Are the "Keys of the Kingdom" really that special?

[Sees]

It was the church that chose the scriptures and not the other way around. Secondly, the hierarchy set up in the infant church was passed on and is recognized as such by the Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and Anglican ("Episcopalian" in the U.S.) churches.

Right on. The Church/Traditions created the scriptures, not scriptures creating the Church/Traditions. This is why later bible-only groups/denoms/sects are really just certain part Church/Traditions...though they believe themselves separated.

----

The vast majority of religious/spiritual traditions have always been oral. When you freeze-frame by what is written down what percentage do you have of the teachings and traditions passed on? The reason people do this obvious enough, they don't trust those who are still the keepers/passers of the traditions. They choose bible-only/sola scriptural assuming that the keepers/passers of past generations really did properly communicate "words of God/Truth".

All is arbitrary definitions of what is inspired, decided by people of yesterday and today. Is the assumption that anything important or deemed inspired would have surely been written down? Couldn't have also been rejected and cut off or edited out?

This also the problem with a non-living tradition...it's focus and interpretation of the frozen past alone with hope that you get the right things out of it and hope that they got it right to begin with.

Imagine if there were actually oral traditions only. No divine textbook with sentences to be analyzed and worried over. Would there be as many sects and denoms in Christianity today? Would truth be lost?

 

[metis]

The vast majority of religious/spiritual traditions have always been oral. When you freeze-frame by what is written down what percentage do you have of the teachings and traditions passed on? The reason people do this obvious enough, they don't trust those who are still the keepers/passers of the traditions. They choose bible-only/sola scriptural assuming that the keepers/passers of past generations really did properly communicate "words of God/Truth".

All is arbitrary definitions of what is inspired, decided by people of yesterday and today. Is the assumption that anything important or deemed inspired would have surely been written down? Couldn't have also been rejected and cut off or edited out?

This also the problem with a non-living tradition...it's focus and interpretation of the frozen past alone with hope that you get the right things out of it and hope that they got it right to begin with.

Imagine if there were actually oral traditions only. No divine textbook with sentences to be analyzed and worried over. Would there be as many sects and denoms in Christianity today? Would truth be lost?

The above is so well said, imo. Written traditions actually come from oral traditions before being subject to writing. For example, we know from glottochronology that most of the texts in the Tanakh were written long after what they supposedly covered, so these narratives were passed on orally, and then there was a rather subjective approach when it comes to the writings themselves. We also know that the gospels were written decades after Jesus died.

 

[2ndpillar]

No, I didn't miss the point at all. Let's look at the big picture.

Why did Jesus appoint the Twelve? Why did Jesus tell Peter to "feed my sheep..."? Who selected the canon? Did the church ever just say "Do you own thing"? Also, why would you call the church "pagan"? Did they stop worshiping God and refusing to believe in Jesus? Note that I am not defending all or even most of the church's actions, but referring to the apostolic church as being "pagan" is just partisan absurdity, imo.
QUOTE]

Dear Metis,
Why did Yeshua pick 12 apostles with one dropping out and another being lotted in? Why were there 12 tribes of Israel, with Levi having no inheritance, and Joseph's sons replacing Joseph. Has this something to do with the architecture of the new heaven and the new earth (Rev 21:1 -14)?
" new Jerusalem,...the wall of the city had 12 foundation stones" It does have something to do with the New Earth, and the architecture of creation itself, but that is another story.

As for Peter saying he would never deny Christ 3 times, and then Yeshua telling Peter that he would deny him 3 times, or how Peter would die, meant that Yeshua knew Peter's future, because he knew Scripture. Yeshua told the apostles that one of them would betray him (Mt 26:21), because he knew Scripture. The Scripture he knew was Ze 11. Mt 27:9-10 quotes Ze 11:13 when talking about Judas betrayal. The fact was, Yeshua knew Peter wouldn't take care of the sheep, because Ze 11:17, told him that Peter would be a "worthless shepherd, who would leave the flock" Yeshua told the apostles to "go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", yet Peter instead has a vision, as told in one of the stories of the church Acts 15:7, that he needs to tend the Gentiles instead. As Ze 11:16 states, Peter would be the shepherd that "I am going to raise up a shepherd..., who will not care for the perishing, seek the scattered, or sustain the one standing,...but will devour the flesh of the fat sheep.." Isaiah 22:15-25) told Yeshua that the holder of the key would fail. Yeshua called Peter "Satan, and a stumbling-block" for a reason. Peter would become a "stumbling-block". Not from what Yeshua actually said about Peter, but what people perceived he said.

As for who selected the present canon, it was Athanasius, who sat with Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius was later the Roman church bishop of Alexandria, and was not a holy man, nor was his church.

As for the church being pagan. Constantine changed the Sabbath law into keeping the "day of the sun" (Sol Invictus). This is the god which was on the Roman coins. His birthday is December 25. Constantine instituted the birthday of the Lord as the 25th of December. Most of the traditions of Constantine's Mythriac Sol Invictus pagan church are incorporated into the "Christian" church. Constantine was the Maximus Pontifex of the pagan church, which meant he was high priest of the pagan gods and calendar. He was also Pontifex Maximus of the "Christian" church. The pope is now Pontiff of the church, a position that was of pagan origins.Christ, Constantine, Sol Invictus

 

[Shiranui117]

As for Peter saying he would never deny Christ 3 times, and then Yeshua telling Peter that he would deny him 3 times, or how Peter would die, meant that Yeshua knew Peter's future, because he knew Scripture. Yeshua told the apostles that one of them would betray him (Mt 26:21), because he knew Scripture. The Scripture he knew was Ze 11. Mt 27:9-10 quotes Ze 11:13 when talking about Judas betrayal. The fact was, Yeshua knew Peter wouldn't take care of the sheep, because Ze 11:17, told him that Peter would be a "worthless shepherd, who would leave the flock"

What evidence do you have that Peter is the worthless shepherd who left the flock? It was Peter, after all, who spearheaded the ministry of the Apostles in Jerusalem, and who cared for the fledgling Church. He founded the church at Antioch, and worked with the other Apostles and bishops at the Council of Jerusalem to settle the Judaizing manner.

Yeshua told the apostles to "go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", yet Peter instead has a vision, as told in one of the stories of the church Acts 15:7, that he needs to tend the Gentiles instead. As Ze 11:16 states, Peter would be the shepherd that "I am going to raise up a shepherd..., who will not care for the perishing, seek the scattered, or sustain the one standing,...but will devour the flesh of the fat sheep.." Isaiah 22:15-25) told Yeshua that the holder of the key would fail.

As said earlier in this topic Isaiah 22 refers to a specific historical person, not to Peter. Peter, as I said, did indeed tend to the sheep of Israel. He also began gathering the scattered sheep that are the Gentiles. He was hardly negligent in his duties to care for and shepherd the Church--quite the opposite.

Yeshua called Peter "Satan, and a stumbling-block" for a reason. Peter would become a "stumbling-block". Not from what Yeshua actually said about Peter, but what people perceived he said.

Where is Peter called a stumbling block? Peter IS called the Rock, as in, the Rock of Peter's faith in Christ is the foundation of the Church.

As for who selected the present canon, it was Athanasius, who sat with Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius was later the Roman church bishop of Alexandria, and was not a holy man, nor was his church.

Athanasius was NOT the "Roman Church bishop of Alexandria". He was the Egyptian bishop of Alexandria. Only those living in Rome were part of the Roman Church back in those days. None of the Eastern bishops or Eastern Churches were ever, ever part of the Roman Church.

And you might want to learn about the people you so ignorantly insult. For almost their entire history they have been hunted down and persecuted, and in recent months and years, they've seen the worst persecutions ever; dozens of churches have been torched and desecrated, and the Egyptian Christians are being chased through the streets and out of the country, if not martyred.

The Egyptian Church has also fielded some of the greatest holy men and holy women Christianity has ever known--people who literally sold all that they had and followed Christ. They spent their entire lives striving to become more and more like Christ, spending all their days in prayer, repentance and contemplation of the Scriptures. People like St. Antony the Great, St. Mary of Egypt and St. Moses the Black are heroes of Christianity, with simple teachings that are in full alignment with what Christ said. The Egyptian Church is one of the holiest churches you can ever hope to find on this earth, and their history, faith and endurance is astounding. No posh American Christian living in a country such as ours (myself included) can ever truly comprehend the faith and strength of the Christians in "Athanasius' unholy church."

At least try and think about what you say before you go and denigrate millions of Christians, just because of your own agenda.

As for the church being pagan. Constantine changed the Sabbath law into keeping the "day of the sun" (Sol Invictus).

Hate to break it to you, but Christians have been worshipping on Sunday (the Lord's Day) basically ever since the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. We have firsthand testimony of this going back to at least the second century.

This is the god which was on the Roman coins. His birthday is December 25. Constantine instituted the birthday of the Lord as the 25th of December.

Actually, the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord was originally combined with the Feast of His circumcision and the visitation of the Magi in early January. The Church split the three apart and put Christmas on 25 December, so pagan converts to Christianity would have a Christian holiday to celebrate and wouldn't be tempted to celebrate with their pagan neighbors and families. It was an anti-pagan measure, not a pagan influence on Christianity.

Most of the traditions of Constantine's Mythriac Sol Invictus pagan church are incorporated into the "Christian" church. Constantine was the Maximus Pontifex of the pagan church, which meant he was high priest of the pagan gods and calendar. He was also Pontifex Maximus of the "Christian" church. The pope is now Pontiff of the church, a position that was of pagan origins.Christ, Constantine, Sol Invictus

I don't know about the Pope, but Constantine was certainly never an authoritative figure in the Church. A vitally important patron? Yes. A "pontifex maximus" over the Church? No. How could he be? Constantine wasn't even baptized until he was on his deathbed, and even then, he had an Arian baptism.

Also, in Malachi 4:2, Christ is called the Sun of Righteousness.

“For behold, the day is coming,
Burning like an oven,
And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble.
And the day which is coming shall burn them up,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“That will leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But to you who fear My name
The Sun of Righteousness shall arise
With healing in His wings;
And you shall go out
And grow fat like stall-fed calves.
3 You shall trample the wicked,
For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet
On the day that I do this,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

This is a denial of every sun god ever. They have no power, and they are not righteous, and they are not real. But Christ is. He is the true Sun of Righteousness. On the Feast of the Nativity we sing,

"Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, has shone to the world the light of wisdom! For by it, those who worshiped the stars were taught by a star to adore Thee, the Sun of Righteousness and to know Thee, the Orient from on high (Lk 1:78, translated as Dawn or Day spring). O Lord, glory to Thee!"​

 

[2ndpillar]

Shira wrote: Where is Peter called a stumbling block? Peter IS called the Rock, as in, the Rock of Peter's faith in Christ is the foundation of the Church.

Dear Shira,
Mt 16:23," But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interest, but man's.[/B] The Pope or Patriarch both claim leadership of the church, when Yeshua said no one should be called leader, or Father (Mt 23:8-10), and they are supposedly Peter's heirs, and they cause their followers to stumble. They are shadows of the holders of keys of David that would fail in Isaiah 22.

Peter could be called "stone", but he was not the Rock the church is built on. . Dt 32:4,"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. I am sorry, but Peter is not the Rock.

Peter or those claiming his authority, were not or ever were the "Rock" the church is built on. The "Rock" the church is built on is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Revelation which revealed to Simon bar Jonas, that Yeshua was the Messiah, the son of God. (Mt 16:16-18)

 

[Pegg]

Yo 2ndpillar,
Please check this out:
The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century. The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248). -- Pope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [underlining is mine]

Jesus used the word "abba", which is an informal rendering in Aramaiic for father (would be like "daddy" in English), whereas the word "pope" is from the Latin and was more used as we would use the word "elder" in English.

Matthew 23:9 “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.”

 

[Pegg]

No, I didn't miss the point at all. Let's look at the big picture.

Why did Jesus appoint the Twelve? Why did Jesus tell Peter to "feed my sheep..."? Who selected the canon? Did the church ever just say "Do you own thing"? Also, why would you call the church "pagan"? Did they stop worshiping God and refusing to believe in Jesus? Note that I am not defending all or even most of the church's actions, but referring to the apostolic church as being "pagan" is just partisan absurdity, imo.

an apostolic church is a myth. There were only 12 apostles chosen by Jesus and never were any of them replaced through an 'apostolic succession' after they individually died

if that were the case, then wouldn't we actually have 12 popes? There should theoretically be one pope for each of the 12 apostles after they passed away because their apostleship would have been passed onto another and hence there should always be 12, right?

 

[Pegg]

Probably because the Bible is not the comprehensive, encyclopedic be-all, end-all authority that people want it to be. The simple fact is that the Bible only contains some small, key parts of what the Church actually did and taught, and spoke nothing of its wider organization, structure, leading figures, patterns of worship, sacraments and spiritual practices, or any of these things. The Bible is nothing more than the miniscule written part of the much larger life, faith and experience of the Church and its members.

it doesnt contain the information because the cannon contains only the writings which were approved by the apostles and that were actually written while the apostles were alive.

The 'much larger life' of the church that you speak of is a corruption of what Christ and the Apostles taught and that is why you dont find the structure and patterns of worship or sacraments and practices in the Holy Bible.

Its not there because God does not permit it to be there.

 

[Pegg]

It was the church that chose the scriptures and not the other way around. Secondly, the hierarchy set up in the infant church was passed on and is recognized as such by the Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and Anglican ("Episcopalian" in the U.S.) churches.

I agree, they 'chose' scripture which was already in circulation which proves they didnt write it.

All they did was make a catalogue of the books which were written by, and or sanctioned by the 12 apostles when they were still alive.

Every other piece of christian writing was left out of the cannon because it was not sanctioned or approved by the apostles.

 

[Pegg]

This is patently and blatantly wrong, as we find in the Apostles' appointment of seven deacons in the Book of Acts, and the criteria for electing priests (Greek: presbyter), deacons (Greek: diakon) and bishops (Greek: episkopos).

those words did not exist in the first century.

These appointed men were not priests or bishops....they were what you would call the 'laity' today. In the first century, all spiritually qualified christians served the congregations as shepherds and overseers. They were 'elders'

These 'latin' words were introduced and took on new meaning when latin was the spoken language of the day.

You do realize that St. Ignatius of Antioch was a personal student and disciple of St. John the Apostle, and second bishop of the Church of Antioch after Peter, right? Ignatius wasn't going off on his own in exhorting obedience to one's bishop. The fact that Ignatius was able to advise the Smyrnaeans to obey their bishop while Ignatius was being sped off to Rome for martyrdom is testimony to the fact that Ignatius wasn't trying to build up the authority of any one person or group of people in the Church--he was about to die, and wanted to make sure he left behind good, solid advice to those who needed it. He didn't sit down and plot how to increase his own power--he was giving a last will to the people of Smyrnaea, that they be obedient to their bishop, who teaches them and strengthens them in the Faith, giving them the Sacraments.

being taught by John does not make one a pillar of faith.

Johhn warned that even in his day, some christians were misleading the congregations
1John 2:26*These things I write YOU about those who are trying to mislead YOU

1John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world...6 *We originate with God. He that gains the knowledge of God listens to us; he that does not originate with God does not listen to us. This is how we take note of the inspired expression of truth and the inspired expression of error.




So even in the first century it was clear that some christians were already deviating from the apostles teachings as John was here warning. If Ignatius sough to create a position of a ruler over a congregation, he was one of those who were misleading the congregations and not teaching in harmony with the apostles or Christ who said:

Matt 23:8*But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9*Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10*Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11*But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. 12*Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

handing over authority of a congregation to one person should be viewed as a heresy and deviation from Christs teachings because thats what it amounts to.

 

[Pegg]

On the contrary, they did indeed give it to us. The clergy were the ones responsible for throwing out such things as the Gnostic "Gospels" and other writings being touted as Scripture. It was the clergy who assembled and canonized the Bible--that's right, the very set of books in your New Testament was decided upon by the clergy of the Church.

yes, and thankfully they kept all their dodgy apocryphal works out of it

This doesnt make their apocryphal writings any more worthy of consideration though, does it?

 

[Sees]

I agree, they 'chose' scripture which was already in circulation which proves they didnt write it.

All they did was make a catalogue of the books which were written by, and or sanctioned by the 12 apostles when they were still alive.

Every other piece of christian writing was left out of the cannon because it was not sanctioned or approved by the apostles.

Where do you get that all the writings were approved by the apostles? Even the book of Revelation and the various letters to churches, you believe the original apostles of Jesus looked (or listened) them over and officially approved?

I'm not denying it, just never heard of such a thing.

 

[Pegg]

Where do you get that all the writings were approved by the apostles? Even the book of Revelation and the various letters to churches, you believe the original apostles of Jesus looked (or listened) them over and officially approved?

I'm not denying it, just never heard of such a thing.

the christian scriptures are made up of the writings of the apostles and the gospels....these are letters from them to the christian congregations.

Later, the christians made an official cannon of those letters so that everyone was clear on which letters came from the apostles in Jerusalem. All the ones they included in the cannon were the ones that they themselves agreed were from the apostles.

 

[metis]

No, I didn't miss the point at all. Let's look at the big picture.

Why did Jesus appoint the Twelve? Why did Jesus tell Peter to "feed my sheep..."? Who selected the canon? Did the church ever just say "Do you own thing"? Also, why would you call the church "pagan"? Did they stop worshiping God and refusing to believe in Jesus? Note that I am not defending all or even most of the church's actions, but referring to the apostolic church as being "pagan" is just partisan absurdity, imo.
QUOTE]

Dear Metis,
Why did Yeshua pick 12 apostles with one dropping out and another being lotted in? Why were there 12 tribes of Israel, with Levi having no inheritance, and Joseph's sons replacing Joseph. Has this something to do with the architecture of the new heaven and the new earth (Rev 21:1 -14)?
" new Jerusalem,...the wall of the city had 12 foundation stones" It does have something to do with the New Earth, and the architecture of creation itself, but that is another story.

As for Peter saying he would never deny Christ 3 times, and then Yeshua telling Peter that he would deny him 3 times, or how Peter would die, meant that Yeshua knew Peter's future, because he knew Scripture. Yeshua told the apostles that one of them would betray him (Mt 26:21), because he knew Scripture. The Scripture he knew was Ze 11. Mt 27:9-10 quotes Ze 11:13 when talking about Judas betrayal. The fact was, Yeshua knew Peter wouldn't take care of the sheep, because Ze 11:17, told him that Peter would be a "worthless shepherd, who would leave the flock" Yeshua told the apostles to "go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", yet Peter instead has a vision, as told in one of the stories of the church Acts 15:7, that he needs to tend the Gentiles instead. As Ze 11:16 states, Peter would be the shepherd that "I am going to raise up a shepherd..., who will not care for the perishing, seek the scattered, or sustain the one standing,...but will devour the flesh of the fat sheep.." Isaiah 22:15-25) told Yeshua that the holder of the key would fail. Yeshua called Peter "Satan, and a stumbling-block" for a reason. Peter would become a "stumbling-block". Not from what Yeshua actually said about Peter, but what people perceived he said.

As for who selected the present canon, it was Athanasius, who sat with Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius was later the Roman church bishop of Alexandria, and was not a holy man, nor was his church.

As for the church being pagan. Constantine changed the Sabbath law into keeping the "day of the sun" (Sol Invictus). This is the god which was on the Roman coins. His birthday is December 25. Constantine instituted the birthday of the Lord as the 25th of December. Most of the traditions of Constantine's Mythriac Sol Invictus pagan church are incorporated into the "Christian" church. Constantine was the Maximus Pontifex of the pagan church, which meant he was high priest of the pagan gods and calendar. He was also Pontifex Maximus of the "Christian" church. The pope is now Pontiff of the church, a position that was of pagan origins.Christ, Constantine, Sol Invictus

First of all, most of your response above doesn't deal with what I had asked or the points I was making. Now, as far as the last paragraph is concerned, let me deal with that.

Constantine did not change the Sabbath since that's a day of the week, but what did happen, which is actually present in the Didache if one reads it, was that Sunday was the day of the "agape meal" whereas the people would get together to commemorate the "Last Supper" and Jesus' "resurrection". But after the end of the 1st century, the vast majority of the church was not Jewish but was gentile, so they were not bound by the Laws of Shabbat. So, this was common practice even before Constantine took power to meet on Sunday.

Secondly, December 25 was not recognized as being the birthday of Jesus, but was his "saint's day". IOW, it was to recognize his coming, much like other days were and are used to commemorate other saints.

Finally, the papacy does not in any way have "pagan origins". I've already covered how this evolved, which is not to say that this was done the right way (mind you, I'm neither Catholic nor Christian, so I really don't have any irons in this fire), and one should realize that church leaders were never believed to be always correct or pure, much like the apostles themselves were not always correct or pure. Do you think all the Reformation leaders were correct and pure? Do you believe your own leaders are always correct and pure? Are they "pagan"?

 

[metis]

Matthew 23:9 “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.”

As I previously mentioned, the word "Pope" and "father" ("abba") have different word origins that come out the same in English and some other languages. There is the clear-cut recognition within the church that the Pope is not God, and that's really the most important issue.

Btw, who was your "mother" married to?

 

[metis]

the christian scriptures are made up of the writings of the apostles and the gospels....these are letters from them to the christian congregations.

Later, the christians made an official cannon of those letters so that everyone was clear on which letters came from the apostles in Jerusalem. All the ones they included in the cannon were the ones that they themselves agreed were from the apostles.

Absolutely false, and we know this with certainty that it's false. The books were not all used in all congregations, plus there was much bickering about which books should or should not be included in the canon. With some of the books, there was uncertainty as to who was the author-- especially Hebrews. Some books were neither accepted nor rejected, which are called the "Apocrypha". Luther's Bible included them in between the testaments, and some Bibles today do much the same.

 

[metis]

an apostolic church is a myth. There were only 12 apostles chosen by Jesus and never were any of them replaced through an 'apostolic succession' after they individually died

if that were the case, then wouldn't we actually have 12 popes? There should theoretically be one pope for each of the 12 apostles after they passed away because their apostleship would have been passed onto another and hence there should always be 12, right?

You are truly not aware of the appointments, which are mentioned in Acts and many of the epistles? And because of these appointments, there need not be 12 since the number of local churches exceeded that number. What happened is that the Bishop of Rome was viewed as only one of a myriad of bishops, but because of the "Chair of Peter", the Bishop of Rome had a special designation, which shows up in "Clement I" in Clement's letter to Ignatius of Antioch that was penned in the very early 2nd century.

 

[2ndpillar]

First of all, most of your response above doesn't deal with what I had asked or the points I was making. Now, as far as the last paragraph is concerned, let me deal with that.

Constantine did not change the Sabbath since that's a day of the week, but what did happen, which is actually present in the Didache if one reads it, was that Sunday was the day of the "agape meal" whereas the people would get together to commemorate the "Last Supper" and Jesus' "resurrection". But after the end of the 1st century, the vast majority of the church was not Jewish but was gentile, so they were not bound by the Laws of Shabbat. So, this was common practice even before Constantine took power to meet on Sunday.

Secondly, December 25 was not recognized as being the birthday of Jesus, but was his "saint's day". IOW, it was to recognize his coming, much like other days were and are used to commemorate other saints.

Finally, the papacy does not in any way have "pagan origins". I've already covered how this evolved, which is not to say that this was done the right way (mind you, I'm neither Catholic nor Christian, so I really don't have any irons in this fire), and one should realize that church leaders were never believed to be always correct or pure, much like the apostles themselves were not always correct or pure. Do you think all the Reformation leaders were correct and pure? Do you believe your own leaders are always correct and pure? Are they "pagan"?

Dear metis,
You seem to miss my point. There are no "leaders" but Christ (Mt 23:9). And while the Roman church professes that the Pope, is Christ representative, that is in fact not the case. Christ has no representative on earth. Christ sits at the right hand of God in heaven, and teaches that one is to pray to his "Father in heaven", not anyone on earth. As for your play with words regarding "Father", that is just obfuscation with respect to the intend of Yeshua's statement in Mt 23:9.

And the post of Pontiff, it is totally pagan, and Roman in origin. Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as "Christ" coming on the 25th of December, he never came on the 25th of December. The 25th of December was the week of the winter solstice, the birthday of Sol Invictus, the god of Constantine.

As far as Constantine changing the Law: Constantine's laws enforced and reflected his Christian reforms. ...... On March 7, 321, Sunday was declared the official day of rest, on which markets were banned and public offices were closed,[22] except for the purpose of freeing slaves.. Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could not buy or sell on Constantine's the "day of the sun" Sunday, because all shops would be closed. The law applies today, but it is known as the "Blue Laws".

As for the "last supper", that was not a day of the week, that was the Preparation day for the Passover, a day of the year, the 14th of Nissan. And the original event, didn't happen on a Friday evening.

 

[metis]

Dear metis,
You seem to miss my point. There are no "leaders" but Christ (Mt 23:9). And while the Roman church professes that the Pope, is Christ representative, that is in fact not the case. Christ has no representative on earth. Christ sits at the right hand of God in heaven, and teaches that one is to pray to his "Father in heaven", not anyone on earth. As for your play with words regarding "Father", that is just obfuscation with respect to the intend of Yeshua's statement in Mt 23:9.

And the post of Pontiff, it is totally pagan, and Roman in origin. Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as "Christ" coming on the 25th of December, he never came on the 25th of December. The 25th of December was the week of the winter solstice, the birthday of Sol Invictus, the god of Constantine.

As far as Constantine changing the Law: Constantine's laws enforced and reflected his Christian reforms. ...... On March 7, 321, Sunday was declared the official day of rest, on which markets were banned and public offices were closed,[22] except for the purpose of freeing slaves.. Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could not buy or sell on Constantine's the "day of the sun" Sunday, because all shops would be closed. The law applies today, but it is known as the "Blue Laws".

As for the "last supper", that was not a day of the week, that was the Preparation day for the Passover, a day of the year, the 14th of Nissan. And the original event, didn't happen on a Friday evening.

So, you're claiming that the apostles were not leaders even though it states in the gospels that this is the reason why Jesus appointed them?

Secondly, I pointed out to you that "pope" has a different word origin and was used in the early church but evolved over time, so why did you come back with what you did above?

Thirdly, the "agape meal" held on Sunday in the very early church included the celebration of the "Last Supper", which can be celebrated any day of the week, and Sunday was chosen because it was referred to as "Resurrection Day". Since the church ceased to be Jewish, and since gentiles need not follow Jewish Law, the move to Sunday was actually pretty logical.

Fourthly, Constantine converted to Christianity, and the reforms he instituted were done in conjunction with the bishops and Christian scholars. To refer to them as "pagan", therefore, makes not one iota of sense. You may not agree with them, and I certainly don't, but that doesn't make them "pagan".

Fifth, I stated in a previous post that December 25th was never viewed as Jesus' actual birthday but was a day people had off from work, so the church chose that day to have the celebration of Jesus' coming.

Again, I'm neither Catholic nor Christian, but I do believe history is history. As the saying goes, "you can have your own opinions but not your own facts".

Shalom

 

[Shiranui117]

an apostolic church is a myth. There were only 12 apostles chosen by Jesus and never were any of them replaced through an 'apostolic succession' after they individually died

No, the Apostles appointed bishops to succeed them in the various churches that they founded. Hence the qualifications for electing bishops that St. Paul gives to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3.

if that were the case, then wouldn't we actually have 12 popes? There should theoretically be one pope for each of the 12 apostles after they passed away because their apostleship would have been passed onto another and hence there should always be 12, right?

This is a good argument against the Roman Papacy. However, it fails to account that the people in the churches eventually organized themselves along regional lines, so as to more efficiently keep the house clean, as it were. The only reason the Pope of Rome is as powerful as he is, is because he was the only major bishop in the West after about the 300's, so he was able to develop his power and jurisdiction over the Christian West in a vacuum. This peculiarity only became more solidified after the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire.

Matthew 23:9 “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.”

Really? The Apostles sure considered themselves the spiritual fathers of their children.

Taking this from 1 Corinthians 4:14-15, 14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Galatians 4:19, My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,

In 1 John 2:1, St. John says this: My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. St. John constantly calls them his children throughout the epistle. And further in that same chapter:

12 I write to you, little children,
Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.
13 I write to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
Because you have overcome the wicked one.
I write to you, little children,
Because you have known the Father.
14I have written to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.

The Apostles most certainly did consider themselves teachers and fathers of their flocks, but this was not in contradiction to Christ's commands. Christ's commands refer to taking mortal men as teachers and fathers over and above God.

those words did not exist in the first century.

LOL! Are you seriously saying that the words we have in 1 Timothy 3, 1 Timothy 5, and Acts 6 didn't exist back in the 1st century?

These appointed men were not priests or bishops....they were what you would call the 'laity' today. In the first century, all spiritually qualified christians served the congregations as shepherds and overseers. They were 'elders'

After being ordained, yes--the Apostles didn't just take volunteers. They ordained them by laying hands on them. See Acts 6:1-6:

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists,[a] because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.

These 'latin' words were introduced and took on new meaning when latin was the spoken language of the day.

What? Do you know even rudimentary Greek?

Philippians 1:1:
Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις:

Or in English:
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ,To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops[a] (lit. overseers) and deacons:

And in 1 Timothy 3:
1Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος: εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν, . . . 8Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς, μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, . . . 12διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων:

And in 1 Timothy 5:
1Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς, ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα, νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς, 2πρεσβυτέρας ὡς μητέρας, νεωτέρας ὡς ἀδελφὰς ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ.

You might want to look at your Bible again. I've already posted the English for these verses. You can't argue with the Greek.

And in 1 Peter 5:1-3, St. Peter says the following:
1Πρεσβυτέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός: 2ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ θεοῦ [,ἐπισκοποῦντες] μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλὰ ἑκουσίως κατὰ θεόν, μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς ἀλλὰ προθύμως,

In English: The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly,[a] not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;

In the Apostolic Churches, "episkopos" means "bishop/overseer", meaning, one who has authority in the congregation. "diakonos" is transliterated into English as "deacon". "Presbyter" in Greek ended up in the contracted form of "priest" in English.

being taught by John does not make one a pillar of faith.

But continuing to teach and pass on what was taught by St. John does.

Johhn warned that even in his day, some christians were misleading the congregations

So even in the first century it was clear that some christians were already deviating from the apostles teachings as John was here warning. If Ignatius sough to create a position of a ruler over a congregation, he was one of those who were misleading the congregations and not teaching in harmony with the apostles or Christ who said:

St. Ignatius wasn't trying to establish his own power. He willingly gave up his life for Christ, being thrown to the lions in the Coliseum in Rome. When the Christians at Ephesus offered to bail St. Ignatius out, he refused. He was an honest man who gave his life for Christ, and defended the faith vigorously; one of the heresies cropping up in the day was Docetism, which denied the humanity of Christ. Ignatius exhorted the various churches extensively to rebuff the heresy, disproving it as well. He wasn't pulling stuff out of his head.

Matt 23:8*But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9*Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10*Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11*But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. 12*Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

handing over authority of a congregation to one person should be viewed as a heresy and deviation from Christs teachings because thats what it amounts to.

Then why does Christ Himself call Nicodemus "teacher"? John 3:9-10
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

St. Paul says more in 1 Timothy 2:7, I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

St. James says this: My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

By your arguments, the Apostles themselves should be viewed as heretics for claiming to be teachers and fathers of the Christian flocks they established, shepherded and guided.