rcrocket wrote:We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."
A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.
rcrocket
I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.
All I was doing was responding to your claim that the "ancient church members" did not follow "Peter James or John," and I have demonstrated to you that such was indeed core policy of the Church. The Church was not organized during Jesus' lifetime.
crock, since the Church was not organized during Christ's lifetime, how could following Peter, James, and John be a core policy of the Church, since they were his contemporaries?
The ancient church was the Jewish church. The Jews followed God, not Peter, James, and John. Heck, they didn't even follow Jesus. Those who followed Christ were still Jews, albeit nonconventional. What they didn't do was follow Peter, James, and John. Peter, James, and John and the rest of the 12 followed Christ. They didn't stand between Christ and his followers. They stood with his followers.
So, I guess quoting from the New Testament and the apostolic fathers won't convince you?
rcrocket wrote:We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."
A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.
rcrocket
I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.
All I was doing was responding to your claim that the "ancient church members" did not follow "Peter James or John," and I have demonstrated to you that such was indeed core policy of the Church. The Church was not organized during Jesus' lifetime.
crock, since the Church was not organized during Christ's lifetime, how could following Peter, James, and John be a core policy of the Church, since they were his contemporaries?
The ancient church was the Jewish church. The Jews followed God, not Peter, James, and John. Heck, they didn't even follow Jesus. Those who followed Christ were still Jews, albeit nonconventional. What they didn't do was follow Peter, James, and John. Peter, James, and John and the rest of the 12 followed Christ. They didn't stand between Christ and his followers. They stood with his followers.
I think you are mistaken here and the New Testament seems pretty clear that Jesus organized a Church structure that was then carried on by the Apostles.
rcrocket wrote:We are here at this point in the thread because you said: "Just as the ancient church members did not follow Peter, James, or John, we should not follow Pres Hinckley, Pres Monson, or Pres Faust."
A core belief in Pauline and apostolic teachings is that one must follow the apostles and, in their absence, the espiscopate. I cited you the Didache. There's others, many others. I am not aware of any teaching to the contrary, at least for the first 200 years.
rcrocket
I do not believe in Paul, crock. I believe in Christ. I do not follow Paul. I follow Christ. You, of course, are free to follow Paul if that's where your heart lies. He's the idiot who told women to be quiet in church... now that's an ancient I have no problem ignoring.
All I was doing was responding to your claim that the "ancient church members" did not follow "Peter James or John," and I have demonstrated to you that such was indeed core policy of the Church. The Church was not organized during Jesus' lifetime.
crock, since the Church was not organized during Christ's lifetime, how could following Peter, James, and John be a core policy of the Church, since they were his contemporaries?
The ancient church was the Jewish church. The Jews followed God, not Peter, James, and John. Heck, they didn't even follow Jesus. Those who followed Christ were still Jews, albeit nonconventional. What they didn't do was follow Peter, James, and John. Peter, James, and John and the rest of the 12 followed Christ. They didn't stand between Christ and his followers. They stood with his followers.
I think you are mistaken here and the New Testament seems pretty clear that Jesus organized a Church structure that was then carried on by the Apostles.
Don't tell me, tell crock. He's the one who said the church was not organized during Jesus' lifetime (that's a direct quote).
Jason Bourne wrote:Actually Paul often admonsihed his flock to follow him and what he taught. The idea of apostles and other leaders having authority in the Church is quite doctrinal in the New Testament.
I would agree with you. The earliest writings of the Church Fathers indicate their feelings that one could not be a faithful Christian without obeying the priesthood structure above them. As the Didache (one of the earliest writings) stated: "Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, truthful, and tested; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Do not despise them, therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers." 7.381.
Just because it's ancient doesn't mean it's right.
Just because you think it is wrong does not make it so.
And just because you (or a few of the ancients) believed it was right doesn't make it so.
Your approach is certainly unique. Do you believe the New Testament is from God or not? Now we can disagree as to what it means but it would seem that one would need to start with a certian assumption. It seems pretty clear from ther New Testament and from the formation of early Christianity that there was structure and authority in the Church and members were expected to follow.
Jason Bourne wrote:Your approach is certainly unique. Do you believe the New Testament is from God or not? Now we can disagree as to what it means but it would seem that one would need to start with a certian assumption. It seems pretty clear from ther New Testament and from the formation of early Christianity that there was structure and authority in the Church and members were expected to follow.
Just because someone says God told them something doesn't mean God actually told them, or that they got the message correct. I think the ancients were wrong at least as often as the modern prophets are wrong. The ancients were simply men trying to make sense of their world. I have no reason to believe they were any more right than I am when I'm trying to make sense of my world. I hold the New Testament in no higher esteem than I do any other book written by the hand of men, although I do love Matt 5.
Jason Bourne wrote:Your approach is certainly unique. Do you believe the New Testament is from God or not? Now we can disagree as to what it means but it would seem that one would need to start with a certian assumption. It seems pretty clear from ther New Testament and from the formation of early Christianity that there was structure and authority in the Church and members were expected to follow.
Just because someone says God told them something doesn't mean God actually told them, or that they got the message correct. I think the ancients were wrong at least as often as the modern prophets are wrong. The ancients were simply men trying to make sense of their world. I have no reason to believe they were any more right than I am when I'm trying to make sense of my world. I hold the New Testament in no higher esteem than I do any other book written by the hand of men, although I do love Matt 5.
Keep in mind that the point of this thread is to respond to your claim that the ancients did not follow Peter, James and John. Once they headed up the Church, the members were required to follow them or be kicked out. The Didache is the earliest post-apostolic authority for that point. But, I will accept any evidence to support your position.
Jason Bourne wrote:Your approach is certainly unique. Do you believe the New Testament is from God or not? Now we can disagree as to what it means but it would seem that one would need to start with a certian assumption. It seems pretty clear from ther New Testament and from the formation of early Christianity that there was structure and authority in the Church and members were expected to follow.
Just because someone says God told them something doesn't mean God actually told them, or that they got the message correct. I think the ancients were wrong at least as often as the modern prophets are wrong. The ancients were simply men trying to make sense of their world. I have no reason to believe they were any more right than I am when I'm trying to make sense of my world. I hold the New Testament in no higher esteem than I do any other book written by the hand of men, although I do love Matt 5.
So you do not accept the New Testament as scripture accept the parts you agree with.