Ungodly Divisions

[Marooncat79]

Isn’t it amazing

1. Catholics claim to have been persecuted as Catholics in 1st and 2nd century
2. Then turn around and persecute other Christian’s in the medieval age forward by various means for reasons such as owning or reading a Bible
3. Condemn justification by Faith Alone to Hell at the Council of Trent
4. Then claim to be the true church

And yes, there is more. Just a couple of highlights

 

[Van]

As Augustine said.

“The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed.”

There is a parallel relationship between old covenant and new covenant.

Not just in prophecy but also in typology.

The bronze serpent prefigured Christ on the Cross.

Jesus associated the Manna in the desert to His Flesh.

There are countless types in the old covenant that are revealed in the new covenant.

Peter associates the flood to baptism which now saves us.

Forget rightly dividing the word and start rightly uniting the word, by typological association, bring both Covenants and Testaments together.

Certainly the New Covenant is hidden in the Old Covenant, but the relevant truths of the Old Covenant are revealed clearly in the New Covenant.

The timeless meaning of the bronze serpent (See Numbers 21:9) is presented by the Gospel of Christ in the New Covenant. Not the other way around.

The timeless meaning of "manna from heaven" (See Exodus 16:4) providing life for those in desperate need, is presented by the Gospel of Christ in the New Covenant. Not the other way around.

​

Bible students should know that to rightly divide the Word of God, you do not interpret the New Covenant using Old Covenant rules. The proper rule of interpretation is to interpret the Old Covenant by the New Covenant rules, as the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. You do not use an understanding of how Moses chose Elders to claim Paul had to use the same rules. ​

 

[Ben1445]

The semikhah tradition of succession died out in the fourth century, according to the Jews.

But the semikhah was already practiced by the Christians from the Apostles, the way God transferred Authority by succession in the old covenant, is how Authority was transferred in the new Covenant.

“As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away” Acts 13: 2-3

Now look closely.

“Moses spoke to God, saying, "Let God, Source of the breath of all flesh, appoint someone over the community who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in, so that Gods community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd." And God answered Moses, "Single out Joshua son of Nun, an inspired man, and lay your hand upon him.”

The formal appointment of Shepherds was done through the Semikhah/ laying on of hands succession.

God says “Single out Joshua son of Nun” in the Old Covenant.

“ the Holy Spirit said, ‘Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’” In the New Covenant.

Then in both instances, hands were laid upon them.

See how beautiful God’s inspired Word is, can you see the symmetry between old and new Covenants.

So, Apostolic succession through the laying on of hands is spiritual effect, a gift of God transferred. So that the Church of God will not be like sheep without a Shepherd.

That is why we should only listen to Apostolic Successors in the lineage back to the Apostles.

In both cases God said He had chosen them for a work.
I can see the symmetry in Scripture, but it doesn’t show that laying hands on someone has spiritual powers. While I am not saying that the physical is irrelevant, it certainly doesn’t hold the weight that you ascribe to it.
The idea that you feel like you have proved your first point by making another argument that has even less support in the Bible is laughable. (By support I don’t mean anything more than circumstantial speculation. There is no solid support for the teaching. It is one more way that Catholicism says that you must come through them to God.

 

[Cathode]

In both cases God said He had chosen them for a work.
I can see the symmetry in Scripture, but it doesn’t show that laying hands on someone has spiritual powers. While I am not saying that the physical is irrelevant, it certainly doesn’t hold the weight that you ascribe to it.

“For this reason, I am reminding you to fan into flames the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands”

The spiritual gift was imparted through the laying on of hands.

This is gifts of Grace passing between people.

The Apostles healed and cast out evil spirits with the Grace that was given them.

If Grace is seen as voodoo or magical powers, then the person believing this totally needs to be re-evangelised from scratch I think. A total overhaul down to the crank.

This seems to be a consistent theme when I am talking to Baptist’s in particular, it’s like their beliefs are completely devoid of the supernatural and miraculous. Like a coral reef bleached of all it colour and magnificence, not a fish in sight.
Christianity to them seems like mere legalism over text, denying the supernatural events of and in the text.

The idea that you feel like you have proved your first point by making another argument that has even less support in the Bible is laughable. (By support I don’t mean anything more than circumstantial speculation.

Is it consistent to believe that the Apostles and Christ being Jewish would use some of the same or similar religious practices as done in the Old Covenant.
Would you have me believe that the practice of the laying on of hands in the New Covenant, was completely invented independently of all preceding Jewish religious practice, making any association merely circumstantial speculation?

Yours is the unreasonable position here.

There is no solid support for the teaching.

There is no solid support for one who doesn’t want to see solid support. There is no support solid enough for one determined not to accept a teaching.
They might have to change something in their lives and understanding.

It is one more way that Catholicism says that you must come through them to God.

No, you can do it the dangerous way following your own nose, but it’s extremely dangerous. Christ appointed Apostolic Shepherds to guide you and help you, they are the lineage of successors from the Apostles.

If you had the choice, would you follow your own subjective interpretation of Scripture or would you follow a singular objective interpretation of Scripture handed down in a direct line from the Apostles.

Catholicism is simply the Apostles interpretation of the Word of God, as opposed to thousands of human founded interpretations and doctrines of the Word. Traditions of men in Bible alonism.

 

[Cathode]

1. Catholics claim to have been persecuted as Catholics in 1st and 2nd century

A claim proven by history.

2. Then turn around and persecute other Christian’s in the medieval age forward by various means for reasons such as owning or reading a Bible

Garbage. Catholics preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and Canonised them into the Bible.
The Bible is the Catholic Church’s book, always was.

This is why Catholics defended against heretics who made erroneous and unauthorised translations and interpretations.

3. Condemn justification by Faith Alone to Hell at the Council of Trent

Condemned the erroneous understandings of faith alone, invented by Luther.

4. Then claim to be the true church

If you aren’t claiming to be in the true Church, then you aren’t.