Jbarrax

YEP!

...what she said. :blink:

You miss the point. Just because Jesus exhorted his Apostles to have an attitude of meekness and service doesn't negate the fact that they were also given authority and leadership roles in the Church. How else do you explain the stewardship of the believers' wealth and what happened to Ananias and Saphira? If the Apostles were mere servants, who gave them the authority to receive and redistribute other people's monies? If Peter was just a servant, why is he the one rebuking those other believers? Who gave him the right to do that? CMAN, I respect your heart, but I humbly submit that your idealism is clouding your interpretation of the Scriptures.

CMan. It would be nice if that's the way it was and I believe that is God's will. But to claim that the concept of the First Century Church having had leaders, both designated and de facto is purely a TWI notion is, imho, unrealistic. The Scripture is full of references to Jesus having called out and separated the Twelve. He gave them a different name from the rest of the disciples. Why did he do that? Or are you saying that never really happened? Paul's epistle to the Corinthians recognizes the fact that there were factions among the believers based on differences among acknowledged leaders. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas" Why did he write that? Paul's opening to the Galatians deals with this rift by referring to James and Peter as men who "seemed to be pillars". This is a clear architectural analogy comparing these men to the pillars of a temple, the structural support for the building. This language clearly indicates recognized leadership. Similarly Paul's epistle to the Ephesians says that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20), and that the Lord gave these ministries to the church for its edification (Eph 4:11-15) Was this simply self-serving language used by Paul to draw away followers? If you want to claim that the writers of the New Testament were out of step with God's plan and that the book of Acts doesn't really depict what happened in the Church, that's one thing. But to dismiss these ideas as my "having been influenced by TWI" is not an honest approach to the problem.

clueless I am. :-)

By jerrybx at 2010-09-03

I think that's a bit of an exxaggeration. What I recall from my Way days is that Paul was generally lionized. Paul was the one to whom the Mystery was revealed. And, to be honest, the book of Acts generally depicts a shift in power from the original Twelve to Paul's ministry. If we regard it through the somewhat skeptical view of Source Criticism, we can discard that as Luke's bias. But if you're going to stick to the authority of the Scripture, it's hard to read Acts and conclude that Paul's ministry wasn't the primary vehicle of the Lord's will for a significant period of time. And I disagree with your assertion that Peter was the primary leader of the First Century Church. He was at the outset. But Acts and Gatalians also indicate a power shift from Peter's influence to that of James. The controversy over whether the the Gentile converts should be circumcised was settled by an edict from James, not Peter. (Acts 15:7 - 19)Pay particular attention to the authority with which James made the final decision. emphasis added. By that time, for whatever reason, Peter's position as the chief apostle had been eclipsed and James had effectively become the Bishop of the Church. The fact that James word carried more weight than Peter's faith and understanding is also referenced in Galatians. I think it's against forum rules to throw a third quote in here, but I suggest you also re-read Acts 21, the story of Paul's arrival in Jerusalem. Verse 18 says Paul went unto "James and all the elders..." Peter wasn't even mentioned. Neither John, Mark, or any of the other Apostles. Maybe they weren't there. But the record depicts James in charge of the Jerusalem Church. He told Paul what to do and seemed to be speaking as a man who had the power to smooth over the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem Judeans. There's no hint in James conversation with Paul that anyone else needed to be consulted. No mention of running it by the Apostles. Just James setting conditions for Paul's acceptance.

Hmmm... Police squad?

Columbo

Is there a movie called...Beasting?

Please sir. Could we have some more... clues? :-)

Correctumundo! You're up. :D

No, WordWolf guessed it right. The baton passes...

Oh boy, my turn! :D

Day tripper by the Beatles?

Okay, same film, different quote. "A thousand men, say, go searchin' for gold. After six months, one of them's lucky: one out of a thousand. His find represents not only his own labor, but that of nine hundred and ninety-nine others to boot. That's six thousand months, five hundred years, scramblin' over a mountain, goin' hungry and thirsty. An ounce of gold, mister, is worth what it is because of the human labor that went into the findin' and the gettin' of it. "

Sorry, that's a misquote from Blazing Saddles. :-) Here's the actual line. "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.

I'm clueless.

Fair to middlin' as they say in Hillbilly country. How about yourself? :-)

Yep. That's why I gave up trying to figure out what the Biblical doctrine on salvation is. Paul argues both sides of the issue sometimes contradicting himself within one passage. I finally figured that if I kept on trying to read his epistles and applying logic to discern what they meant, I was going to go bonkers. So I put it down and haven't read much since.

Correct. The "band" was David Essex. Another one hit wonder. You're up. :-)

Okay here we go... Which is the way that's clear--still lookin' for that blue jean beauty queen. prettiest girl I ever seen!

Badges! We don't need no steenking badges!

Castaway with Tom Hanks. Wilson was the volleyball he adopted as his companion. Sort of a rubber, inflatable Friday.

Does that meant it's anyone's turn, or are we waiting for the next clue from Waysider?