Like I said, these groups may feel that they are legitimate successors, but there is nothing explicit from the founder of the religion in writing that establishes this. Christ made a statement to Peter that on this rock I will build my church, but that partly refers to the faith that Peter had. Shoghi Effendi recognized that Peter was the prince of the apostles, but what his leadership consisted of is unclear. Peter himself had no problem apparently with James being the administrative head of the church. There is also nothing there that would indicate that what Peter, Paul, or anyone else said was to be understood as infallible. There is no provision for establishing successorship after Peter.
The leadership at least of these covenant-breakers knew they were going against the covenant but they did it anyway. In the end it doesn't matter what their followers believe about their group, when the evidence is clear to any fair person that their covenant-breaker leadership was wrong.
They are not heretics, they are covenant-breakers. We allow all Baha'is to have their differences. I don't care about the beliefs of the covenant-breakers, but they shouldn't try to take over leadership of the administration.
Yes but the principle is the same as casting out heretics. It's the principle that somehow Baha'i is immune to the divisions within other religions? Never mind, it's not that important.
D'you think? Personally I don't think Jesus ever said, "You are my twelve, but it's OK for anyone to make anything of my teachings they choose", as so many assert these days.
So the Church of Christ is a Petrine church?
Curious, but I can see that some would find it somewhat opaque.
Was he? James was certainly ever-present in the temple at Jerusalem, but for Paul, James, Peter and John were the pillars of the church (Galatians 2:7).
But nevertheless ...
That we know of. But there was a hierarchy established among the twelve, and a model for the future.
Yes, the deeper I looked into it, the weirder it got for me, too. I'm looking for more, whatever was before this.
I don't think that Jesus had to say that. Why can't people understand the teachings for themselves? The disciples understood Christ the best of those who were His followers since they were in constant contact with Him, but that doesn't mean that they had a monopoly on truth.
Do you mean how to reconcile God with science -- the big bang, etc? I see it as the mechanism: Oh, so that's how God did/does it! Of course not thinking of God as a person in the sky ...
"James was ever present in Jerusalem" Justice was ever present in the place of.peace.
It is a vast ocean, you don't have to drink it all, just revel in it, ride the waves, swim around and when you tire relax on the beach. (I've been doing that for years here)
The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.
Links to the Unity metaphysical bible dictionary...and of course any baby naming book. Every Hebrew name had an underlying meaning. Most prominent you can find it biblically in the naming of cities, or the twelve tribes.
Yes, reconcile but I don't think we are anywhere near able to see far enough out into space or small enough under microscopes to understand how all this is happening or came to happen. We may never be able to because it's like an infinity mirror, endless loops. That's the kind of perspective I am trying to look from.
Makes sense, knowing you.
LOL, I get what you mean. I'm just laughing cos only you would present etymology that way!
Yeah, we have a strong element of that, too.
Oh yeah! And again, at the Transfiguration and other pivotal moments, it's Peter James and John that Jesus took with Him.
I hadn't seen that before. I thought that all references to the successorship of Ali were in Shi'a hadith
