339 replies to this topic

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 22 November 2010 - 02:09 PM, said:

Ahab,

I had asked Vance: "Are you asserting that Christians killed the apostles?" You commented:

Quote

Come on now, Rob. Shirley even you would admit that they weren't really true Christians.

You're confusing the issue.

Surely you see the difference between Shirley* and surely.


*Whoever this Shirley person is I bet she is hot.



BTW welcome back Rob. I hope things are going a little better in your neck of the woods.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 22 November 2010 - 02:45 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan, on 22 November 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

Of course.  Obviously.  Or not, because nothing in the text suggests that such was needed.  Moreover, why couldn't Phillip do it?  I think the answer is clear, that not only did Philip not have the authority, but that the process of by the laying on of hands.  As to authority - which is totally a separate issue - Hebrews makes it clear that authority is transmitted by the laying on of hands.  This is exactly why Simon the magician wanted it, and why he got such a scolding by Peter.  It wasn't a warm fuzzy, but a real demonstration of authority.

And by the way, there's nothing magic about it.  It's all about organization, which the Lord tends to be good at.

The the cultural tension between Jews and Samaritans is certainly described both in the scriptures and history. Peter and John represented the central authority from the Church at Jerusalem and came down to make sure the Samaritans were invited, accepted and unified with the Church at Jerusalem.  So yes the Laying on of Hands by the Apostles from Jerusalem is associated with that some specific authority.

Hebrews did indeed usually use the laying on of hands as a tactile communication device in rites that are associated with the transfer of authority. However, the authority itself is not somehow transfered mechanically by the physical contact of the hands. Simon the magician likely did think that Laying on of Hands did have magical powers, because a magician with a magical world view, and a pagan mentality would likely think that way.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 22 November 2010 - 03:00 PM, said:

Simon the magician likely did think that Laying on of Hands did have magical powers, because a magician with a magical world view, and a pagan mentality would likely think that way.

Actually Luke, the author of Acts that says, "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,"

The "when Simon saw" clearly and plainly shows that Luke considered it a fact that the "laying on of the apostles' hands" is what caused the Holy Ghost to be given.

Here is another scripture that clearly indicates that power is transferred/conveyed by the laying on of hands.

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Edited to add,
Mark 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
  24 And Jesus rebuked the man for his silly notion that laying hands on could affect any healing.

Oh, wait, I made that last verse up.  My bad.

Edited by Vance, 22 November 2010 - 03:17 PM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Bowman-

Long time, no see. I can only speak for what the Book of Mormon teaches, not what the LDS Church teaches. Jesus, in speaking to the Nephites, stated the following...


3 Nephi 9:20

Quote

And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

***So, according to the Savior Himself, in the Book of Mormon, at the time of true conversion one can, in deed, be baptized "with fire and the Holy Ghost."***

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 22 November 2010 - 03:11 PM, said:

Actually Luke, the author of Acts that says, "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,"

The "when Simon saw" clearly and plainly shows that Luke considered it a fact that the "laying on of the apostles' hands" is what caused the Holy Ghost to be given.

Here is another scripture that clearly indicates that power is transferred/conveyed by the laying on of hands.

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Edited to add,
Mark 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
  24 And Jesus rebuked the man for his silly notion that laying hands on could affect any healing.

Oh, wait, I made that last verse up.  My bad.

It does appear that Simon thought that laying on of hands CAUSED the Holy Ghost to be given.

Actually Laying on of Hands is associated with getting the Holy Ghost. But there is no pattern in the New Testament that supports the idea that it is the only way to get the Gift.  

Laying on of hands can certainly be a positive influence in healing.

But just like in the case of receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, cases of healing have been by God's power when the Laying on of Hands was involved and also when Laying on of hands was not a factor.  

Examples of both--

Quote

Mr 16:18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Ac 8:19  Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Matt 5: 23  And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
27  When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
...
34  And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

Matt 9: 24  He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
25  But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.

Ac 9:17  And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Joh 9:11  He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

Joh 11:43  And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

Lu 22:51  And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.


Acts 20: 9  And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

Ac 10:26  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Lu 5:23  Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

Lu 6:8  But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

Ac 3:6  Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.


Ac 10:26  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.


Lu 8:50  But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.



Mt 9:22  But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Mt 15:28  Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.




Mr 6:56  And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.


Lu 8:50  But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.

Hick-

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Hick Preacher, on 22 November 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

It does appear that Simon thought that laying on of hands CAUSED the Holy Ghost to be given.

Actually Laying on of Hands is associated with getting the Holy Ghost. But there is no pattern in the New Testament that supports the idea that it is the only way to get the Gift.  

Laying on of hands can certainly be a positive influence in healing.

But just like in the case of receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, cases of healing have been by God's power when the Laying on of Hands was involved and also when Laying on of hands was not a factor.  

Examples of both--




Hick-

So it appears the Book of Mormon and Bible agree... as they always will.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

So your answer is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles. Is that correct?

By the way, I don't have any trouble understanding "not sparing the flock," but I fail to see the relevance of this expression to our discussion if your position now is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

There have been three Shirleys in my life, two of them wonderful film performers (Temple and Jones) and one my father's departed cousin Shirley Daniel, a truly beloved family member and a more gracious and loving Christian than any I have known.

Life continues to be interesting, but some good things have been happening. God is always good. Thanks for asking.

[Ahab]

Why are people still talking about this, even after I have already given the correct answer(s)?

It's both Yes and No, folks.

Let's go do something else now.

[Hick Preacher]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 22 November 2010 - 04:07 PM, said:

So it appears the Book of Mormon and Bible agree... as they always will.

Yes BookofMormonLuvr,

The Bible and Book of Mormon have similar teachings, each canon is an analog of the other.    

[PacMan]

Hick,

I’m not disputing the cultural tension, but disputing that Philip could have done it, or better yet, that they had their own Pentecost.  The fact that Phillip didn’t, and that the fact that the Apostles did it through the laying on of hands cannot be assumed away by cultural context.  If baptisms were accepted at the hands of Philip and then given to the gentiles, then why not the Holy Ghost?  Whatever cultural problems existed between Jews and Samaritans paled in comparison to the idea that gentiles could be baptized members of the fold.

Quote

Hebrews did indeed usually use the laying on of hands as a tactile communication device in rites that are associated with the transfer of authority. However, the authority itself is not somehow transfered mechanically by the physical contact of the hands. Simon the magician likely did think that Laying on of Hands did have magical powers, because a magician with a magical world view, and a pagan mentality would likely think that way.

So laying on of hands was used, but didn’t mean anything?  You realize that it was sure used a lot, don’t you?  Moreover, your thesis false apart scripturally.  Hebrews: 5:4.  And how, you may ask, did Aaron get this honor?  Num. 27:20-23 (I think we can safely agree that Joshua was properly given this same honor).  For just being a tactile communication device rips numerous examples from the text and reduces it to nothingness.  That, my friend, is what is called “wresting the scriptures.”

Moreover, Simon didn’t THINK, he SAW it.  And what did Peter say?  “Look magic boy, the whole laying on of hands thing is just to make them feel good…a tactile communication device in rites that doesn’t mean anything but that we falsely – or at least unnecessarily use – to give people warm fuzzies, enabling us to cross vast cultural chasms.”  NO!  He got after him!  Why?  Because the power can’t be purchased with money!  Well then, we ask, how in the world is it given?  Peter:  “Umm, it’s pretty clear that I laid my hands on heads, right?”  I don’t think it can be any clearer from the given text.

The fact that this “tactile communication device” was used repetitively throughout the scriptures leaves your explanation, lacking at best.

PacMan

P.S. WAIT:

Quote

Actually Laying on of Hands is associated with getting the Holy Ghost. But there is no pattern in the New Testament that supports the idea that it is the only way to get the Gift.

Precisely my point to Rob which has gone completely unanswered (unless I missed a post).  Whether baptism is done in water or by a hoard of people walking through the red sea, or the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands or on the day of Pentecost, the Lord is the giver.  There exceptions to the form.  Agreed.  But it is the Lord that makes the exceptions, and the rule is the examples of his servants the Prophets and Apostles.  If you have authority to make such an exception, then show it following Heb and Num.

Be sure that the difference is faith:  Faith and prayer can heal.  One needn’t a blessing as described in James.  But authority and power is organizational.  It establishes who is in charge and speaks for the Lord.  This is how we know where to find the “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”  That’s why He had Apostles, and why the Apostleship selectively perpetuated.  Not everyone is an Apostle.  Nor was everyone the chief Apostle, Peter.  It is also why neither you nor I have any business coming out with our own book of Revelations.  John had the authority to do so.  He was selected by the Lord.

But let us be sure: There WAS pattern.  You’re just ignoring it.

Edited by PacMan, 22 November 2010 - 05:50 PM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Hick Preacher, on 22 November 2010 - 05:46 PM, said:

Yes BookofMormonLuvr,

The Bible and Book of Mormon have similar teachings, each canon is an analog of the other.    

God teaches the same thing no matter where He speaks. He's omniconsistent.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 22 November 2010 - 04:13 PM, said:

Vance,

So your answer is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles. Is that correct?

By the way, I don't have any trouble understanding "not sparing the flock," but I fail to see the relevance of this expression to our discussion if your position now is that you don't know if professing Christians had any responsibility in killing the apostles.

Rob,
You started this exchange with this statement.

Rob Bowman, on 15 November 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth.

To which I responded,

Vance, on 15 November 2010 - 01:50 PM, said:

Partially true.  The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles.  After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed.

God doesn't force people to accept Him.  So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

To which you asked,

Rob Bowman, on 15 November 2010 - 03:06 PM, said:

What do you mean by "the people as a whole"? Do you mean people in general in the Hellenistic world of the late first century? Do you mean the people of the Christian movement of the late first century? You know, there is not a single recorded instance of anyone professing to be a Christian murdering any of the apostles.

To which I responded,

Vance, on 15 November 2010 - 03:54 PM, said:

I mean that there may have been some who didn't reject the apostles and their message.  But even these eventually died.  But with the death/disappearance of the apostles, the authority was lost.  The doctrines taught by the churches were corrupted.  Without the rightful shepherds the flock was left to the mercy of the wolves.  The wolves, as prophesied, did NOT spare the flock.

You responded,

Rob Bowman, on 15 November 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

So I asked you to which people you referred as "the people as a whole": Christian people, or non-Christian people, or both? You didn't answer this question. Please answer it now: who, in your opinion, murdered the apostles?

I responded,

Vance, on 15 November 2010 - 04:30 PM, said:

Rob,
Nearly all of the epistles were written to address heresies that were creeping into the church.  The New Testament records accounts of "Christian" individuals and groups that were hindering the work of the apostles within the Church.  Paul describes these people as "wolves".  I don't know if any of them were involved in the death/disappearance of the apostles.
Now, if you want to use circular reasoning and claim that any individual who would participate is such activity wasn't a real "Christian" and then claim that "Christian" people weren't involved in instigating the apostasy, then delude yourself.

Paul was very clear when he said,
Acts 20:28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
  29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
  30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
  31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

I have never understood what part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult to understand.  If the flock isn't spared, then what happened to it?

Then you,

Rob Bowman, on 15 November 2010 - 05:37 PM, said:

Vance,

How about a straight answer? Are you asserting that Christians killed the apostles?

Well, Rob, what did Jesus say about the persecutors and murders of the Apostles?
John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
  3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Could some that professed to being Christians have been in that category?

And yes "not sparing the flock" very much has bearing on this topic.

I find it very humorous that Rob, a Protestant, is claiming that no general apostasy occurred.

[Hick Preacher]

PM in quotes--


<<<

Quote

Quote

I’m not disputing the cultural tension, but disputing that Philip could have done it, or better yet, that they had their own Pentecost. The fact that Phillip didn’t, and that the fact that the Apostles did it through the laying on of hands cannot be assumed away by cultural context. If baptisms were accepted at the hands of Philip and then given to the gentiles, then why not the Holy Ghost? Whatever cultural problems existed between Jews and Samaritans paled in comparison to the idea that gentiles could be baptized members of the fold.>>>

It may have well caused a problem for these Samaritan to be baptized by Philip. Then  John and Peter were called upon and settled the problem by coming down and laying hands on these new converts.  


And again and again---
Hebrews did indeed usually use the laying on of hands as a tactile communication device in rites that are associated with the transfer of authority. However, the authority itself is not somehow transfered mechanically by the physical contact of the hands. Simon the magician likely did think that Laying on of Hands did have magical powers, because a magician with a magical world view, and a pagan mentality would likely think that way.

Quote

Quote

<<<So laying on of hands was used, but didn’t mean anything? You realize that it was sure used a lot, don’t you? Moreover, your thesis false apart scripturally. Hebrews: 5:4. And how, you may ask, did Aaron get this honor? Num. 27:20-23 (I think we can safely agree that Joshua was properly given this same honor). For just being a tactile communication device rips numerous examples from the text and reduces it to nothingness. That, my friend, is what is called “wresting the scriptures.”>>>

Laying on of Hands and anointing with oil for ordination to the Priesthood of Aaron is a type or symbol for the calling, ordination by God, and anointing of Jesus as referred to in Hebrews 5:4.

In the New Testament (as cited in one of my previous posts) Jesus was called directly from God, He was baptized, the Holy Ghost then descended upon him, (not be Laying on of Hands, but by the Holy Ghost descending as a dove).

Quote

Quote

<<<Moreover, Simon didn’t THINK, he SAW it. And what did Peter say? “Look magic boy, the whole laying on of hands thing is just to make them feel good…a tactile communication device in rites that doesn’t mean anything but that we falsely – or at least unnecessarily use – to give people warm fuzzies,>>>

I think you have missed the  critical meaning of the use of Laying on of Hands. As I noted in the previous post, it communicates to the recipient, and to the on- lookers.  As with the case of John and Peter laying on hands of the Samaritan, Jewish Christians by witnessing John and Peter lay hands, be assured that Peter and John accepted the Samaritans’ conversions, baptisms, and regeneration.


Undoubtedly the laying on of hands is a means of connecting the message with the messenger, and making a spiritual gift more tangible by providing a sign or a physical manifestation that a spiritual gift was bestowed.

Quote

Quote

<<The fact that this “tactile communication device” was used repetitively throughout the scriptures leaves your explanation, lacking at best.>>><

As I have repeated over and over, the Laying on of Hands is used in association with blessings, ordinations, healings.  But there are reasons to believe that it is not required to receive such blessings, ordinations, or healings.  In some cases laying on of hands was used, and in others it was.

Quote

Quote

<<<<Precisely my point to Rob which has gone completely unanswered (unless I missed a post). Whether baptism is done in water or by a hoard of people walking through the red sea, or the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands or on the day of Pentecost, the Lord is the giver. There exceptions to the form. Agreed. But it is the Lord that makes the exceptions, and the rule is the examples of his servants the Prophets and Apostles. If you have authority to make such an exception, then show it following Heb and Num

Be sure that the difference is faith: Faith and prayer can heal. One needn’t a blessing as described in James. But authority and power is organizational. It establishes who is in charge and speaks for the Lord. This is how we know where to find the “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” That’s why He had Apostles, and why the Apostleship selectively perpetuated. Not everyone is an Apostle. Nor was everyone the chief Apostle, Peter. It is also why neither you nor I have any business coming out with our own book of Revelations. John had the authority to do so. He was selected by the Lord.

But let us be sure: There WAS pattern. You’re just ignoring it.>>>

Yes, I have the authority to not lay hands on someone.

And you have departed from what I was asserting.  Of course Laying on of Hands is part of Hebrew and Christian Tradition.  My assertion is that the blessings of the Holy Ghost have been received by both having the laying on of Hands, and NOT having the laying on of hands.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 22 November 2010 - 09:07 PM.

[PacMan]

Hick,

Quote

It may have well caused a problem for these Samaritan to be baptized by Philip. Then John and Peter were called upon and settled the problem by coming down and laying hands on these new converts.

That’s not what the text says.  They were called because they had yet to receive the Holy Ghost.  By acknowledging that the problem would have been with Samaritan baptism, which was authorized to be effectuated by Philip, its meaningless to bring the Apostles to do something that, according to you (presumably) could have simply been "received."  Moreover, it sure seems that an Epistle would have been a much more efficient means of getting to what you believe was the crux of the issue.  And I have to reject that, because its not supported by the text and makes the Apostles out to be hustling con-men playing the show.

Quote

Hebrews did indeed usually use the laying on of hands as a tactile communication device in rites that are associated with the transfer of authority. However, the authority itself is not somehow transfered mechanically by the physical contact of the hands. Simon the magician likely did think that Laying on of Hands did have magical powers, because a magician with a magical world view, and a pagan mentality would likely think that way.

Then read the BOOK of Hebrews.  I find it interesting that you skipped the explicit language in Heb 5:4 and the cross-cite to Numbers.  In this case, there's no "this is just one possibility..."  Rather, it was the "only way" to transfer authority.

Quote

Laying on of Hands and anointing with oil for ordination to the Priesthood of Aaron is a type or symbol for the calling, ordination by God, and anointing of Jesus as referred to in Hebrews 5:4.

In the New Testament (as cited in one of my previous posts) Jesus was called directly from God, He was baptized, the Holy Ghost then descended upon him, (not be Laying on of Hands, but by the Holy Ghost descending as a dove).

Really?  Where’s it say it was simply a type?  In fact, I reject it completely!  There’s nothing to signify such.  Hebrews 5:1 doesn’t make it past tense, hence “is ordained.”  It considers high priest ordinations in the present - just look at the Greek.  There’s no reason to believe that such ordinations stopped, particularly since ministers (including Apostles) continued to be called after Christ had come and gone.  Moreover, if you look at the early Christian history, the ordinations had continued long after.  It was a practice.  You can say it was pointless, but it was a practice that was ingrained in the early Christian society.  Your sweeping dismissal of not only scripture but early Christian practice is astounding!  And for what?  A hunch?!  You have nothing to support this claim.

Quote

Undoubtedly the laying on of hands is a means of connecting the message with the messenger, and making a spiritual gift more tangible by providing a sign or a physical manifestation that a spiritual gift was bestowed.

Then it means, well, nothing.  It’s a warm fuzzy.  And the fact is that Simon wanted the power to thus give the power and was rebuked for it.  If he was just a good Christian boy (which he was at that point having been baptized), what stopped him from getting it?  Why didn’t Peter tell him “Yeah, God will just give it to you sometime and its up to you to say you got it.”  No!  The effect of your position completely stripes the bible narrative of any meaning!  And might I say, that the difference between Simon and any orthodox Christian is at best, nominal.  If a Christian today can simply receive it, then there’s nothing to say that Simon couldn’t either.

Quote

But there are reasons to believe that it is not required to receive such blessings, ordinations, or healings. In some cases laying on of hands was used, and in others it was.

And Hebrews 5:4 makes it clear that for an ordination, it is necessary!  The reason is simple: ordinations are not solely due to faith.  Once called, its faith that makes himself chosen.  But the calling must come from God first.

Quote

My assertion is that the blessings of the Holy Ghost have been received by both having the laying on of Hands, and NOT having the laying on of hands.

THAT is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is what is the necessary practice for our purposes.  It must be received by the laying on of hands (unless God makes the exception).  And unless you have someone with demonstrable authority to speak for God and proffer the exception, the practice stands.  That is order as demonstrated by the bible.  On a related but tangential note,  I am stunned by orthodox Christianity that seem to believe that God left his church to a grass-roots effort.  Nonsense.  Sure, he lets us mess stuff up to a point, but the purpose of apostles and prophets is to stop us from being “tossed to and from and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men.” (Eph 4:14).  To leave the practice of important ordinances to the esoteric interpretations of men if fallacy, and this includes theatric revivals of a disgustingly false nature that pretend themselves having the gifts of the spirit and speaking in tongues without the sense of knowledge that such “gifts” completely contradict the bible.  There MUST be an organization to guide the honest seeker so they know where to turn, and that requires authoritative men ordained by the laying on of hands “till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”  (Eph. 4:13).  We aint there yet, and the logic is irrefutable.

PacMan

[Hick Preacher]

Pacman in quotes

Quote

<<<That’s not what the text says. They were called because they had yet to receive the Holy Ghost. By acknowledging that the problem would have been with Samaritan baptism, which was authorized to be effectuated by Philip, its meaningless to bring the Apostles to do something that, according to you (presumably) could have simply been "received." Moreover, it sure seems that an Epistle would have been a much more efficient means of getting to what you believe was the crux of the issue. And I have to reject that, because its not supported by the text and makes the Apostles out to be hustling con-men playing the show.>>>

Yes of course as I discussed above, they had not yet received the Holy Ghost.  God knowing all things withheld the Gift until Peter and John arrived.
When we look at Acts 10:44 Peter was present, and the Gentiles hearing the message of the gospel, received the Holy Ghost.  


Quote

Quote

Then read the BOOK of Hebrews. I find it interesting that you skipped the explicit language in Heb 5:4 and the cross-cite to Numbers. In this case, there's no "this is just one possibility..." Rather, it was the "only way" to transfer authority.

Hebrews 5:4 reads- 4  And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.   Notice the word CALLED.

Aaron was CALLED directly and personally by Jehovah God.  As it is written:

Ex 4:27  And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.
Ex 4:28  And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him.

This only way is to have God do the CALLING.

This only way is not about some outward signs, or religious rituals.

Aaron was anointed with Oil, but Jesus being called as in Hebrews 5:4 was anointed by the Holy Ghost.  Aaron had hands laid upon him for an ordination, but Jesus had the Holy Ghost descend upon him in the form of a dove.

  In the text at Acts 10:38 Peter preaches this very thing, that Jesus was anointed by the Holy Ghost and with power, then in Acts 10:44 the very same thing happens to the Gentiles who heard and believed.

The kings, priests and prophets of the Old Testament were anointed with oil and most always only afterwards did they receive Power through the Holy Spirit that came upon them. Jesus on the other hand, was anointed because the Holy Spirit had come upon Him. Jesus was ‘the anointed one’ – ‘the Christ’ in that  manner.  This is why Jesus is The Christ.  This is why Christians have accepted the nick-name “Christian’.

Quote

<<<Really? Where’s it say it was simply a type? In fact, I reject it completely! There’s nothing to signify such. Hebrews 5:1 doesn’t make it past tense, hence “is ordained.” It considers high priest ordinations in the present - just look at the Greek. There’s no reason to believe that such ordinations stopped, particularly since ministers (including Apostles) continued to be called after Christ had come and gone. Moreover, if you look at the early Christian history, the ordinations had continued long after. It was a practice. You can say it was pointless, but it was a practice that was ingrained in the early Christian society. Your sweeping dismissal of not only scripture but early Christian practice is astounding! And for what? A hunch?! You have nothing to support this claim.>>>

Yes Christians today are anointed by the Holy Ghost. And it can happen through a process that physically reflects that of the Ancient Hebrews, and some ancient Christians.  Or it can happen without those outward rites.

You seem to be confusing the difference between the essentials of how God works, and how cultures use didactic devices to communicate God’s message.  You seem to think that God's plan and will for humanity will fall apart unless only one kind of formula is in place.   The Holy Ghost is God, and can well choose and is able to operate the affairs of the Church in His own orderly way, weather we know how it is working or not.

Your thinking mistakes the meaning of

Eph 4:5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,...

Quote

Quote
<<<Then it means, well, nothing. It’s a warm fuzzy. And the fact is that Simon wanted the power to thus give the power and was rebuked for it. If he was just a good Christian boy (which he was at that point having been baptized), what stopped him from getting it? Why didn’t Peter tell him “Yeah, God will just give it to you sometime and its up to you to say you got it.” No! The effect of your position completely stripes the bible narrative of any meaning! And might I say, that the difference between Simon and any orthodox Christian is at best, nominal. If a Christian today can simply receive it, then there’s nothing to say that Simon couldn’t either.>>>

I would not say a Christian receiving an anointing from God is some kind of casual or cheap occurrence.    

From your comments, it would seem that you do not have a fundamental idea the roles and functions of rituals and ceremony in religious systems, culture and the development of human civilizations.




<

Quote

<<And Hebrews 5:4 makes it clear that for an ordination, it is necessary! The reason is simple: ordinations are not solely due to faith. Once called, its faith that makes himself chosen. But the calling must come from God first.>>>

Hebrews 5:4 is about being CALLED of God directly.  It is not about the physical mechanical, or cultural practices, or religious rituals of an ordination, where a social gestures and public declarations are made so all are aware of the reality that a person has been called commissioned and ordained of God.

Quote

<<<THAT is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what is the necessary practice for our purposes. It must be received by the laying on of hands (unless God makes the exception). And unless you have someone with demonstrable authority to speak for God and proffer the exception, the practice stands.>>>

Again you have confused the essentials of Christianity with a Christian Culture.  The necessity will depend on the nature of how the message of the gospel is presented in a given culture.  Rituals are a form of non-verbal communication. For example if a culture does not have sufficient verbal mechanisms to communicate the gospel in written forms, then a ritualistic version could serve as a subsitute.

Quote

<<<That is order as demonstrated by the bible. On a related but tangential note, I am stunned by orthodox Christianity that seem to believe that God left his church to a grass-roots effort. Nonsense. Sure, he lets us mess stuff up to a point, but the purpose of apostles and prophets is to stop us from being “tossed to and from and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men.” (Eph 4:14). To leave the practice of important ordinances to the esoteric interpretations of men if fallacy, and this includes theatric revivals of a disgustingly false nature that pretend themselves having the gifts of the spirit and speaking in tongues without the sense of knowledge that such “gifts” completely contradict the bible. There MUST be an organization to guide the honest seeker so they know where to turn, and that requires authoritative men ordained by the laying on of hands “till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.” (Eph. 4:13). We aint there yet, and the logic is irrefutable.>>>

It has always been obvious that Mormonism as a system and culture needs to have its Priesthoods, its succession and ordinances in order to communicate its religious message and function in its  other capacities.
Mormonism is one of those religions that relies heavily on its Priesthoods and  ritual.

Other systems however have other communicative devices, such as preaching, creeds and other traditions, to transfer, impart, and teach sacred information, and put its ideas to work in the world.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 12:24 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

Hick had written:

Quote

Actually Laying on of Hands is associated with getting the Holy Ghost.  But there is no pattern in the New Testament that supports the idea that  it is the only way to get the Gift.

You replied:

PacMan, on 22 November 2010 - 05:49 PM, said:

Precisely my point to Rob which has gone completely unanswered (unless I missed a post).

If you had made precisely that point, then we would have been in agreement. Yet you do claim that there is a pattern and that deviations from that pattern are "exceptions." You are therefore trying to have your pattern and eat it too.

You wrote:

Quote

Whether baptism is done in water or by a hoard of people walking through the red sea, or the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands or on the day of Pentecost, the Lord is the giver.  There exceptions to the form.  Agreed.  But it is the Lord that makes the exceptions, and the rule is the examples of his servants the Prophets and Apostles.

No, the rule is the teaching of the prophets and apostles, not their "examples," where there "examples" do not demonstrate any uniformity or necessity.

You wrote:

Quote

But let us be sure: There WAS pattern.  You’re just ignoring it.

I have yet to see this demonstrated. There are six instances in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Spirit. Please show me this pattern.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 23 November 2010 - 06:01 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your review of our exchange does nothing to clarify the issues. You wrote:

Vance, on 22 November 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Well, Rob, what did Jesus say about the persecutors and murders of the Apostles?
John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Could some that professed to being Christians have been in that category?

There is no reason to think so. Jesus is referring to Jewish leaders expelling Christians from the synagogues and to Jewish opponents of the gospel killing Christians (e.g., the stoning of Stephen and Saul's pre-Christian campaign of persecution of Christians).

You wrote:

Quote

And yes "not sparing the flock" very much has bearing on this topic.

You have so far failed to explain how so.

You wrote:

Quote

I find it very humorous that Rob, a Protestant, is claiming that no general apostasy occurred.

You have a strange sense of humor.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 06:01 AM, said:

There is no reason to think so. Jesus is referring to Jewish leaders expelling Christians from the synagogues and to Jewish opponents of the gospel killing Christians (e.g., the stoning of Stephen and Saul's pre-Christian campaign of persecution of Christians).

That some Jews were in the group Christ spoke of is not in question.  However you are ignoring Jesus' actual words.

So, let's look at it again.

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

Notice that the "whosoever" in the second phrase is not limited to the "they" in the first phrase.

So again, the question, could some that professed to being Christians have been in that category?

Quote

You have so far failed to explain how so.

Oh, please Rob, can you pretend to be more obtuse?

Are you saying that you don't know what "the flock" represents?

Are you saying that you don't know what "not sparing" means?

"The flock"
Matt. 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

1 Pet. 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
  3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Acts 20:28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
  29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

So, Rob, what does "the flock" represent?

"not"
used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition

"spare"
To save or withhold from any particular use or occupation

So, Rob, what does "not sparing" mean?

So, what part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult to understand?

It isn't like this is the only scripture that clearly and plainly shows apostasy in the making.

Quote

You have a strange sense of humor.

So, you don't see the irony of a Protestant arguing against a general apostasy?  

So, Rob,

Could those professing to be Christians be included in this group?
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 05:56 AM, said:

If you had made precisely that point, then we would have been in agreement. Yet you do claim that there is a pattern and that deviations from that pattern are "exceptions." You are therefore trying to have your pattern and eat it too.

You wrote:


No, the rule is the teaching of the prophets and apostles, not their "examples," where there "examples" do not demonstrate any uniformity or necessity.

You wrote:


I have yet to see this demonstrated. There are six instances in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Spirit. Please show me this pattern.

The scriptures inform us that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities, measures, and states of being. In John 7:39 we read: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." This scripture tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until Jesus had been glorified; but we find that the Holy Ghost in mentioned well before Jesus was glorified. Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and John the Baptist is said to have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. Peter tells us that all the ancient prophets spake by the power of the Holy Ghost; and even virtuous people among the unbelieving Gentiles are said to have acted under the influence of the Holy Ghost. So how can that be? How can the Holy Ghost have been so pervasive in times past operating before Jesus was glorified, while John tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until He was glorified? The answer is that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities and with different conditions attached. There is one of those conditions that it can only be received by the sacrament of the laying on of hands, and not in any other way. That is the theological explanation, if you can detach yourself from too strict an adherence to the verbal expressions used in the scriptures in which that doctrine is semantically expressed.