|
|
Post by whathell on Aug 24, 2008 17:41:17 GMT -5
Revelation was written by Apostle John, the LAST Apostle!
However, the Catholic church has invented “Apostolic Succession” AFTER PETER and NOT AFTER JOHN who was the LAST!
Therefore there was NO TRUE successor because they would have come after John
Therefore Catholicism is all a lie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 24, 2008 18:24:38 GMT -5
Revelation was written by Apostle John, the LAST Apostle!
However, the Catholic church has invented “Apostolic Session” AFTER PETER and NOT AFTER JOHN who was the LAST!
Therefore there was NO TRUE successor because they would have come after John
Therefore Catholicism is all a lie!
I thought you "quit"? Ok, here's how it goes, when Jesus told Peter to shepherd his flock in John 21, Peter knew that John would not be martyred. When Peter conferred with Jesus on this (knowing that all of the Apostles that were left besides John which were 10), Jesus told him in essence to not worry about his plans for John. Only Peter was aware of John's fate because Jesus confided only in Peter on this matter. Besides, John was needed to take care of The Virgin Mary upon Jesus' death & return back to The Father. Anyway, an Apostle a leader does not automtically make. So What Hell, by the time that Peter died, Linus was ready to tak his place (the way that Jesus had Peter take His place in John 21). The Apostles repeated what Jesus did. When was Matthias chosen to "succeed" Judas? Before or after Peter died? Apostolic Succession was "invented" by The Word of God (Acts 1). Simple. Pax. |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 24, 2008 21:26:45 GMT -5
Revelation was written by Apostle John, the LAST Apostle!
However, the Catholic church has invented “Apostolic Session” AFTER PETER and NOT AFTER JOHN who was the LAST!
Therefore there was NO TRUE successor because they would have come after John
Therefore Catholicism is all a lie!
Apostolic succession doesn't only mean Peter but a continuous succession of bishops throughout the Church. John set up church leaders to follow in his place in Asia just as Peter did in Rome. Paul appointed bishops in the places he went as did the other apostles. There is absolutely no arguement from any of the early church Fathers about Peter going to and being martyred in Rome. If you have an agruement, you must put forth your evidence. Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 24, 2008 21:47:55 GMT -5
Revelation was written by Apostle John, the LAST Apostle!
However, the Catholic church has invented “Apostolic Session” AFTER PETER and NOT AFTER JOHN who was the LAST!
Therefore there was NO TRUE successor because they would have come after John
Therefore Catholicism is all a lie!
You have not proved anything. Apostolic Succession simply means that all Bishops [Priests, etc] today, one way or the other, are successors of one the Holy Apostles [in essence, all Bishops/Priests are successors of Saint Peter] (2 Tim 2:12). Linus succeed Saint Peter, and so forth [therefor the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter. The Bishop of Antioch is also the successor of Saint Peter]. Saint John started Churches in Asia and instituted Bishops, as did Saint Paul and the other Holy Apostles in other areas. The Holy Bible confirm Apostolic Succession, it was not a "invention" started by the RCC. Please read also Acts 1:20, where a successor of Judas is chosen. The Early Church understood that Apostolic Succession was needed for Christ' Church to survive. That is why Saint Paul told His Spiritual Son, Timothy, to appoint Bishops, who in turn will appoint other Bishops, thus keeping the Church stable, with the help of the Holy Spirit of course."And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."
Saint Clement of Rome,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98).
Also read Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8, Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be save?, 42, and others And then further down in History we read: "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria...Linus ...was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there...Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325). I can list all the ECF's who believe in Apostolic Succession, but I will leave it at that. There was no ECF who rejected this doctrine. So there is one fact we can not deny: 1) For the first 1,000 years of Church History, all Christians believe in Apostolic Succession. The Successions of each Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church can be trace to one or more of the Holy Apostles, while the Bishop of Rome [and the other Bishops of the Western Church] can be trace to Saint Peter. Apostolic Succession can be proven through History, so I am not sure why you want come here and try to disprove History. So for the past 2,000 years, Christians [both West and East] have believe in Apostolic Succession, but now you, Hellwhat, what to come 2,000 years later, in the year 2008, and say they were all wrong?  In reality, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I will wait for a more scholarly refutation on Apostolic Succession. You really do not know what "Apostolic Succession" means. Here's a thought: Before trying to refute a doctrine, try to learn what the doctrine teaches.If you want to debate, sure, but Whathell, you would have to do better than! It seems that all you want to do is attack Catholics, instead of actually having a civilize discussion. Now one thing is true: Apostolic Succession is rooted in Sacred Scriptures! I hope this helps Whathell. In IC.XC, Ramon P.S: Here is something to think about. No Protestant Church has Apostolic Succession. That should tell you something! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 25, 2008 1:48:28 GMT -5
Revelation was written by Apostle John, the LAST Apostle!
However, the Catholic church has invented “Apostolic Session” AFTER PETER and NOT AFTER JOHN who was the LAST!
Therefore there was NO TRUE successor because they would have come after John
Therefore Catholicism is all a lie!
You have not proved anything. Apostolic Succession simply means that all Bishops [Priests, etc] today, one way or the other, are successors of one the Holy Apostles [in essence, all Bishops/Priests are successors of Saint Peter] (2 Tim 2:12). Linus succeed Saint Peter, and so forth [therefor the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter. The Bishop of Antioch is also the successor of Saint Peter]. Saint John started Churches in Asia and instituted Bishops, as did Saint Paul and the other Holy Apostles in other areas. The Holy Bible confirm Apostolic Succession, it was not a "invention" started by the RCC. Please read also Acts 1:20, where a successor of Judas is chosen. The Early Church understood that Apostolic Succession was needed for Christ' Church to survive. That is why Saint Paul told His Spiritual Son, Timothy, to appoint Bishops, who in turn will appoint other Bishops, thus keeping the Church stable, with the help of the Holy Spirit of course."And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."
Saint Clement of Rome,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98).
Also read Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8, Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33, Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be save?, 42, and others And then further down in History we read: "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria...Linus ...was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there...Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325). I can list all the ECF's who believe in Apostolic Succession, but I will leave it at that. There was no ECF who rejected this doctrine. So there is one fact we can not deny: 1) For the first 1,000 years of Church History, all Christians believe in Apostolic Succession. The Successions of each Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church can be trace to one or more of the Holy Apostles, while the Bishop of Rome [and the other Bishops of the Western Church] can be trace to Saint Peter. Apostolic Succession can be proven through History, so I am not sure why you want come here and try to disprove History. So for the past 2,000 years, Christians [both West and East] have believe in Apostolic Succession, but now you, Hellwhat, what to come 2,000 years later, in the year 2008, and say they were all wrong? In reality, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I will wait for a more scholarly refutation on Apostolic Succession. You really do not know what "Apostolic Succession" means. Here's a thought: Before trying to refute a doctrine, try to learn what the doctrine teaches.If you want to debate, sure, but Whathell, you would have to do better than! It seems that all you want to do is attack Catholics, instead of actually having a civilize discussion. Now one thing is true: Apostolic Succession is rooted in Sacred Scriptures! I hope this helps Whathell. In IC.XC, Ramon P.S: Here is something to think about. No Protestant Church has Apostolic Succession. That should tell you something! Hi, I'm Cepha and I approved this message.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 25, 2008 1:50:05 GMT -5
Revelation was written by Apostle John, the LAST Apostle!
However, the Catholic church has invented “Apostolic Session” AFTER PETER and NOT AFTER JOHN who was the LAST!
Therefore there was NO TRUE successor because they would have come after John
Therefore Catholicism is all a lie!
Apostolic succession doesn't only mean Peter but a continuous succession of bishops throughout the Church. John set up church leaders to follow in his place in Asia just as Peter did in Rome. Paul appointed bishops in the places he went as did the other apostles. There is absolutely no arguement from any of the early church Fathers about Peter going to and being martyred in Rome. If you have an agruement, you must put forth your evidence. Yarddog Yes...evidence (as the burden of proof is on the accuser), not allegation. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 25, 2008 1:57:40 GMT -5
Revelation was written by Apostle John, the LAST Apostle!
However, the Catholic church has invented “Apostolic Session” AFTER PETER and NOT AFTER JOHN who was the LAST!
Therefore there was NO TRUE successor because they would have come after John
Therefore Catholicism is all a lie!
I thought you "quit"? Ok, here's how it goes, when Jesus told Peter to shepherd his flock in John 21, Peter knew that John would not be martyred. When Peter conferred with Jesus on this (knowing that all of the Apostles that were left besides John which were 10), Jesus told him in essence to not worry about his plans for John. Only Peter was aware of John's fate because Jesus confided only in Peter on this matter. Besides, John was needed to take care of The Virgin Mary upon Jesus' death & return back to The Father. Anyway, an Apostle a leader does not automtically make. So What Hell, by the time that Peter died, Linus was ready to tak his place (the way that Jesus had Peter take His place in John 21). The Apostles repeated what Jesus did. When was Matthias chosen to "succeed" Judas? Before or after Peter died? Apostolic Succession was "invented" by The Word of God (Acts 1). Simple. Pax. Ok now, back to the questions: When was Matthias chosen to "succeed" Judas? Before or after Peter died? |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 25, 2008 7:27:16 GMT -5
NAME OF CLERGY OR BISHOP DATE
Thomas
Thomas, the Twin arrives in India 33-73
49-52
Bar Tulmay 33
Addi [or Asddai] Shilikha 33-45
Agai, Disciple of Addai,
From the 70 Disciples
45-81
Mari, Disciple of Addai 48-81
Abris, Relative to the Virgin Mary 90-107
Oraham I, of Kashkar 130-152
Yacobm Relative of Yasip
[Joseph] the Carpenter
170-190
Edid M'shikha 191-203
Akhu d'Awu 205-220
Shakhulpa of Kashkar 224-244
Papa Bar Gaggai 247-326
Shimun Bar Sabbai 328-341
Shahdust 345-347
Bar Bashmin 350-358
Theophilus the Indian, from the island of Divu,
Consecrated Bishop
356
Tumarsa 383-393
Qaiyuma 393-399
Eskhaq 399-411
Akhkhi 411-415
Unalaha I 415-420
Maana 420-
Qarahukht 421-
Dadishu 421-456
Bawai or Bahu 457-484
Aqaq 484-496
Bawai 496-502
Sheela 505-523
Narsa
Dual Patriarchate
524-535
Elisha 524-538
Polos 539-540
Yosip 552-567
Khazqiyil 570-581
Eshuyow I, Arzunaya 581-595
Sorishu I, Garmaqaya 596-604
Greghar, Partaya 605-606
Shuyow II
[Edalaya or Arab]
626-644
Mar Immeih 647-650
Eshuyow III, Kadawaya 650-660
Gewargis I 681-684
Yokhannan I, Bar Marta 684-692
Khnanishu I 686-693
Yokhannan II, Garba 693-694
Sliwazkha 714-728
Perhyon 731-740
Awa 741-751
Surin 752-754
Yacob II 754-773
Khnanishu II 774-778
Timotheus 780-820
Eshu-barnon 820-824
Gewargis II 825-832
Soreshu II 832-836
Teadasis [of Theodoros] 850-852
Sargis, Suwaya 860-872
Annush d'beth Garma 873-884
Yokhannan III, Bar Narsay 884-892
Yokhannan IV
[Nephew of Theodoros]
892-898
Yokhannan V, Bar Ogare 900-905
Oraham III, Abraza 906-937
Ammanaoel I 937-949
Esrail Karkhaua 961-962
Odishu Gannaqaya 963-993
Mari Aturaya 967-1000
Yokhannan VI
[Yaoannis]
1001-1012
Yokhannan VII
[Bar Nazuk]
1013-1022
Eshyow IV 1023-1027
Elia I
[Terhan]
1028-1049
Yokhannan VII
[Bar Tragala]
1049-1057
Soreshu III
[Bar Zanhur]
1057-1072
Odishu II [Bar Ars] Aturaya 1072-1090
Makkikha I
[Bar Shelmon]
1092-1109
Elia II
[Bar Maqli]
1111-1132
Bar Soma [of Suwa] 1133-1135
Odishu III
[Nephew of Elia II]
1133-1147
Bar Gabbara 1135-1136
Elia III
[Abukhalim]
1148-1175
Yoalaha II
[Bar Qaiyama]
1191-1222
Sorishu IV 1222-1226
Sorishu V
[From Baghdad]
1226-1256
Makkikha II 1257-1265
Dinka I
[Arbilyay, i.e., from Arbil]
1265-1281
Yoalaha III
[Turkaye, i.e., Turkish by race]
1281-1318
Timotheus II
[Arbilyay, i.e., from Arbil]
1318-1328
Dinkha II 1329-1359
Dinkha III 1359-1368
Shimun III 1369-1392
Shimun IV 1403-1407
Elia III 1407-1420
Shimun V 1420-1447
Shimun VI 1448-1490
Elia V 1491-1504
Shimun VII 1504-1538
Eshuyow Shiman VII 1538-1551
Dinkha Shimun IX
[Bar Mama]
1552-1558
Yoalaha Shimun X 1558-1580
Dinkha Shimun XI 1580-1600
Elia Shimun XII 1600-1653
Eshuyow Shimun XIII 1653-1690
Yoalaha Shimun XIV 1690-1692
Dinkha Shimun XV 1692-1700
Shlemon [Sulaiman]
Shimun XVI
1700-1740
Mikhail [Mukhattis]
Shimun XVII
1740-1741
Yonan [Yuna]
Shimun XVIII 1740-1820
Oraham Shimun XIX 1820-1860
Ruwil Shimun XX 1860-1903
In order to restore the Syro-Chaldean jurisdiction
in Inid, on the Church of Mar Sabe,
Upper Tiari, Kurdistan, consecrated:
Mar Abdesso Antonios, Metropolitan of the
Syro-Chaldean Christians of Malabar, India
[The Most Reverend Thondanai Anthony].
17 December 1862
He consecrated, Mar Basilius, Metropolitan of India,
Ceylon, Mylapore, Socotra, and Messina
[The Most Reverend Luis Mariana Soares]
in the Syro-Chaldean Cathedral, Trichur, Cochin, India.
24 July 1899
He consecrated Mar Jacobus,
Bishop of Mercia and Middlesex
[The Right Reverend Ulric Vernon Hereford],
in the Church of the Epiphany, Pallithanam,
Madura District, South India.
30 November 1902
He consecrated Mar Paulus, Bishop of Kent
[The Right Reverend Williams Stanley McBean Knight],
in the Chapel of St. John, Pembridge Castle
Monmouth, England.
18 October 1931
He consecrated Mar Georgias I,
Patriarch of Glastonbury,
Apostolic Primate of the West,
Administrator of the Syro-Chaldean Metropolitan
See of India, Shri-Lanka, Mylapore, Socotra, and Messina
in the Chapel of St. John, Pembridge Castle.
He consecrated [conditionally] Mar Boltwood
[The Most Reverend Dr. Charles Boltwood]
a Bishop of another Christian communion,
in London, England.
20 May 1945
13 April 1952
He consecrated Mar Yokhannan
[The Right Reverend John M. Stanley]
as Bishop in the Pro-Cathedral Church of St. Andrews,
in London, England.
03 May 1959
The Right Reverend John M. Stanley,
consecrated Dr. S. G. Eastman
a Bishop of another Christian communion.
Bishop Dr. S. G. Eastman became Presiding Bishop
of the Independent Baptist Churches of America, Inc.,
in Boca Raton, Florida.
10 April 1963
1982
Bishop Dr. S. G. Eastman,
ordained P. Bradley Carey
as a minister with the
Independent Baptist Churches of America, Inc.,
in Boca Raton, Florida.
Dr. P. Bradley Carey consecrated as Bishop.
Bishop Dr. P. Bradley Carey became Presiding Bishop
of the Fellowship of Christ International,
in Columbia, South Carolina.
31 May 1985
I posted this particular succession because I am familiar with it but this idea that catholic history holds the only "apostolic" foundation is false .
Many of the AME churches can trace back to the church in Ethiopia,directly to Matthew
the original Russian (Scythian) church to Andrew long before Prince Vladimir brought orthodoxy in the ninth century
The Chaldean Church to Philip and Nathaniel before the Muslim and Catholic conversions
much love-------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by whathell on Aug 25, 2008 10:34:52 GMT -5
I am not at liberty as some to project teachings NOT in the Word of God. Nor will I fellow such man made teachings (inventions). Bible scripture has NO teachings of session of Apostles much less any other offices ordained by God. Matthias being chosen to REPLACE and NOT "succeed" Judas was to fulfill prophecy and nothing more. If session were a reality it would of continued for every fallen apostle to be replaced which NEVER happened (Ref. Scripture Link ). Judas was certainly not as great as Peter, nevertheless, he was replaced. Furthermore, Matthias name has never been mention in scripture again, in anyway. Paul through the Holy Spirit has stated the REQUIREMENTS for one who CHOOSES to pursue such offices as Bishops (not Apostles) and serve the Lord Yeshua/Jesus Christ. Session in these OFFICES of the church is NOT mentioned by any bible scripture. To create this APOSTOLIC SESSION doctrine (which is obviously a controlling move on man’s part) would mean that there are more than the 12 Apostles which Yeshua/Jesus (God) recognizes as Apostles in HIS church. No man has the authority according to scripture to reconfigure the church structure as it is HIS body and NOT ours and should trouble one who is truly following Yeshua/Jesus. The book of “The Revelation” closes off any further tampering with a curse (I know what some will say already) for ANY ONE ADDING OR SUBTRACTING to the Word of God. Now, some will cite at this point “…it means only the book in which John was writing…,” however, there is another scripture one should have already understood the principle of: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version) 16. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17. so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Also, would you want to gamble that God did not know of the future of his Word being in book form before men/women? I know I will leave it just as it is (I have plenty to learn from what is already written anyways). Another point, Revelation 21:14: Revelation 21:14 (New International Version) 14. The wall of the city had TWELVE foundations, and on them were the names of the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb. I am confident that Paul (chosen by Christ) vs. Matthias (chosen by lot) name will be found on one of the cities foundations. Peace in knowing Yeshua/Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 25, 2008 16:22:36 GMT -5
I am not at liberty as some to project teachings NOT in the Word of God. Nor will I fellow such man made teachings (inventions). Then why are you on here doing that? If you would only take enough time to learn about the early Church then you would know that what you are saying is a man made invention, by you or your church. Apostolic succession isn't about dying and appointing another apostle to take his place, who died for Paul or Barnabus to be named apostles? The apostles and disciples went out preaching the word of God and setting up churchres in cities across the land. In these churches they appointed bishops to teach what they had received. 1 Timothy 3: 1 This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? This is apostolic succession and it is very biblical. Below we see Paul appointing Titus to go and appoint others as presbyters and bishops. This is Apostolic succession and biblical. Titus 1: 5 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, 6 on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. 7 For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, Doesn't that sound like an office appointed by God? Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by whathell on Aug 25, 2008 18:56:20 GMT -5
I am not at liberty as some to project teachings NOT in the Word of God. Nor will I fellow such man made teachings (inventions). Then why are you on here doing that? If you would only take enough time to learn about the early Church then you would know that what you are saying is a man made invention, by you or your church. Apostolic succession isn't about dying and appointing another apostle to take his place, who died for Paul or Barnabus to be named apostles? The apostles and disciples went out preaching the word of God and setting up churchres in cities across the land. In these churches they appointed bishops to teach what they had received. 1 Timothy 3: 1 This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? This is apostolic succession and it is very biblical. Below we see Paul appointing Titus to go and appoint others as presbyters and bishops. This is Apostolic succession and biblical. Titus 1: 5 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, 6 on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. 7 For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, Doesn't that sound like an office appointed by God? Yarddog Ummmm. You only strengthened my point. You wrote: [Doesn't that sound like an office appointed by God?] As for the rest... I suggest you re-read what I said because I am in agreement with what you wrote. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 25, 2008 20:06:59 GMT -5
I am not at liberty as some to project teachings NOT in the Word of God. Nor will I fellow such man made teachings (inventions). Bible scripture has NO teachings of session of Apostles much less any other offices ordained by God. Your teaching is an invention started in your own mind which has no basics in Scriptures. Of course it does not because Apostolic Succession does not teach that. Apostolic Succession simply means that all Bishops [Priests, etc] today, one way or the other, are successors of one the Holy Apostles [in essence, all Bishops/Priests are successors of Saint Peter] (2 Tim 2:12). Linus succeed Saint Peter, and so forth [therefor the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter. The Bishop of Antioch is also the successor of Saint Peter]. Saint John started Churches in Asia and instituted Bishops, as did Saint Paul and others in other areas. The Holy Bible confirm Apostolic Succession, it was not a "invention" started by the RCC. Second, an Apostle can also be simply a messenger and ambassador (Greek "apostello": "to send forth", "to dispatch"). Therefore, Bishops [etc] are apostles [in a sense], but not one of the Twelve Apostles [Eph 4:11]. Offices ordained by God through His Holy Apostles was Bishops, Elders, Deacons [also Acts 6], etc. It is all in 1-2 Timothy. Perhaps you have not read these Books, therefore, I suggest you read them or reread them. Matthias being chosen to REPLACE and NOT "succeed" Judas was to fulfill prophecy and nothing more. If session were a reality it would of continued for every fallen apostle to be replaced which NEVER happened (Ref. Scripture Link ). Judas was certainly not as great as Peter, nevertheless, he was replaced. Furthermore, Matthias name has never been mention in scripture again, in anyway. Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas, plain and simple. And who cares if Matthias name was never mention again? How does that help your argument? Also please read Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 which specifically states "his office"!The Greek word "episkope", here rendered "office", is literally "bishopric" and refers to the apostolic position of overseer. Thus, we learn the Apostles were the first Bishops of the Church. The Authority of overseeing the life of the Church continues in the Bishops who stand in their Succession. After this, the Apostles are no longer called, "the eleven" (Luke 24:9, 33), but "the twelve" (see Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14).Acts 1:26: "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."Saint Matthias was "ordained" (Acts 1:22). Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority ("must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection"). Saint Peter knew the importance of Apostolic Succession, and that is why he ordained Saint Matthias to be numbered with the Eleven [one needed to take up Judas' office]. Now go to Acts 6:6, and we learn that Apostolic Authority is transmitted through the "laying on the hands" (ordination) [something done even in the OT: Deut. 34:9, Exodus 18:25-26, etc]. We learn the same thing about Saint Paul (Acts 9:17-19) who, even though chosen by Christ, became a ordained minister through the laying on the hands. Thus, ordination is necessary for Apostolic Succession. We see this "laying on the hands" several times (Acts 13:3, 14:23, 15:22-27). Even Saint Paul taught it (2 Cor. 1:21-22). Apostolic Succession plain and simple: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Titus 1:"For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain..." (5-7)An Renowned Early Church Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
"[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Furthermore, History proves Apostolic Succession, so why are trying to disprove History Whathell? Historians and Archeological Discoveries have proved that Saint Peter went to Rome and was Martyred there and set up Bishops there to succeed him. Paul through the Holy Spirit has stated the REQUIREMENTS for one who CHOOSES to pursue such offices as Bishops (not Apostles) and serve the Lord Yeshua/Jesus Christ. Session in these OFFICES of the church is NOT mentioned by any bible scripture. Saint Paul believe in succession of the office of Bishops, which he why he told Timothy to appoint Bishops who in turn will appoint Bishops, unto generation to generation. Do you see the pattern? Saint Ananias ordained Saint Paul (Acts 9:17-19), who in turn ordained Saint Timothy (as Bishop of Ephesus in AD 65, where he served for 15 years; he was also one of the Seventy Apostles chosen by Christ in Luke 10), his spiritual son (and not only him, but many other Bishops as he started Churches in various places), who in turn is commanded to appoint others (Deacons, Bishops, etc). In fact he told him: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" (1 Timothy 4:14). He needed to be careful who he ordained. He told the same thing to Titus, who he also ordained. This is Apostolic Succession in its clearest form.
In NT Scriptures, "laying on the hands" has several meanings, but one is connected to the Sacrament of Holy Orders [ordination] as I have clearly shown in the Scriptures above. In order for the ordination to be valid, one must be ordained by a Bishop who has an unbroken line of succession to the Apostles. The apostolic authority is only transferred through the laying on of hands (Acts 13:3, etc) by one who has an valid ordination by the Church. This is to ensure that the Apostolic Succession is kept. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to ordained those most worthy of entering into the Holy Orders. Because of this, the Church teach with Christ's own authority.
To create this APOSTOLIC SESSION doctrine (which is obviously a controlling move on man’s part) would mean that there are more than the 12 Apostles which Yeshua/Jesus (God) recognizes as Apostles in HIS church. No man has the authority according to scripture to reconfigure the church structure as it is HIS body and NOT ours and should trouble one who is truly following Yeshua/Jesus.
Again with the strawman argument.
Apostolic Succession simply means that a Bishop can trace his linage back to the Holy Apostles. It refers to the succession of bishops in uninterrupted lines, historically traceable back to the Holy Apostles. No Protestant Church, even yours, have this.
The book of “The Revelation” closes off any further tampering with a curse (I know what some will say already) for ANY ONE ADDING OR SUBTRACTING to the Word of God. Now, some will cite at this point “…it means only the book in which John was writing…,” however, there is another scripture one should have already understood the principle of:
Since you know what the Scripture text in Revelation means [obviously no Sola-Scriptura or Bible Alone] why then do you mention it? Second, the text in Revelation does not say the "word of God" but mention specifically the Book of Revelation.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19).
Where is "ANY ONE ADDING OR SUBTRACTING to the Word of God" in these texts?
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version) 16. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17. so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Yes, you just quoted my favorite Scripture. But how does it prove Bible Alone? Two things to keep in mind when reading this Scripture:
1) It says Scripture is “useful” for these purposes, not that Scripture is sufficient for them; nor does it say or imply that something else might not also be useful. Apparently, you believe that the word "profitable" is the same thing as "sufficient". Scripture is helpful, it is a resource, an aid. This verse, nor the word "useful", nor its synonyms imply that it is the only rule of faith. It says that it is something useful for one's faith. And us Orthodox do not deny this. But we also follow what Saint Paul said 2 Thes 2:15. The belief that Saint Paul's oral teachings ["unwritten"] can be found in his epistles is both not found in the text nor was it taught by the Holy Apostles.
2) The context makes clear that the Scripture St. Paul means is the the Christians’ Old Testament. Read 2 Timothy 3:15. The only Scriptures that St. Timothy could have known from childhood were the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews. The other NT books were later canonized by the Church, to which they are equal to the Scriptures Saint Paul talked about.
By carefully studying this verse it is clear to see that it does not say that the Bible alone is our sole rule of faith. The Bible did not defined itself. Thereby, another recognized authority or governing body declare that certain books were Scripture and others weren't. Something outside the Bible has to verify the sacredness of the Scriptures. What was that sanctioned body? That is my friend is the Church!
But enough talking about Sola-Scriptura. Let me get back to the original topic.
Also, would you want to gamble that God did not know of the future of his Word being in book form before men/women? I know I will leave it just as it is (I have plenty to learn from what is already written anyways).
Yes, God knew, but what is your point? No Christian knew that before the 4th Century. Of course you have plenty to learn from the Holy Bible, but then again, you follow your own interpretation. In Protestantism, everyone is his or her authority not Scriptures.
Another point, Revelation 21:14: Revelation 21:14 (New International Version) 14. The wall of the city had TWELVE foundations, and on them were the names of the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb. I am confident that Paul (chosen by Christ) vs. Matthias (chosen by lot) name will be found on one of the cities foundations.
Well that is pure speculation on your part. But one question: Is Saint Paul one of the 12 Apostles? If so, where in Scriptures does it say that? Has great as Saint Paul was, he was not one of the Twelve, but nonetheless, a great leader of the Early Church. I cherish his writings a lot. With all due respect, the only one here who is spreading "man's invention" is you. The text say nothing that Saint Paul is numbered among the "Twelve".
Just like the The Seventy Apostles are those whom the Lord chose (described in Luke 10:1-16) [which slowly grew] in addition to the Twelve and sent forth to assist in the work of preaching, Saint Paul was chosen in addition to the Twelve Apostles.
Second, that Matthias was chosen by a lot does not "minimized" him. Casting Lots to discern the will of God has been practiced since the Ancient Times [Jos 16:6-10; Neh 11:1; Jon 1:7] and continues in various places in the Church today. I am confident that the Holy Spirit was involved in the Apostle's decision to choose Matthias, since Christ promised he will be the Church unto the ages of ages. It will be hard for you to convince others that the Apostles decision was not "from God". In fact, the Eleven Apostles prayed prior from choosing Matthias [Acts 1:24-26].
Therefor, who are the "Twelve foundations" spoken in Revelation 21:14 if not Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias [Came after Judas: Acts 1:26] (He was stoned and beheaded)? To put Saint Paul as one of "The Twelve" is to twist Scriptures, ignore Scripture Texts which teach otherwise, and to add one's "invention"! What the Bible teaches is that the Holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Paul was the "Apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8, 1 Timothy 2:7), being converted while on the road to Damascus by Jesus Himself [Acts 9]. He was a great leader in the Early Church, and the Church has never ceased in giving him honor. His feast day in the Eastern Orthodox Church is June 29th.
You have not provided any Scripture that disproves Apostolic Succession.
Has I said before,
1) For the first 1,000 years of Church History, all Christians believe in Apostolic Succession. The Successions of each Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church can be trace to one or more of the Holy Apostles, while the Bishop of Rome [and the other Bishops of the Western Church] can be trace to Saint Peter. Apostolic Succession can be proven through History, so I am not sure why you want come here and try to disprove History.
So for the past 2,000 years, Christians [both West and East] have believe in Apostolic Succession, but now you, Hellwhat, what to come 2,000 years later, in the year 2008, and say they were all wrong?
It is sad that the first 1,000 years of Church History, no one agrees with you. You have to fast forward another 500-800 years before a Schismatic Preacher teach what you falsely claim
In reality, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I will wait for a more scholarly refutation on Apostolic Succession [which they is none].
One thing is for sure:
Apostolic Succession is very Biblical! I hope this helps Whathell! I hope that you see that your doctrine is not Scriptures and why Apostolic Succession is rooted in Scriptures. I rather believe what Scriptures teaches, and what the Early Church (1st-8th Century) taught and proclaim instead of what you personally think and believe. I hope everything is clear up now.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
P.S, may I redirect to this site for further information on the Apostolic Succession within the Eastern Orthodox Church [not all Churches are cited, but great nonetheless]:
christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1143181 |
|
|
|
Post by whathell on Aug 27, 2008 8:45:11 GMT -5
I am not at liberty as some to project teachings NOT in the Word of God. Nor will I fellow such man made teachings (inventions). Bible scripture has NO teachings of session of Apostles much less any other offices ordained by God. Your teaching is an invention started in your own mind which has no basics in Scriptures. Of course it does not because Apostolic Succession does not teach that. Apostolic Succession simply means that all Bishops [Priests, etc] today, one way or the other, are successors of one the Holy Apostles [in essence, all Bishops/Priests are successors of Saint Peter] (2 Tim 2:12). Linus succeed Saint Peter, and so forth [therefor the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter. The Bishop of Antioch is also the successor of Saint Peter]. Saint John started Churches in Asia and instituted Bishops, as did Saint Paul and others in other areas. The Holy Bible confirm Apostolic Succession, it was not a "invention" started by the RCC. Second, an Apostle can also be simply a messenger and ambassador (Greek "apostello": "to send forth", "to dispatch"). Therefore, Bishops [etc] are apostles [in a sense], but not one of the Twelve Apostles [Eph 4:11]. Offices ordained by God through His Holy Apostles was Bishops, Elders, Deacons [also Acts 6], etc. It is all in 1-2 Timothy. Perhaps you have not read these Books, therefore, I suggest you read them or reread them. Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas, plain and simple. And who cares if Matthias name was never mention again? How does that help your argument? Also please read Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 which specifically states "his office"!The Greek word "episkope", here rendered "office", is literally "bishopric" and refers to the apostolic position of overseer. Thus, we learn the Apostles were the first Bishops of the Church. The Authority of overseeing the life of the Church continues in the Bishops who stand in their Succession. After this, the Apostles are no longer called, "the eleven" (Luke 24:9, 33), but "the twelve" (see Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14).Acts 1:26: "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."Saint Matthias was "ordained" (Acts 1:22). Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority ("must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection"). Saint Peter knew the importance of Apostolic Succession, and that is why he ordained Saint Matthias to be numbered with the Eleven [one needed to take up Judas' office]. Now go to Acts 6:6, and we learn that Apostolic Authority is transmitted through the "laying on the hands" (ordination) [something done even in the OT: Deut. 34:9, Exodus 18:25-26, etc]. We learn the same thing about Saint Paul (Acts 9:17-19) who, even though chosen by Christ, became a ordained minister through the laying on the hands. Thus, ordination is necessary for Apostolic Succession. We see this "laying on the hands" several times (Acts 13:3, 14:23, 15:22-27). Even Saint Paul taught it (2 Cor. 1:21-22). Apostolic Succession plain and simple: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Titus 1:"For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain..." (5-7)An Renowned Early Church Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
"[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Furthermore, History proves Apostolic Succession, so why are trying to disprove History Whathell? Historians and Archeological Discoveries have proved that Saint Peter went to Rome and was Martyred there and set up Bishops there to succeed him. Saint Paul believe in succession of the office of Bishops, which he why he told Timothy to appoint Bishops who in turn will appoint Bishops, unto generation to generation. Do you see the pattern? Saint Ananias ordained Saint Paul (Acts 9:17-19), who in turn ordained Saint Timothy (as Bishop of Ephesus in AD 65, where he served for 15 years; he was also one of the Seventy Apostles chosen by Christ in Luke 10), his spiritual son (and not only him, but many other Bishops as he started Churches in various places), who in turn is commanded to appoint others (Deacons, Bishops, etc). In fact he told him: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" (1 Timothy 4:14). He needed to be careful who he ordained. He told the same thing to Titus, who he also ordained. This is Apostolic Succession in its clearest form.
In NT Scriptures, "laying on the hands" has several meanings, but one is connected to the Sacrament of Holy Orders [ordination] as I have clearly shown in the Scriptures above. In order for the ordination to be valid, one must be ordained by a Bishop who has an unbroken line of succession to the Apostles. The apostolic authority is only transferred through the laying on of hands (Acts 13:3, etc) by one who has an valid ordination by the Church. This is to ensure that the Apostolic Succession is kept. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to ordained those most worthy of entering into the Holy Orders. Because of this, the Church teach with Christ's own authority.
Again with the strawman argument.
Apostolic Succession simply means that a Bishop can trace his linage back to the Holy Apostles. It refers to the succession of bishops in uninterrupted lines, historically traceable back to the Holy Apostles. No Protestant Church, even yours, have this.
Since you know what the Scripture text in Revelation means [obviously no Sola-Scriptura or Bible Alone] why then do you mention it? Second, the text in Revelation does not say the "word of God" but mention specifically the Book of Revelation.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19).
Where is "ANY ONE ADDING OR SUBTRACTING to the Word of God" in these texts?
Yes, you just quoted my favorite Scripture. But how does it prove Bible Alone? Two things to keep in mind when reading this Scripture:
1) It says Scripture is “useful” for these purposes, not that Scripture is sufficient for them; nor does it say or imply that something else might not also be useful. Apparently, you believe that the word "profitable" is the same thing as "sufficient". Scripture is helpful, it is a resource, an aid. This verse, nor the word "useful", nor its synonyms imply that it is the only rule of faith. It says that it is something useful for one's faith. And us Orthodox do not deny this. But we also follow what Saint Paul said 2 Thes 2:15. The belief that Saint Paul's oral teachings ["unwritten"] can be found in his epistles is both not found in the text nor was it taught by the Holy Apostles.
2) The context makes clear that the Scripture St. Paul means is the the Christians’ Old Testament. Read 2 Timothy 3:15. The only Scriptures that St. Timothy could have known from childhood were the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews. The other NT books were later canonized by the Church, to which they are equal to the Scriptures Saint Paul talked about.
By carefully studying this verse it is clear to see that it does not say that the Bible alone is our sole rule of faith. The Bible did not defined itself. Thereby, another recognized authority or governing body declare that certain books were Scripture and others weren't. Something outside the Bible has to verify the sacredness of the Scriptures. What was that sanctioned body? That is my friend is the Church!
But enough talking about Sola-Scriptura. Let me get back to the original topic.
Yes, God knew, but what is your point? No Christian knew that before the 4th Century. Of course you have plenty to learn from the Holy Bible, but then again, you follow your own interpretation. In Protestantism, everyone is his or her authority not Scriptures.
Another point, Revelation 21:14: Revelation 21:14 (New International Version) 14. The wall of the city had TWELVE foundations, and on them were the names of the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb. I am confident that Paul (chosen by Christ) vs. Matthias (chosen by lot) name will be found on one of the cities foundations.
Well that is pure speculation on your part. But one question: Is Saint Paul one of the 12 Apostles? If so, where in Scriptures does it say that? Has great as Saint Paul was, he was not one of the Twelve, but nonetheless, a great leader of the Early Church. I cherish his writings a lot. With all due respect, the only one here who is spreading "man's invention" is you. The text say nothing that Saint Paul is numbered among the "Twelve".
Just like the The Seventy Apostles are those whom the Lord chose (described in Luke 10:1-16) [which slowly grew] in addition to the Twelve and sent forth to assist in the work of preaching, Saint Paul was chosen in addition to the Twelve Apostles.
Second, that Matthias was chosen by a lot does not "minimized" him. Casting Lots to discern the will of God has been practiced since the Ancient Times [Jos 16:6-10; Neh 11:1; Jon 1:7] and continues in various places in the Church today. I am confident that the Holy Spirit was involved in the Apostle's decision to choose Matthias, since Christ promised he will be the Church unto the ages of ages. It will be hard for you to convince others that the Apostles decision was not "from God". In fact, the Eleven Apostles prayed prior from choosing Matthias [Acts 1:24-26].
Therefor, who are the "Twelve foundations" spoken in Revelation 21:14 if not Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias [Came after Judas: Acts 1:26] (He was stoned and beheaded)? To put Saint Paul as one of "The Twelve" is to twist Scriptures, ignore Scripture Texts which teach otherwise, and to add one's "invention"! What the Bible teaches is that the Holy, glorious, all-laudable Apostle Paul was the "Apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8, 1 Timothy 2:7), being converted while on the road to Damascus by Jesus Himself [Acts 9]. He was a great leader in the Early Church, and the Church has never ceased in giving him honor. His feast day in the Eastern Orthodox Church is June 29th.
You have not provided any Scripture that disproves Apostolic Succession.
Has I said before,
1) For the first 1,000 years of Church History, all Christians believe in Apostolic Succession. The Successions of each Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church can be trace to one or more of the Holy Apostles, while the Bishop of Rome [and the other Bishops of the Western Church] can be trace to Saint Peter. Apostolic Succession can be proven through History, so I am not sure why you want come here and try to disprove History.
So for the past 2,000 years, Christians [both West and East] have believe in Apostolic Succession, but now you, Hellwhat, what to come 2,000 years later, in the year 2008, and say they were all wrong?
It is sad that the first 1,000 years of Church History, no one agrees with you. You have to fast forward another 500-800 years before a Schismatic Preacher teach what you falsely claim
In reality, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. I will wait for a more scholarly refutation on Apostolic Succession [which they is none].
One thing is for sure:
Apostolic Succession is very Biblical! I hope this helps Whathell! I hope that you see that your doctrine is not Scriptures and why Apostolic Succession is rooted in Scriptures. I rather believe what Scriptures teaches, and what the Early Church (1st-8th Century) taught and proclaim instead of what you personally think and believe. I hope everything is clear up now.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
P.S, may I redirect to this site for further information on the Apostolic Succession within the Eastern Orthodox Church [not all Churches are cited, but great nonetheless]:
christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1143181You wrote: [You have not provided any Scripture that disproves Apostolic Succession.] I have respectfully already done this and that is what's bothering YOU. You wrote: [Apostolic Succession simply means that a Bishop can trace his linage back to the Holy Apostles. It refers to the succession of bishops in uninterrupted lines, historically traceable back to the Holy Apostles. No Protestant Church, even yours, have this.] Firstly, neither does YOURS and is the point I have made. Succession is a false teaching not found/supported by bible scripture and is therefore a very moot point to offer up that there are names claiming to be linked back to anything. Secondly, "PROTESTANT" is Catholic invented terminology which originally applied to those Catholic/Ex-Catholics who PROTESTED the many false teachings of Catholicism based on bible scripture. I reject this term being applied to God's churches by Catholics. You wrote: [Just like the The Seventy Apostles are those whom the Lord chose (described in Luke 10:1-16) [which slowly grew] in addition to the Twelve and sent forth to assist in the work of preaching, Saint Paul was chosen in addition to the Twelve Apostles.] Scripture STILL does not call them 70 Apostles. You are in err! Also you exclude Apostle Paul as one of the 12 Apostles though it is CLEARLY written in scripture for everyone to see. He has also told you himself that he was called to be an Apostle by Yeshua/Jesus (Ref. Scripture Link ). You wrote: [Acts 1:26: "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."] Being NUMBER WITH (the actual APOSTLES) by man did NOT make him one. It did NOT say HE (Matthias) was in fact an Apostle (who is choosen by Yeshua/Jesus ONLY per scripture). There is NO scriptural account of an Apostle being created that was not choosen personally by Yeshua/Jesus. You can not per scripture CHOOSE to be an Apostle ...you MUST be choosen by Christ himself. You can choose to pursue other offices but not this one per bible scripture. Even though there were 120 disciples present the day of Pentecost bible scripture only NAMES 11 Apostles in the same chapter you referenced and the only other Apostle NAMED in bible scripture is the Apostle Paul. To say anymore than this is to INVENT doctrine OUTSIDE of bible scripture (where you can say/write and do ANYTHING). Also, it is very plain said by Peter himself that Matthias was a REPLACEMENT (not successor) because of prophecy. He was NOT ORDAINED ...lots were cast and that is what bible scripture actually said. If you do a search of all N.T. scriptures ...you will NOT find mentioned by NAME of more than 12 Apostles. Now of coarse YOU may have need to support more for RELIGIOUS reasons but it is certainly NOT biblically support in anyway. Readers: All link(s) are clickable reference Visit and join our NEW site
Peace in knowing Yeshua/Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by hellknowz on Aug 27, 2008 10:34:13 GMT -5
Well catholicism was invented by satan, how do I know?? HELLKNOWZ
|
|
|
|
Post by hellknowz on Aug 27, 2008 10:35:32 GMT -5
"Even though there were 120 disciples present the day of Pentecost bible scripture only NAMES 11 Apostles in the same chapter you referenced and the only other Apostle NAMED in bible scripture is the Apostle Paul. To say anymore than this is to INVENT doctrine OUTSIDE of bible scripture (where you can say/write and do ANYTHING)."
Great POINT!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by hellknowz on Aug 27, 2008 10:43:24 GMT -5
NEARLY 500 YEARS AGO
Nearly one hundred years before Columbus discovered America, there was a boy named John Gooseflesh, living in the old town of Mentz. His mother helped to make a living for the family by preparing parchment for the priests to write on. John liked very much to carve and cut with his knife. One day he was sitting beside the fire watching a pot of purple dye that his mother was heating and amusing himself by carving and cutting his name in wood. Suddenly one of the pieces of wood, with a letter cut on it, fell into the dye pot. He snatched at it, caught it, but dropped it again, this time onto a piece of parchment lying nearby. It fell upside down, and when he picked it up, there on the parchment, was the letter "h" clearly printed.
PRINTING INVENTED
Years went by. The boy of Mentz did not forget what happened that day by the fire in his old home. It had given him an idea that some way could be found to make books more easily than to copy them all out by hand as had always been done. So he cut little wooden blocks and dipped them in dye, setting them this way and that, making forms for them to be placed in and he finally had the first printing press the world had ever seen. You will find his name in every history ever written--John Gutenberg, it is in German.
NO ENGLISH BIBLE
That happened in 1454. That very same year, a great battle was fought in Constantinople between the Christians and the Turks and the Christians were driven out of the city, at that time the greatest city in the world, where most of the schools of learning were located. Greek scholars came to live in all parts of Europe. All at once these wise men became very much interested in the Greek New Testament and began to read it instead of the old Latin one they had always read. They made many people think about how wonderful it would be to have the Bible in the language of the people, so everyone could read it. With the new study of the language and the new printing press, things began to happen.
WILLIAM TYNDALE
It began first in an old school in England where a young man named William Tyndale was studying. He was a good Greek scholar and had read the New Testament in the very language in which it was written. It had come to mean so much to him that he wanted it to mean something to all the people around him.
One day some students were talking about all this new interest in the Bible, and one man said very positively: "The Bible is not necessary. It is all foolishness to talk about translating it into English for the people to read. All they need is the word of the pope. We had better be without God's laws than the pope's laws!"
William Tyndale rose from his chair, and striking his clenched fist on the table shouted, "I defy the pope and all his laws; and, if God spares me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!"
NOT AN IDLE BOAST
It was not an idle boast. William Tyndale went right to work to make an English Bible that all the people could read. A rich merchant, Humphrey Monmouth, gave him his home to work in and day and night he worked, hoping some publisher would print it when he had it ready.
POPE - VERY POWERFUL
By Tyndale had forgotten that the pope was very powerful. A Bible in the English language was just what the pope did not want. Presently all the authorities of England turned against him and soon, even his friend Monmouth dared not help him. Tyndale sadly said, "In England there is no room for attempting the translation of the Scriptures."
Did he quit? No, William Tyndale was no quitter. He just left England and went to live in Hamburg, Germany. Here he could never be sure his life was safe, for the English Catholic bishops and priests were so angry with him for going on with his work that they hired spies to hinder him, to keep him from making friends and to prevent his ever getting his Bible printed.
There was a printing press at Cologne. So over there he went and found printers ready to go to work on his first English Bible. He tried to keep his work a secret for he knew the English Catholic bishops would arrest him, if they knew the book was nearly done.
One day a warning came to him to flee for his life. A Catholic priest had found out from a drunken printer that his English Bible was nearly off the press, and had come to arrest him. He snatched his precious sheets of paper, and fled from the town, going to Worms, where Martin Luther lived.
PRINTED IN GERMANY
There the first English Bible was printed, two sizes being made, one large and one small, for he thought if the English Catholic bishops found the large ones, he might be able to hide the smaller ones.
Now they must be gotten to England. In barrels all covered with cloth and articles for sale, in bales that looked like cloth, in sacks of flour, in every way that could be found to hide them, they were sent across to England.
Did they get across? They did, in large numbers, and the Catholic bishops found out they were being sold. Every seaport was carefully watched, and many a package of Bibles was found by the officers and burned. But more Bibles came. They could not stop them, and some of them would always get to people who wanted to read them.
ENEMIES HELP
Finally the Catholic bishop of London had a bright idea! He decided he would buy all the copies that were printed, through a merchant in Germany! Then there would be no more Bibles to come across the water. He did not know that the merchant he asked to do this was a friend of Tyndale.
This friend thought he saw a way to help Tyndale. He knew that right at that time Tyndale needed money more than anything else, to pay his printers for the work they had done, and start a new printing of the Bibles. So he said, "My lord, I will be glad to attend to this matter. But it will take money to do it, for the men who have these books in Germany hold them at a high price."
"My dear Sir," said the bishop, "do your best to get them for me, all of them, for they are very bad books. I will gladly pay you whatever they cost, for I intend to burn them all and end this matter."
MONEY SUPPLIES
What fun it was to the merchant! He went to Tyndale, bought his books at a good price and brought them over to England, while Tyndale went right to work on a new printing, for he now had plenty of money. The poor Catholic bishop thought when he burned all these Bibles, there would never be another English Bible! Imagine how he felt when he learned that more Bibles than ever before were coming into England. So many came that the officers simply could not stop them.
"How can this be?" a man who had been arrested for helping Tyndale, was asked. "I will tell you truly, my lord," the man replied, "Tis yourself that gave us the money to print the Bibles!" That's a good one. Wasn't he mad, though?
TYNDALE, AN ANA-BAPTIST, IS HANGED AND
BURNED -- FOR TRANSLATING THE WORD OF GOD!
He was so mad that he stirred up all England against Tyndale. All the great Catholic preachers began to preach about it, most of them thinking it would do a great deal of harm to have the Bible in the language of the people, a few very brave and wise men saying it would be much better for England. At last Tyndale won, for the Bible was everywhere. One old bishop said sadly, "It passeth my power, or that of any man, to hinder it now!"
So the Bible came to England, and from England to all the world. But the man who gave it to the world never knew what a glorious victory he had won. Away in a little German town, afraid to walk in the street for fear some spy of the English Catholic bishop, or the pope of Rome should see him, working night and day that everybody might have the Bible, he longed for his home in England. He loved England better than his life. His enemies sent men to make him believe they were his friends, and persuade him to come home. But he knew what they wanted. He knew, once in England, they would arrest and kill him.
TYNDALE'S JUDAS
Not all his enemies were in England, however. There was a man named Phillips, whom he believed to be loyal and true. But Phillips was a spy sent by the pope to trap Tyndale. One night as Tyndale walked out from his home to enjoy the evening air, a band of men set upon him, bound him, and carried him away to a dark prison.
A MARTYR
There was no trial. They knew they were going to kill him. He knew it, too. Gladly he laid down his life, for he had done the work he had set himself to do. The Bible was in England, in the language all the people could read. One day they led him out to a stake. They hanged him and then burned his body. He asked them if he might send a message to England and they told him no.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 27, 2008 11:28:58 GMT -5
What is the point? There were 11 because Judas the betrayer was gone. Later in Acts, the disciples, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided who would replace his apostolic ministry. Another proof for Apostolic succession. (or why would they have needed to "replace" Judas?)
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 27, 2008 11:33:17 GMT -5
Apostolic Succesion is not just with Peter, but all of the Apostles. It is the Bishops who are the Succesors of the Apostles. The pope is a Bishop, but is considered the "elder brother" or the "first among equals".
Leaders in the Church are expected to be servants. The Bishops are Shepherds of the flock, and servants of the Church.
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 27, 2008 11:42:09 GMT -5
Not exactly. He calls himself an apostle, but not "one of the 12" 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.(1 Cor. 15) Concerning Apostolic Succession; 20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms:
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' [d]
and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.' [e]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
23 So they proposed the names of two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. (Acts 1) I don't know how this could be more clear. teresa |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 27, 2008 15:48:00 GMT -5
[I have respectfully already done this and that is what's bothering YOU. Hello Hellwhat, You haven't provided anything to prove your point, in the least. When people have shown you that you don't understand what the meaning of Apostolic succession is, you fail to grasp the simple explanation. One verse that you provide is 2 Timothy 3:16 which says: (Different translation) NAB All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, You must think that you can discern the meaning and you highlight the scripture is inspired by God, but yoi fail to read it all. It is useful for teaching. Who do you think they were teaching? They were teaching the people that would continue to lead the Church after them. Ramon wrote: [Apostolic Succession simply means that a Bishop can trace his linage back to the Holy Apostles. It refers to the succession of bishops in uninterrupted lines, historically traceable back to the Holy Apostles. No Protestant Church, even yours, have this.] You replied: Firstly, neither does YOURS and is the point I have made. Succession is a false teaching not found/supported by bible scripture and is therefore a very moot point to offer up that there are names claiming to be linked back to anything. You have been ginen the meaning and the proof that it biblical. You also show your lack of understanding of history. Pick up a Book of Church history, even one written by a Protestant, it will show that the Church has a continues line of Bishops back to the Apostles. You say: Secondly, "PROTESTANT" is Catholic invented terminology which originally applied to those Catholic/Ex-Catholics who PROTESTED the many false teachings of Catholicism based on bible scripture. I reject this term being applied to God's churches by Catholics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do you reject it when the Protestant Churches don't. Many are proud enough to have it in the name of their Church. Ramon wrote: [Just like the The Seventy Apostles are those whom the Lord chose (described in Luke 10:1-16) [which slowly grew] in addition to the Twelve and sent forth to assist in the work of preaching, Saint Paul was chosen in addition to the Twelve Apostles.] You replied: Scripture STILL does not call them 70 Apostles. You are in err! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though the scripture doesn't caal them Apostles, he is still correct when the Greek definition is applied. Apostolos- 1. a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders a. specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ b. in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
of Barnabas
of Timothy and Silvanus The Bible does call Barnabus and Apollos apostles. You wrote to Ramon: Also you exclude Apostle Paul as one of the 12 Apostles though it is CLEARLY written in scripture for everyone to see. He has also told you himself that he was called to be an Apostle by Yeshua/Jesus (Ref. Scripture Link ). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No where in scripture will you find that Paul is one of the "12 Apostles." Was he an Apostle? Yes, but there were others called apostles, such as Barnabus and Paul refers to Apollos as one. Ramon wrote: [Acts 1:26: "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."] You replied: Being NUMBER WITH (the actual APOSTLES) by man did NOT make him one. It did NOT say HE (Matthias) was in fact an Apostle (who is choosen by Yeshua/Jesus ONLY per scripture). There is NO scriptural account of an Apostle being created that was not choosen personally by Yeshua/Jesus. You can not per scripture CHOOSE to be an Apostle ...you MUST be choosen by Christ himself. You can choose to pursue other offices but not this one per bible scripture. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Again you show your lack of Biblical knowledge: Look at the rest of what Acys 1 says that makes naming Matthias biblical. 16 "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. ---- 20 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.' 21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24
Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place." Surely you don't deny that when the Apostles prayed to Jesus that he didn't answer their prayer. Afterall he promised he would. Read Acts again son. Acts 14: 14 The apostles Barnabas and Paul tore their garments when they heard this and rushed out into the crowd, shouting, You said: If you do a search of all N.T. scriptures ...you will NOT find mentioned by NAME of more than 12 Apostles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- You had better go back and reread the NT. You say to Ramon: Now of coarse YOU may have need to support more for RELIGIOUS reasons but it is certainly NOT biblically support in anyway. -------------------------------------------------------- He has far more understanding in the Bible than you show through your weak points. You need to do a lot of biblical study. God Bless. Yarddog |
|
