/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>834084

>inb4 tons of bickering

did you mean this to be bait

>>834085

No im genuinely interested.

Also I recognize the Authority of Peter but I dont see anything about Apostolic succesion in the Bible. Also modern Roman Catholicism is very pagan.

I dont know what church I belong to. I recognize the First Council (Council of Jerusalem) and St Peters authority (backed by Scripture), but i dont adhere to the corrup Papal lineage after his death. So yeah im lost and only find myself in the care of the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God.

>>834087

You've eliminated nobody but the Roman church from your search

>>834087

I'm assuming you mean protestants then, since protestants are all for "go back to the early church".

I mean, I'm a fan of the baptists, obviously. Though they are either hard as steel or soft as down. Other denominations tend to be rather lax on the "sexual immorality" part of the Council. But if you choose another:

>Methodists

Most biblical church hierarchy, except for the women pastors.

>Presbyterians

Fix women pastors, fall into Calvin's garbo theology

>Pentecostals

Have pretty good biblical backing except for the fact that they look like loons

>Lutherans

"Sola Scriptura means Just Like Catholics!" would only pick if you actually like tradition.

>>83408

>Back to Early Church

I mean yeah, considering the Council oF Jerusalem is the only legitimate council by the actual biblical apostles.

Any of the seven Nicean councils are all man made and probably corrupt.

(I just also learned that circumcision is NOT mandatory for Christians.)

Anyway, the label protestanism carries a lot of baggage probably thanks to the RCC.

I find myself liking the Baptist system. But really, im still finding the church that only adheres to the Bible and the Council of Jerusalem (which youve outlined as what we would called Protestant churches).

Im reading more about Christian History but Im still reading the Bible (still at OT, Genesis), so I peek and look for verses about Pope to Pope transfer of power and wikipedia turns this:

Bible verses associated with the transfer of powers from Pope to Pope: Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6.

The Pope isnt exempt though, and we know just how many corrupt Popes there in history. So being Pope doesnt mean one is a dignified examplar of Christ. Christ did not conquer the world with blood and war (forced conversions, Crusades etc, all enacted by Rome)

>>834095

Acts 1:20 was in reference to Judas.

The rest are all about laying on of hands, which does a lot of things. Also Protestants do that too.

Tim verses could easily apply to timothy gaining a blessing after he was blessed. Makes sense. As well, if you bless a bad person, and they to bad, it is a shame to you. nothing here about priesthood or popes.

Also Martin Luther was ordained. He could have passed it on.

Dispensationalism maybe.

Bibles attributed to John Nelson Darby also happen to be among the most precise.

>>834111

This has to be a joke.

>>834091

If you want to call Acts 15:29 the council of Jerusalem you can, but realize that the people who started calling it that were in favor of the conciliar system and were looking for a Biblical occurrence for doing so. I don't believe for a moment that the passage in Acts 15 provides any kind of precedent for what became ecumenical councils. The apostles were physically around in Acts 15.

We were told in 2 Timothy 3 to continue in the things which we have learned and been assured of, knowing of whom we have learned them. We know from Scripture who the apostles are and that the word of God came to us through them. Later people's words are fallible and also may have been corrupted, or equally misinterpreted by later generations to mean things they never intended. We can't place anything on the same level as what God's word says, because of its (continuing) incorruptibility and its inspiration.

Consider also what Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which is that the church received his word not as the word of men, but as the word of God, which effectually works in those that believe. Clearly a big difference to some fallible statement made by a man that may be misinterpreted or corrupted later. John in 1 John 5:9 also said that the witness of God is greater than the witness of man.

And Peter in 2 Peter 1:21 said that the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So then its clear we shouldn't treat man's words as though they were inspired by God, when they aren't, unless He willed to put them in Scripture.