• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scriptural argument for the Apostasy

silvermoon383

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
For example, Clement of Rome was the third bishop of Rome. It is known that Clement was a disciple of the original Twelve. Clement died in the year 100 c.e. Surely the original Twelve, to whom had been given authority by Jesus himself, knew about the establishment of the bishopric, since the term was widely used prior to their deaths. They approved of it, and supported it. It was their decision, out of necessity of circumstance, to organize the Church with imbedded bishops, rather than with itinerant apostles, as I've shown.

I have a question about this. Revelation for the church came through the 12, didn't it? If Clement was alive at the same time that John the Beloved (writer of St. John, 1,2,3 John, and Revelations) why was the revelation now know as the Book of Revelations given to John in exile on Patmos if there was an authorized priesthood leader in Rome (Clement) who had much more access to the Christians?
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Thanks Pete....

... and as far as the standard LDS hate-speach in this thread towards any other Christian group but their own, I don't care to play along.

It's the same pre-packaged LDS apologetic crap I see all the time.... check here if you'd like to see the pre-packaged RCC crap reply.

Apostasy and 1800 years of ignorant apostate Christian saints and martyrs until Joseph Smith came along.... sheeesh.... pride, pride, pride.

Peace be with you all, and may you learn peace and tolerance towards your fellow Christians.
Scott
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
First, Jesus did not establish an organized Church. Jesus established ecclesia, which is the Greek word for "church." It means "body" or "group of people." This connotation stands in juxtaposition to the modern, populare connotation of the word "church." When we say "church," most folks thinks of a highly-organized machine. But that's not Biblically what Jesus left us. In fact, the early Church (ecclesia) was fairly amorphous in nature. it was the later Apostles who organized the Church.
I think I'll begin by addressing the comments made in this post and then working backwards (since I somehow failed to notice this thread until just now). Jesus Christ did establish an organized Church. He referred to it as His Church. Paul said that He (Jesus Christ himself) "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers..." He personally called them, ordained them and gave them the authority to act in His name so that His Church might continue to function as it would have done had He not been put to death.

Third, the word "apostle" means "sent out." Jesus originally sent out 70 apostles, but he ordained only the original Twelve to govern, or "oversee" the ecclesia. The Greek word for "overseer" is episkopos, or "bishop." So, Jesus, himself, ordained the Twelve as bishops, which supreceded their earlier office of "apostle." They must have understood this, since it was they (the original Twelve) who began acting as bishops and authorizing other bishops.
Jesus sent out seventy of His disciples, but He never referred to them as His "Apostles." On the contrary, Luke 6:13 states that "...when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." There are, throughout the New Testament, numerous references to "the twelve," clearly indicating that (1)their role was unique among all of Christ's followers and (2)they were to function as an united body.

It's an error of semantics. The gospelers refer to the original Twelve as Apostles, even though they were really acting out of their ordained office of bishop, or "overseer," as Jesus had commanded them.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide a pretty reputable source to convince me of that. Jesus ordained "the twelve" to be His Apostles. The Apostles, acting under the authority He gave them, in turn ordained others (how many, we do not know) to be bishops. Furthermore, the New Testament record is quite clear that, for a period of time, at least, whenever a vacancy among the Apostles occurred, a new Apostle was chosen to replace the one who had died. The scriptures mention four individuals by name who were not among the original twelve, but who were at some point called to be an Apostle, these being Matthias, Paul, Barnabus and James (Jesus' brother).

The Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. But, as the Church became larger and more well-established, the original apostles chose, not by default, but by design to become imbedded bishops -- to be less itinerant -- less "sent out."
To become "imbedded bishops"? Where are you coming up with these ideas? Jesus Christ's Church was built on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles and, according to Paul, this organization was to continue to exist until such time as "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Are we there yet? Hardly! Therefore, the conditions permitting this organization to be discontinued have never been met. Living Apostles were intended by Jesus Christ to be a part of His Church, and a Church cannot be "Apostolic" without Apostles. It's that simple!

 

PHOTOTAKER

Well-Known Member
Squirt said:
I think I'll begin by addressing the comments made in this post and then working backwards (since I somehow failed to notice this thread until just now). Jesus Christ did establish an organized Church. He referred to it as His Church. Paul said that He (Jesus Christ himself) "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers..." He personally called them, ordained them and gave them the authority to act in His name so that His Church might continue to function as it would have done had He not been put to death.

Jesus sent out seventy of His disciples, but He never referred to them as His "Apostles." On the contrary, Luke 6:13 states that "...when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." There are, throughout the New Testament, numerous references to "the twelve," clearly indicating that (1)their role was unique among all of Christ's followers and (2)they were to function as an united body.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide a pretty reputable source to convince me of that. Jesus ordained "the twelve" to be His Apostles. The Apostles, acting under the authority He gave them, in turn ordained others (how many, we do not know) to be bishops. Furthermore, the New Testament record is quite clear that, for a period of time, at least, whenever a vacancy among the Apostles occurred, a new Apostle was chosen to replace the one who had died. The scriptures mention four individuals by name who were not among the original twelve, but who were at some point called to be an Apostle, these being Matthias, Paul, Barnabus and James (Jesus' brother).

To become "imbedded bishops"? Where are you coming up with these ideas? Jesus Christ's Church was built on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles and, according to Paul, this organization was to continue to exist until such time as "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Are we there yet? Hardly! Therefore, the conditions permitting this organization to be discontinued have never been met. Living Apostles were intended by Jesus Christ to be a part of His Church, and a Church cannot be "Apostolic" without Apostles. It's that simple!


i just got done with some of what you said in the bible, it there in the bible and it is that simple!!!!
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Scott1 said:
... and as far as the standard LDS hate-speach in this thread towards any other Christian group but their own, I don't care to play along.
What's this? I haven't seen any hate-speech on either side of this argument. We don't hate other Christians and we don't hate non-Christians. This is merely a debate, and so far, I believe everybody has been quite respectful and courteous. If the subject matter is not something that interests you, fine. But the fact of the matter is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not exist if we did not believe a universal apostasy to have taken place. In that regard, it is our responsibility to provide evidence that it did, just as it is your responsibility to provide evidence that it did not. Come on, don't take any of this personally, Scott, and please don't interpret our difference of opinion as "hate speech."
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
PHOTOTAKER said:
i just got done with some of what you said in the bible, it there in the bible and it is that simple!!!!
I'm on your side.. but it is not that simple... you folks are trying to make scripture fit your side.... and seem to ignore or are ignorant of the history of the Christian faith. The faith came before the Church...ANY CHURCH. Oral teaching was the norm for the better part of two hundred years... heck, Paul was pretty certain the world was about to end soon and preferred that men not marry... why bother with the world ending?... so do you really think from the moment Paul finished writing something the "Pre-Apostate" Church started copying them down and waiting for a few more chapters so they could get started on the whole "Christian" thing? Naaah.... not even close.... if you do a little research you'll discover that most groups could not decide on what was scripture and what was not for the better part of 400 years.... the West kept out the Book of Hebrews for 300 years!

You folks can continue to try to force your "scriptural argument"
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
JamesThePersian said:
I see absolutely no evidence of God's literal fatherhood of Christ in the early Church if you mean what this sounds like (and I sincerely hope you do not).
Do you believe that Mary was literally Jesus' mother? Do you believe that she was a virgin? I would imagine that the answer to both of these questions is "yes." We also believe that Mary was literally Jesus' mother and that she was a virgin. Likewise, we believe that God the Father was literally Jesus' father. Since Mary was literally His mother and was a virgin, it is entirely logical for us to also believe that God was literally His father and did not have sexual relations with her. See how simple the truth is? It doesn't have to be "dirty."
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Polaris said:
2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 : That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.
I'd like to focus for a minute on this passage. So often I hear that, yes, perhaps an apostasy of sorts was to take place, but that Paul never intended these words to be interpreted as referring to a universal apostasy. From my perspective, it would have been totally pointless for him to have even mentioned a "falling away" (apostasia) unless it was to be universal in nature. By the time Paul spoke these words, a limited apostasy had already taken place. I think it's clear from many of the words of the early Apostles (but Paul, in particular) that there were some individuals and groups within the early Church who had drifted into apostasy or heretical practices almost from the beginning. What sense would there have been for him to say, "Jesus will not return until some have left the fold"? Some already had left the fold. He was clearly speaking of a wide-spread apostasy.

(Just for the record, when I use the phrase "universal apostasy," I am using it as you used it in your opening post -- to denote a total loss of Apostolic authority on the earth. I am absolutely not implying that there were not devout Christians alive during this period of time or that the Church that existed after the apostasy was entirely devoid of truth.)
 

Polaris

Active Member
sojourner said:
As I've shown, your sentence which I've highlighted in red is mistaken. The scriptures clearly show that Jesus places the apostles "in charge" -- makes them "bishops." Yes. The Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. But, as the Church became larger and more well-established, the original apostles chose, not by default, but by design to become imbedded bishops -- to be less itinerant -- less "sent out."


I'm glad that you agree that Christ called Apostles and placed them in charge of the church. Part of their responsability as Apostles who were "sent out" was to organize and strengthen the church in various geographical areas. This is where the office of Bishop comes in. A Bishop is one who "oversees" and is not "sent out" as a traveling ministers like the Apostles. The Bishop represents the local church leadership for a particular geographical area. There is no scriptural evidence that Apostles became imbedded bishops. They were always needed as traveling leadership, those "sent out" to maintain doctrinal purity and oversee the needs of the church in all geographical regions. It makes no sense that their responsability to be "sent out" diminished since the church was always attempting to expand geographically.



 

Polaris

Active Member
NetDoc said:
You have missed the true "leader" of the church: God's Spirit.

I Corinthians 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16
"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
NIV

The promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is for ALL Christians. We are the priests and we need no other.

If we need no priests why did Christ call 12 Apostles and give to Peter the "keys of the kingdom". I agree that we are entitled to personal revelation through the spirit to help us know Gods will for us individually, but there is also a need for inspired men called of God to govern His church just as the Apostles were called to do, to preach the gospel and organize means whereby we might more easily come to know God and keep his commandments, and in turn help others to do the same.
 

Polaris

Active Member
Scott1 said:
I'm on your side.. but it is not that simple... you folks are trying to make scripture fit your side.... and seem to ignore or are ignorant of the history of the Christian faith. The faith came before the Church...ANY CHURCH. Oral teaching was the norm for the better part of two hundred years... heck, Paul was pretty certain the world was about to end soon and preferred that men not marry... why bother with the world ending?... so do you really think from the moment Paul finished writing something the "Pre-Apostate" Church started copying them down and waiting for a few more chapters so they could get started on the whole "Christian" thing? Naaah.... not even close.... if you do a little research you'll discover that most groups could not decide on what was scripture and what was not for the better part of 400 years.... the West kept out the Book of Hebrews for 300 years!

You folks can continue to try to force your "scriptural argument"

I realize that we don't have the complete story of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in our current N.T. It would be great if we did. What we do have though are the writings of some of the early Apostles, most in the form of epistles, and those are definitely of great value. I may be wrong, but from what I understand they selected the writings they did because they had greatest confidence that those writings/teachings were those actually by the ordained Apostles.

Scott please understand I am not trying to force my scriptural argument on anyone. This is a debate. I honestly believe that the apostasy occurred, in my opinion there is strong evidence for it in the Bible. If you disagree that's perfectly fine, feel free to show specific evidence to back up your claims. Also I have attempted to provide all my evidence in a considerate manner and am against any kind of "hate-speech". If I have been guilty of it please point it out to me. I most definitely do not consider the early Christians as ignorant apostates. Though I believe the true authority, doctrines, etc had been taken from the earth, I believe many early Christians (and current Christians for that matter) were/are honestly doing the best they knew how and will definitely be rewarded for it.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Polaris said:
If we need no priests why did Christ call 12 Apostles and give to Peter the "keys of the kingdom".
Consider these passages on WHO is a priest:

I Peter 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8 and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. NIV

All Christians are called to be royal priests.

Hebrews 7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26 Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. NIV

Jesus is our High Priest, after the order of Melchizedek. Notice that the use of this term is singular: we have only ONE High Priest, and he is Jesus. WE are his holy priesthood.

Polaris said:
I agree that we are entitled to personal revelation through the spirit to help us know Gods will for us individually, but there is also a need for inspired men called of God to govern His church just as the Apostles were called to do, to preach the gospel and organize means whereby we might more easily come to know God and keep his commandments, and in turn help others to do the same.
You derive this from WHAT scripture? Especially the "inspired" part. I challenge you especially, to find any scripture that referred to any of the apostles, bishops or deacons as "special priests".
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You derive this from WHAT scripture? Especially the "inspired" part. I challenge you especially, to find any scripture that referred to any of the apostles, bishops or deacons as "special priests".

We're confusing some terms here.

The Apostles were apostles because they were people who were "sent out." That's what apostle means..."sent out." Jesus "set aside" these people for this special task, or office. He individually called them out of the group and commissioned them to do that ministry.

When Jesus gave the Twelve authority to govern his Church (the office of bishop, or "overseer"), he "set them aside" for that ministry.

They were "set apart." The word holy means "set apart." Those who are called to a special ministry are "set apart" from the Body -- the Church -- for that special purpose. That, by definition, makes them "special priests." That's how Jesus operated. That was the understanding and praxis of the early Church.

Second, "Priest" designates someone who makes the holy sacrifice. "Priest" does not specifically refer to someone who is a "minister," nor does it refer to a specific office any longer. The more correct term, for example, for a Catholic priest is presbyter...not priest.

We are all priests, because, as believers, we make our own sacrifice of ourselves to the will of God. We are not all called to a special office, or function of the Body. Only Bishops, presbyters and deacons are "set apart" to do those special functions, or ministires.

There are both Biblical and historical precedcents for the setting apart of certain people for certain ministries in the Church.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
silvermoon383 said:
I have a question about this. Revelation for the church came through the 12, didn't it? If Clement was alive at the same time that John the Beloved (writer of St. John, 1,2,3 John, and Revelations) why was the revelation now know as the Book of Revelations given to John in exile on Patmos if there was an authorized priesthood leader in Rome (Clement) who had much more access to the Christians?

First of all, it's a nice story that John the Beloved Disciple wrote these documents, but unfortunately, it's not a fact. They were written by a member or members of the Johannine community -- the group that followed John the Beloved.

Second, the apostles were probably all about the same age as Jesus. That means that they were about 70 years old when Jerusalem fell. That means that they, by that time, had quite possibly retired from their apostolic duties -- they would have been too infirm to travel much. They would have laid hands on and "authorized" their own replacements and colleagues in ministry. Somebody had to go to Rome! If Clement died in the year 100, and there were two bishops before him, we can assume that there was at least one bishop serving in Rome during the time of the original Twelve.

Revelation did come through the Twelve, but we know that Paul had revelations, and Paul was not one of the original Twelve. And Paul was certainly a contemporary of the Twelve...and counted among them!

We tend to venerate and enshrine the Twelve, because they were with Jesus and knew Jesus personally. But we have to realize that it was they, and not Jesus, who "grew the Church." They knew that the Church had to grow and change, if it were to survive. Revelation did not die with the original Twelve -- that was guaranteed by them passing on the authority to new generations.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
All Christians are set apart and are thus Holy. We are all priests and we have only ONE high priest: Jesus. Our sacrifice is to be OURSELVES.

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6`We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
NIV

So we are to be "Living Sacrifices". AND, if you are a part of the body then you must have a function. Only Christ is the head! The rest of us set about to do the will of the head. When a part of the body stops being useful: it whithers up and dies. So it is with any Christian.

I think it noteworthy that the scriptures provide "qualifications" for Elders, Deacons and their spouses, but NONE for being an Apostle. I don't see this as an oversight as much as an indication that we do not need Apostles any more. That office was used to kick start the church, and they worked themselves right out of a job.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
NetDoc said:
All Christians are set apart and are thus Holy. We are all priests and we have only ONE high priest: Jesus. Our sacrifice is to be OURSELVES.

Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6`We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
NIV

So we are to be "Living Sacrifices". AND, if you are a part of the body then you must have a function. Only Christ is the head! The rest of us set about to do the will of the head. When a part of the body stops being useful: it whithers up and dies. So it is with any Christian.

I think it noteworthy that the scriptures provide "qualifications" for Elders, Deacons and their spouses, but NONE for being an Apostle. I don't see this as an oversight as much as I see it that we do not need Apostles any more. That office was needed to kick start the church.

Of course all Christians are set aside by their baptism to be a priesthood. That's scriptural! But we're aruging semantics, not substance. While it is true that we are all set aside to a priesthood, it is also true (from the biblical example of Jesus setting aside twelve from the disciples) that some are further set aside to a special ministry. That ministry, historically and Biblically, has been one of leadership. The Church has always had spiritual leadership in the form of ministerial offices -- originally bishop (or apostle, or elder), presbyter (priest), and deacon.

"Priest" is not a synonym for "special minister" anymore, since there is no longer a sacrifice to be made on our behalf. Our use of "priest" to designate a special minister is a misnomer.

Interestingly, bishops are still referred to as "apostle," even though the function is not the same. I contend that, when Jesus placed the Apostles (original Twelve) in charge to govern, he ordained them to the office of bishop, or "overseer." As I said, as the Church became more stable and established, itinerant apostles were not needed, so much as bishops, who were imbedded in one specific community.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is for ALL Christians. We are the priests and we need no other.

That's true, in a sense. We don't need someone to "make the sacrifice for us" anymore. BUT, we do need some human to lead us, if we're going to be a human organization. Just as all of us are Jesus' hands and feet on earth, somebody has to act on behalf of the head, which is Christ. Those people are the ones whw are specially set aside for that special ministry. Not everyone is called to act on behalf of the head -- but some are.
 

Polaris

Active Member
NetDoc said:
Consider these passages on WHO is a priest:

I Peter 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8 and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. NIV

It's important to remember that Peter is speaking to members of the church, who many of which had likely been ordained to some office in the priesthood.

NetDoc said:

Hebrews 7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. NIV

I agree that Jesus is the Great High Priest and that His priesthood is forever. However the phrase "Unlike the other high priests" is proof that there were others who held the office of High Priest.

NetDoc said:
Jesus is our High Priest, after the order of Melchizedek.

So doen't that imply that Melchizedek was also a High Priest?

NetDoc said:
You derive this from WHAT scripture? Especially the "inspired" part. I challenge you especially, to find any scripture that referred to any of the apostles, bishops or deacons as "special priests".

Look, there are several scriptures that indicate that the Apostles would be led by the Holy Ghost or by inspriation. This however is not the topic of this thread. Again you are arguing the establishment of a church organization. The topic here is the apostasy based on the premise that Christ established an organized church with apostles to lead it. If you don't agree with that start a thread to address the issue.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Squirt said:
I think I'll begin by addressing the comments made in this post and then working backwards (since I somehow failed to notice this thread until just now). Jesus Christ did establish an organized Church. He referred to it as His Church. Paul said that He (Jesus Christ himself) "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers..." He personally called them, ordained them and gave them the authority to act in His name so that His Church might continue to function as it would have done had He not been put to death.

Jesus sent out seventy of His disciples, but He never referred to them as His "Apostles." On the contrary, Luke 6:13 states that "...when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." There are, throughout the New Testament, numerous references to "the twelve," clearly indicating that (1)their role was unique among all of Christ's followers and (2)they were to function as an united body.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide a pretty reputable source to convince me of that. Jesus ordained "the twelve" to be His Apostles. The Apostles, acting under the authority He gave them, in turn ordained others (how many, we do not know) to be bishops. Furthermore, the New Testament record is quite clear that, for a period of time, at least, whenever a vacancy among the Apostles occurred, a new Apostle was chosen to replace the one who had died. The scriptures mention four individuals by name who were not among the original twelve, but who were at some point called to be an Apostle, these being Matthias, Paul, Barnabus and James (Jesus' brother).

To become "imbedded bishops"? Where are you coming up with these ideas? Jesus Christ's Church was built on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles and, according to Paul, this organization was to continue to exist until such time as "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Are we there yet? Hardly! Therefore, the conditions permitting this organization to be discontinued have never been met. Living Apostles were intended by Jesus Christ to be a part of His Church, and a Church cannot be "Apostolic" without Apostles. It's that simple!


The Church Jesus ws referring to was the ecclesia -- the Body. Jesus didn't establish deacons -- the apostles did! Jesus didn't establish different communities in different places -- the apostles did! Jesus didn't establish Christianity as the state religion -- Constantine did! What are you talking about? The Church did not function in the same way after Jesus died, as it did prior. The organization and character (not the nature) changed drastically following Jesus' death.

Again...semantics. There's nothing sacred about the names we use -- they're meant ot be descriptive of the function of the office. The word "apostle" means "sent out." Jesus gathered seventy people and sent them out! They were apostles, because that was the job they did! Just because the gospelers didn't specifically refer to them as "apostles," and just because the English may translate a little differently, does not mean that they weren't apostles -- those who were sent out.

Yes, the role of the Twelve was unique. They had been called out from the body of disciples for a special ministry. I've never contended that. When Jesus was about to leave, he ordained them to have authority and to oversee the Church. The word bishop, or episkopos, means "overseer." Jesus made the Twelve bishops, or overseers, of the Church. Their job was to "go out" (apostle) into the world, and to "oversee" (bishop) the affairs of the Church.

That's correct. That's what I've been saying, that the Twelve chose their own replacements and made them bishops, too.

Bishops do not travel anymore. They are in authority over a specific area, along with other bishops, who are in authority over other specific areas. Together, they govern the Church. But they do not travel. They are not "sent out" anymore. The "job" of apostle has become the "job" of bishop. Bishops are still called "apostles" out of a sense of who they descended from. There is an apostolic succession of bishops in the Church.

Remember that Paul's world view was much different than ours. To Paul, the unification of the Church through the ecumenical councils, the establishment of the Church as the state religion, and the political sway of the Church through the Middle Ages would have been indicators that they "had all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God." Our world is much bigger than Paul's, and our religious scenery far, far different. For all intents and purposes, the Church was one for centuries!

Christ's Church was built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles -- and it has continued upon that foundation, led by its bishops, who have been authorized by the apostles. What's the problem?
 
Top