sure I read that...and His death sealed it to...so ummm...there are NO CHANGES after the covenant is signed and sealed right? So we must to look at His teaching and lifestyle to show how this New Covenant was written out to be signed and sealed...after which no changes because the death now enforces it...right? Heb 10:17
right... the administration the ministry the application the enforcement of the IMMUTABLE law has been transferred...new signers same Law...
not so fast...Peter kept kosher and Acts 15 is specific NO strangled meat and NO blood...both in the OT and for foreigners...see? still binding...
Now let me ask you do you suppose if I do NOT strangle a swine and make sure its blood is drained that swine becomes magically clean for me to eat?
again...the instruction was to pray that the Sabbath would be kept in times of trouble even after His return to heaven...long after...He expected both winter times and Sabbath times to continue....
is why Heb 4:9 a Sabbatismos or in English a Sabbath keeping remains for His people...now don’t they have a greek word for sunday? Cuz they kinda stole one for Saturday from Hebrew...prolly for a reason...
you are His people yes? Paul kept sabbath and said return next Sabbath for more...NOT come back tomorrow when we celebrate the resurrection...James concluded the jerusalem council that crowding goyim would continue to do so to hear moses preached...EVERY SABBATH...
Paul claims we are to be circumcised...just another body part...
yes the differences occurred to poor Peter’s church... but LONG after he was dead and the others too from the first century church...
some changes to tradition still occur like V2 and traditionalists are adamant protesters to them...understandable...as some have been protesting changes much much longer...
You don't understand what you're doing. This is an argument that you are a bishop, and that Catholics should turn away from our authentic bishops, and thus Catholicism, and to listen to you instead.
I don't buy it. And the reason I don't buy it is because the argument that my actual bishop is my real bishop, and not you or anyone else, is too strong. The evidence that the office that my bishop currently holds, is the same office that was created by the Apostles, and is recorded in the Bible, is too strong. The Church never just suddenly called someone a bishop, it always involved the imposition of hands, and the first bishops, people like James who wrote the eponymous epistle, and Titus and Timothy, were consecrated by the hands of the actual Apostles. We then read that these first generation bishops, all made by the Apostles themselves, by their hands, were instructed to continue this sacrament of Holy Orders, to choose men to hold the office of bishop. This process has never ceased ever since the Apostolic era. My bishop was consecrated in the same manner as the Church's second generation bishops were, by the imposition of the hands of current bishops.
Like James and Timothy and Titus, what we now call diocesan bishops are the bishops overseeing a region, city, or area of a country. As the Church grew, bishops were needed more and more, because the Church in different cities and regions needed their own bishops. My own diocese of Boston wasn't even created until after Catholics traveled to the New World, it's very new, quite unlike the ancient dioceses of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, all instituted during the Apostolic era. But the office of a bishop (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1) is near two thousand years old, and the exact same procedure for appointing men to that office exists today as it did when the Apostles first created it in the first century AD.
You have to argue that this office is nullified today, before you can begin to argue that Catholics ought to listen to you instead. Do you have an argument for why Catholics should believe that the office of bishop is nullified, and that therefore the officers who are called bishops, are invalid?
