ChristRoseFromTheDead said:Go back and read the Bible verses and ask yourself "has this been fulfilled?"
uh yeah. they are being fulfilled as we speak.
But not fulfilled right!
Is Jesus Christ ruling from Jerusalem? If the memo was sent, then "by whom" and "to who?"
uh yeah - But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to tens of thousands of angels, to the festal gathering Hebrews 12:22
You are speaking of the "expectation" and hope for the Last Days, referred to in Rev 21:2 (cp Gal 4:26)
Have Israel made Christ their King? Has there been a coronation I missed? Has Judah and Israel united and the twelve Apostles are now ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel?
GOD makes Christ king, not Israel - I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14
(Said shaking my head) 2 Sam 5:3 is yet to be fulfilled!!!!
Your ditto's seem childish (understanding) when clearly you have so many passages of Scripture "unfulfilled" -
whatever
A word used when a person doesn't care
Lets take Micah 4:2NET for example:
Show us when "many nations have come to Jerusalem to be taught of God through the Lord Jesus Christ?" Year by year mind you! Many nations = many peoples; not nation-states.
They are called families of the earth upon whom no rain will come if they do not obey. In reality it is more than likely speaking to Nation or Nations Zech 9:11 cmp Zech 10:1
Show us where Israel has been a superior nation amidst the nations? - But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s possession, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light, 1 Peter 2:9
Not so - I was speaking to natural Israel not spiritual Israel. Rom 11:24NET
Show us when and how Israel have become a a kingdom of priests by mediating between God and the people of the world (see Exo 19:6). - ditto (whatever)
A word used when a person doesn't care
You say its been happening for nigh on 2000 years and yet today we have Judiasm, Catholicism, Islam all fighting over its land and you say "Jerusalem has become the source of instruction concerning Yahweh and His will in the earth" - But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to tens of thousands of angels, to the festal gathering Hebrews 12:22
If you cannot speak to the natural how will you understand the spiritual?
Have you witnessed the destruction of the armed might of Gentiles by the awesome Power of God? Has Jerusalem become a Holy City? A dwelling place for God? Joel 3:9-17NET. Notice how Micah uses similar language to Isaiah 2? But adds Micah 4:4 - now I may have missed this memo, it appears I missed a lot, maybe I am not on the distribution listbut show me where every man is under his fig tree? Show us the incredible agricultural environment this coming of the Lord will bring.
GOD's reign is progressive until the temple is built. Then - KABOOM!!
Ok. So after reading through your thoughts I can see in part you believe as I do that there is yet prophecy still to be fulfilled. I sense a frustration in your style of writing that suggests your patience is wanning, maybe a reluctance to enter the Word more deeply as per our previous conversation. The (whatever's) are admissions in themselves.
If you decide to respond it would be great to see you speak to Yahwehs plan with Israel upon the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to *receive Kingship by his people and all the earth.
Purity
*Said from Israel's perspective - yes Christ is King but at present he does not have a Kingdom definable by land and territory or a nation of people who call him King. But that is all about to change, right CRFTD?
Priesthood
- Thread starter ericrun
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
@Purity,
This back and forth is getting ridiculous (as it always does). I have pointed you to what I see; if you don't see it, fine (or whatever)
However, I do want to make a few points.
No man will anoint Christ king. That idea is more than absurd; it's laughable. He was anointed king of Israel by GOD immediately after his water baptism, and he was given dominion over all kingdoms of the world at his resurrection.
And I do not subscribe to your logic that a progressive fulfillment is not fulfillment.
Also, I quickly tire of people who accuse me of not being able to answer their arguments while they ignore mine.
This back and forth is getting ridiculous (as it always does). I have pointed you to what I see; if you don't see it, fine (or whatever)
However, I do want to make a few points.
No man will anoint Christ king. That idea is more than absurd; it's laughable. He was anointed king of Israel by GOD immediately after his water baptism, and he was given dominion over all kingdoms of the world at his resurrection.
And I do not subscribe to your logic that a progressive fulfillment is not fulfillment.
Also, I quickly tire of people who accuse me of not being able to answer their arguments while they ignore mine.
The back and forth motions of the CB forum members is a regular occurrence is it not?ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Good.
Where did I say Israel would anoint Christ King? I said he would be coronated King after His people accept his Kingship. You rightly state "He is King!"
Acts 4:27NET also Psalm 2
Didn't you say these things were "being" fulfilled over the past 2000 years? I was simply stating the fact that Christ has yet to be given the throne of David as he is yet to have a Land or Kingdom, People to reign over or an earthy throne to preside upon.
Now these are undeniable facts are they not?
Ok rather than me adding kindling to the fire lets press onward shall we?
Purity
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
I did a study of the New Testament Church (NTC) and read about 40 books on the subject from various authors from various denominational persuasions.
There were a few things that most seemed to agree on.
There were no such things as priests as we know them today in the NTC.
There were no positions in the NTC as we have them today.
The NTC recognised ministries. Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher, and Shepherd. Pastor is the Latin rendering.
These five ministries were not the church leaders. The Elders were. There is not one church in the New Testament that was led by a pastor brought in from outside the church and paid a salary.
There are 25 verses in the scriptures that refer to the NTC leadership and only three ministries are mentioned. Apostles, Prophets and Elders. Pastors were NEVER mentioned.
The Apostles and Prophets were not ongoing leadership. They began and established the church and then moved on and left the Elders in charge. It was always plural, never "an Elder."
The ministry of Elder is NOT the ministry of a shepherd.
The only priesthood mentioned in scripture was the priesthood of all believers.
There was no such thing as a priesthood/laity divide. There are words in the Greek that mean priest, but Paul did not use any of them.
The overall theme of leadership is serving, even for Apostles. That was in keeping with Christ's instructions that if you wanted to be great you had to be the servant of all. No special parking spots; no special chair; no special seat at the table; no being waited on; no name on the church notice board.
The true leader in the church is there for the people. The people are not there for the leader.
Decisions were made by the Apostles, Prophets, Elders and the people, not the church Board.
There were a few things that most seemed to agree on.
There were no such things as priests as we know them today in the NTC.
There were no positions in the NTC as we have them today.
The NTC recognised ministries. Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher, and Shepherd. Pastor is the Latin rendering.
These five ministries were not the church leaders. The Elders were. There is not one church in the New Testament that was led by a pastor brought in from outside the church and paid a salary.
There are 25 verses in the scriptures that refer to the NTC leadership and only three ministries are mentioned. Apostles, Prophets and Elders. Pastors were NEVER mentioned.
The Apostles and Prophets were not ongoing leadership. They began and established the church and then moved on and left the Elders in charge. It was always plural, never "an Elder."
The ministry of Elder is NOT the ministry of a shepherd.
The only priesthood mentioned in scripture was the priesthood of all believers.
There was no such thing as a priesthood/laity divide. There are words in the Greek that mean priest, but Paul did not use any of them.
The overall theme of leadership is serving, even for Apostles. That was in keeping with Christ's instructions that if you wanted to be great you had to be the servant of all. No special parking spots; no special chair; no special seat at the table; no being waited on; no name on the church notice board.
The true leader in the church is there for the people. The people are not there for the leader.
Decisions were made by the Apostles, Prophets, Elders and the people, not the church Board.
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Agreed! It is modeled on the clergy system from Roman times. The Pontiffs made sacrifices and were "bridges (mediators) for the common folk. Then there was the Pontifex maximus...the pope...the head of all the pontiffs. All this was in place for hundreds of years BEFORE Jesus came to earth.
But we're talking about fighting human nature. We tend to gravitate all our attentions, affections, or loathing toward a single personality. People blame or praise the president of the United States for everything that happens in this country...as if the president were the only person to make decisions. People who don't even know their congressman know who is president and who the last 5 or 6 presidents were. I doubt you'll ever dispense with a pastor centric system without fundamentally changing how people are.ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Wormwood
Chaps
The early church was heavily persecuted and even at one point in its early existance was the object of eradication by the Roman government. So to say there were no paid traveling ministers as proof that such a thing is negative is ridiculous. Of course there were not as most churches were underground and met in homes. We didnt see any traveling paid ministers in Soviet Russia either. This has much more to do with cultural cirumstances than Scriptural prohibitions. Although I am sure if Polycarp moved to a city other than Ephesus, he would have been considered a leader wherever he went.marksman said:
Im not Catholic, so I am not arguing for the postion of "priest" in that sense, but clearly Paul and others recieved financial support from churches as they traveled around and taught. The epistle to the Romans makes it very clear that Paul was planning on going to this established church to teach and hoped to recieve support from them. Moreover, Paul says its clearly reasonable for someone who labors for spiritual things to reap physical support. The worker is worth his wages. Its clear that Paul chose not to take financial support from some churches, but he makes it very clear that this was not because recieving financial for full time teaching and leadership is wrong. Quite the opposite.
Pastor is a word derived from Latin. It simply means a feeder. Paul used many titles interchangebly. He calls himself and Apostle, slave of Christ, elder, and minister. So its not like someone who is a minister cannot also be an Elder or whatever. Clearly people like Timothy and Titus were sent to cities for extended stays to lead the churches and it is quite likely that they recieved financial support. Yes, there were always a plurality of Elders. This does not mean that some were not more prominent. As Scripture says, some are worthy of double honor, especially those who dedicate their time to teaching.
Anyway, there is freedom in Christ. Just because things look different now does not mean it is not grounded in the truth. If we are going to point out all the things the NT church didnt have that we have inserted today you may want to also included hymnals, New Testaments, guitars, localized buildings for meetings, media, or cars. So I guess are options are to become even more radical than the Amish or just embrace the idea God has not perscribed an ironclad system in the New Testament for the gatherings of believers.
Did the books you read talk about how the New Testament is not by any means a step by step list of the organization of the church and how it was ran? That is not what the scriptures are for. They were written to tell the story of Jesus and to promote the faith to those that the apostles had been teaching. So, when we try to read through the minuscule amount of writings that we have which were written by them, it is very hard to try and piece together the full organization, as that was not their intent. Nor do we have everything that was ever written by the prophets and apostles. One verse will suffice to make this point and it has been mentioned in this topic already. We know that Christ was called of God to be the great high priest and in Hebrews 5:6 it says, "As he saith also in ANOTHER PLACE, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (emphasis added). Where does it say this? Where is this other place that it mentions this quote of the Father speaking about Jesus? Paul is clearly quoting some other document that we don't have today. Maybe this other writing or writings describes this Melchisidec more and what the meaning is of having an order of priests named after him. Anyway, the point being, we don't have all the information that is needed to appeal strictly to the New Testament to draw out a map of what the exact priesthood hierarchy of the church was.marksman said:
With what can sort of be pieced together, it is pretty obvious that Christ was in charge with his apostles under him to lead the church by the rock of revelation. Without revelation, how could Christ lead his church? The apostles had revelations, dreams, the spirit of God, visions, etc. This is how He lead His church then and how he would lead His church now. So without the apostles to lead the church through revelation by Jesus and without a complete step by step instruction manual, I don't see how anyone is going to know the answer as to what the exact hierarchy of the church was. You would need one of the 14 "known" apostles to come tell you.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
This verse has been used elsewhere to prove the existence of priests and to state that apostles were priests.
What the writer has not understood is that Paul is using a metaphor for his ministry and note that he said his priestly duty was proclaiming the gospel of God. It had nothing at all to do with bread and wine.
In addition, when God tore the veil in two at the entrance of the holy of holies, he was making it very clear that the way was open to his presence for everyone, not just high priests.
It is not hard at all. All you have to do is read the New Testament in its entirety and search the scriptures especially in the original Greek as I did.
As a result piecing together church leadership is as plain as day. As I dialogued with church leadership and leaders of denominations and presented my arguments to them, none of them could prove that I was wrong. Most of them justified their paid pastor model which is nowhere to be found in New Testament scripture.
Add to that over 40 books on the subject and one has to assume that the writers many of whom are theologians of note i.e. Derek Prince, have stated what the scriptures says, not what denominations say.
Finally, one never justifies a belief based on one verse of scripture as you have done. if I did that whilst I was doing my theological training, I would be laughed out of the classroom.
I didn't say there was no paid travelling ministers. I have said consistently that the Apostles were supported financially when they were traveling as they had no means of support whilst doing so.
Paul nearly always, once he had arrived where he was going started up his business of tent making to support himself and the others who were with him.
No one was paid a weekly salary, not like today's pastor, which you will not find in the new testament church. If you can please show me as in two years of study, I have never found it.
I am not quite sure what you are implying by this. If you are saying that they are worthy of double pay, then you are claiming what is not there.
The word for honour here is used elsewhere in giving honour to Jesus so if it means money then we have to pay Jesus double wages as it is the same word in the Greek.
I would like to interject some thoughts I did not see addressed in the arguments above.
Jesus was the Passover lamb. Passover lambs were killed by the head of the family and consumed by the family. It was a covenant meal, not a temple sacrifice. Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi and could therefore not offer a temple sacrifice. The Eucharist was instituted at a table not an altar. The Levitical priesthood has no counterpart in Christianity. The priesthood of Melchizedek was intercessory, blessing Abraham and receiving his tithe to God.
Jesus was the Passover lamb. Passover lambs were killed by the head of the family and consumed by the family. It was a covenant meal, not a temple sacrifice. Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi and could therefore not offer a temple sacrifice. The Eucharist was instituted at a table not an altar. The Levitical priesthood has no counterpart in Christianity. The priesthood of Melchizedek was intercessory, blessing Abraham and receiving his tithe to God.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
[SIZE=9pt]justaname, on 20 Sept 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Marksman,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]As I mentioned in a previous post that we were blessed with regular visits from Derek Prince as we enjoyed his teaching immensely because he didn't put his own spin on scripture.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Secondly, I spent two years at theological college LEARNING FROM OTHERS one of whom was a converted Jew. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Third, I have three University degrees, so my ability to learn from others is well attested to. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Fourth, I have a personal library of over 1,000 books and usually buy about 20 books a year to read. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Marksman,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]I fail to see the relevance of this statement in respect to what I have said. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]The gift of teaching is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]As you have asked a silly question, I am tempted to give you a silly answer like of course I know everything there is about God, but I will desist from levity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]As I mentioned in a previous post that we were blessed with regular visits from Derek Prince as we enjoyed his teaching immensely because he didn't put his own spin on scripture.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Secondly, I spent two years at theological college LEARNING FROM OTHERS one of whom was a converted Jew. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Third, I have three University degrees, so my ability to learn from others is well attested to. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Fourth, I have a personal library of over 1,000 books and usually buy about 20 books a year to read. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Who are you referring to here? "These" is too vague. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]I am not interested in getting a good education. Been there done that. My main interest is to see the power of God released on earth in the lead up to his second coming.[/SIZE]
Robertson said:
Similar threads
