:1.
Thanks

But, can we not respond in different ways?

[writer]

faith's the unique way to make real God.
Faith's the substantiation o' things hoped for, the conviction o' things not seen. In this the elders've obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the universe's been framed by the word o' God,
so that what's seen hasn't come into being out o' things which appear.
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...
Thanks

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by writer

faith's the unique way to make real God.
Faith's the substantiation o' things hoped for, the conviction o' things not seen. In this the elders've obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the universe's been framed by the word o' God,
so that what's seen hasn't come into being out o' things which appear.
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...
Thanks

Isn't God real without our faith?

You have skirted the question again. Scott stated that "faith does not ensure agreement." I asked, "can we not affirm our faith differently?"