|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 27, 2008 15:53:04 GMT -5
Well catholicism was invented by satan, how do I know?? HELLKNOWZ Hey helldoesn'tknowzshi*z, Do you understand that you may have committed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Considering that you don't know much about the bible, you probably don't understand that either |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 27, 2008 15:55:14 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!!!! A good point here is that you don't know shi*z about Acts either. Read Acts 14. |
|
|
|
Post by whathell on Aug 27, 2008 20:26:17 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 I have a question: According to Catholicism, approximately how many Apostles have every existed? |
|
|
|
Post by whathell on Aug 27, 2008 21:36:14 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 You wrote: [Leaders in the Church are expected to be servants. The Bishops are Shepherds of the flock, and servants of the Church.] I am not saying anything here about the function of a Bishop. There is no scriptural evidence of any type of succession…whether it is Apostles and/or Bishops involved., not in bible scripture. The Holy Spirit speaks through Paul’s writings on this clearly: 1Ti 3:1 (KJV) This is a trueG4103 saying,G3056 If a manG1536 desireG3713 the office of a bishop,G1984 he desirethG1937 a goodG2570 work.G2041 Apostles went around choosing people who desired in there hearts to do the work of a Bishop/Pastor, for the Lord Yeshua/Jesus. Church congregations that were setup already received instructions on how to choose from amongst themselves a person which desired and qualified to be a Bishop/Pastor. |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 27, 2008 22:35:48 GMT -5
There is no scriptural evidence of any type of session …whether it is Apostles and/or Bishops involved., not in bible scripture. What do you mean by session? If you mean succession then lets understand what it means. Succession-1. The act of succeeding, or following after; a following of things in order of time or place, or a series of things so following; sequence; as, a succession of good crops; a succession of disasters. 2. A series of persons or things according to some established rule of precedence; as, a succession of kings, or of bishops; a succession of events in chronology. It is only a word describing the process. In the case of the Church. Jesus called disciples and there were many, of which he appointed 12 to be his Apostles. After Jesus's sacrifice and Judas's death, the Apostles appointed Matthias as an Apostle to replace Judas. The Holy Spirit came upon all of the people that had gathered, 120, and the 3000 others that were baptized that day. Thus began the Church. Many of these 3000 new christians went back to their cities and started to spread the word. We can find this evidence in the Letters of the NT. When Paul arrived in some areas there were believers already there. You must understand that there writings of the NT only give us a partial story of what occurred in the 1st century. We don't hear what happened to all of the Apostles but they just didn't disappear, they were sent out to teach, as Jesus commanded. The Apostles and disciples went to cities and converted people into christians. They trained some of them to be leaders of their churches. These leaders then continued the work of that the apostles gave them. They brought in more christians and when the leaders were either killed or died, new leaders were appointed by those churches. This went on for centuries and centuries. Each church could give a list of their bishops tracing them back to the apostles or the ones that the apostles trained. That is what is meant by Apostolic succession. Go back and look at the definition for succession. I don't know what Church you belong to but you probably have a list of ministers of your Church going back for years. This is your Churches succession. The way this differs from the Catholic Church is that your Church's line probably stops at whomever founded your Church, while the Catholic Churches can trace their back to the Apostles. You said: Church congregations that were setup already received instructions on how to choose from amongst themselves a person which desired and qualified to be a Bishop/Pastor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We know that and been saying that all along. Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 27, 2008 22:43:56 GMT -5
Whathell,
By the way, if you want to look up another place where someone is called an apostle, look at Romans 16:7. I had already given you Barnabus in Acts 14.
Ro 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 0:30:50 GMT -5
I have respectfully already done this and that is what's bothering YOU. You have not given any Scripture that disproves Apostolic Succession. What you have done, however, are fourfold: 1) You "cherry pick" Scriptures that you have twisted to prove your point. 2) You made statements that can not be supported through Scriptures [although you proclaim "Sola Scriptura", another false doctrine that arose in the 16th Century]. 3) Ignore the clear truth that the word "Apostle" does not only applied to "The Twelve", but has a broader meaning. 4) Ignore the actual meaning of "Apostolic Succession", and when we have told you that you have a inaccurate definition of this doctrine, you completely ignore this. Of course, the only way you can refute us is by making a argument that is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I, and others, have alreadly refuted your claims and posted several Scriptures that you have yet to address. 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. I, and others, have given Scriptures to support Apostolic Succession. Just because you do not accept them doesn't mean it isn't there. Making "just-so statements" does not prove anything. History proves we have Apostolic Succession. You will need to prove why History is wrong. You need to prove, through History, that the current Patriarch of Constantinople, All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I, does not have any linage back to Saint Andrew the Apostle. The same with the Bishop of Rome and Antioch [Successors of Saint Peter] and the other Apostolic Sees. Basically, you will need to re-write History. Scripture STILL does not call them 70 Apostles. You are in err!
" After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come" (Luke 10:1) Thereby, you err for not accepting they were Apostles, but not one of the "Twelve". These were the Seventy Apostles [using the word "Apostle" in the broader sense]. Again, Also please read Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 which specifically states "his office"!. For your convenience let me post it: "Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents." (Psalm 69:25)
"Let his days be few; and let another take his office" (Psalm 69:25).
Both were quoted by Saint Peter, and both were applied to Judas Iscariot. 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).
Saint Matthias was "ordained" (Acts 1:22) (doesn't matter that he was chosen by Lot, for he was ordained after). 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]. Second, that Saint 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]. Are we to believe that God did not hear the The Eleven? They pray and God used the The Eleven to choose Matthias. "Casting Lots" does not mean "not from God". God use the Eleven to choose Matthias; Christ have said that he will guide his Church. I believe him. Your argument is basically based upon a false conclusion that just because Saint Matthias was chosen by "casting lots" then it must mean that he was not chosen by Christ. Of course, contrary to your opinion, I firmly believe Jesus Christ when he taught that he will always be with the Church, guiding her to all truth (Matthew 16:18; John 16:13; c.f 1 Timothy 3:15). Your conclusion contradicts several Old Testament passages, which I alreadly given for your convenience. Also, let me say this again as you have completely ignore it. 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)
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 Again you err! Scriptures states he was a "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] not that he was one of the "Twelve Apostles"! Please show where it is said that Paul was one the "12 Apostles". You have yet to provide this Scripture. All you had provided are Scriptures that teaches Saint Paul was a "Apostle" [no arguments here], yet this is said to many others teachers that were not part of the "The Twelve". Others were called apostles, such as Barnabas and Apollo. So its not "The Twelve" but "The Fourteen" correct? Or perhaps "The Fifteen" if one include Saint Paul. Scriptures CLEARLY teaches one can be a "Apostle" and yet not be one of "The Twelve ". Apparently, you have not read certain books in the Holy Bible, but you want to come here and try to "teach" us  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. Well, I choose to believe Scriptures. Scriptures states he will number with the Eleven Apostles, and after that they were called "The Twelve" (Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14). Plus, many others were Apostles, who were not part of "The Twelve". Argue with God not me. So to you, some parts of Scriptures are true while others are false, depending on what YOU decided are truth or false. You "pick and choose" which parts of Scriptures most fit your theology and throw away those which disagree with your theology. I am sorry, this is not a "All you Eat Buffet"! You can choose to pursue other offices but not this one per bible scripture. Yes, one can not be part of the "Twelve", but many can be Apostles [in the general sense]. Like I said, 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. Read Eph 4:11. One can be a Bishop, Deacon, etc; all which are biblical offices. 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). Two things you err: 1) After Matthias, they were called "The Twelve" (Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14). This destroy your argument because this was before Saint Paul came into the scene. 2) Other were called Apostles besides Saint Paul, such as Barnabas (Acts 14: 14), but like Saint Paul, he was not part "The Twelve". I am sorry, you lack biblical studies. Read Acts 14. The term "Apostle" was also used in the NT in an non-Technical, general sense to identify commissioned representatives of a Church, such as a messenger appointed and sent as a missionary or for some other special responsibility: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me" (Saint Paul, Rom 16:7, cf. 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). Still, the word was used to denote other Christians who had a very special authority [other than "The Twelve"] to passed along the "Apostolic Faith", such Saint Paul (Gal 1:1; 2:7-8; 1 Cor 15:9) and Saint Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14). If you do a search of all N.T. scriptures ...you will NOT find mentioned by NAME of more than 12 Apostles. Check above, others besides Saint Paul were called "Apostles". But they were not part of "The Twelve". I have a question: According to Catholicism, approximately how many Apostles have every existed? I am not part of the Roman Catholic Church, but nonetheless, they were "The Twelve Apostles" [they were the "unique" office of "Apostles"], and other "Apostles" that were not part of "The Twelve", like The Seventy [Luke 10], Saint Paul, Saint Barnabas [Acts 14:14], Apollo, Andronicus, Junia, and others. Like I have said many times before [but worth repeating], 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 Holy Apostles of the Apostolic Era. In fact, today there are many "Apostles" today (using the word in the general sense) [cf. Eph 4:11]; the only difference is that there are not part of "The Twelve": Saints 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). They are "The Twelve Foundation" that Revelation 21:4 taught about. Also, using the word "Apostle" in the general sense, [the great and holy myrrh-bearer] Mary Magdalene was the "The Apostle to the Apostles" because Christ told her to share the good news to the The Eleven Apostles (John 20:17). Thus, she was "send forth" as a witness to the Holy Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, according to you, approximately how many Scriptures are false (since you disagree with several; mainly those which states there were other Apostles other than "The Twelve" and those which teaches Apostolic Succession)?
Apostles went around choosing people who desired in there hearts to do the work of a Bishop/Pastor, for the Lord Yeshua/Jesus. Church congregations that were setup already received instructions on how to choose from amongst themselves a person which desired and qualified to be a Bishop/Pastor.
Yes, I know. That is what we have been telling you. These Bishops could trace there linage back to the Holy Apostles, thus Apostolic Succession. What you just wrote is what Apostolic Succession teaches. My God, I think he got it!
Let me give you a example, if I may:
What about the Presidents of the United States? The current President of the United States of America [George W. Bush] (2001-) have Succession back to the first President, George Washington [1789–1797]. He is the forty-third successor of George Washington.
The same is true to the Bishops/Priests in our Church, who have succession to one or more of the Holy Apostles. Each Bishop, starting from the Holy Apostles themselves, ordained other Bishops [by "the laying of hands", c.f Acts 6:6] who in turn ordained other Bishops. That is why Saint Paul told Timothy, his spiritual son, "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). [/color]He needed to be careful who he ordained. He told the same thing to Titus [Titus 1:5-7], who he also ordained. This is Apostolic Succession; a Succession back to the Holy Apostles of the Apostolic Era. For example, the See [Church] of Athens has Succession back to Saint Paul. You need to reserach this. christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1143181&page=2You need to need study History. Whathell, your false teaching has been exposed. But your prejudice agaisnt the Roman Catholic Church has blinded your mind and thus you unable to see what Scriptures teaches. I am not sure what I or others can say any more. We have provided all the facts, but you still choose to reject them. I pray that you see the truth Whathell one day. Blessings, Ramon I like yarddog response: The Apostles and disciples went to cities and converted people into christians. They trained some of them to be leaders of their churches. [These leaders then continued the work of that the apostles gave them. They brought in more christians and when the leaders were either killed or died, new leaders were appointed by those churches. This went on for centuries and centuries. Each church could give a list of their bishops tracing them back to the apostles or the ones that the apostles trained. That is what is meant by Apostolic succession. Go back and look at the definition for succession. I also agree with yarddog that the New Testament only gives us a partial history of the Holy Apostles. Acts of the Apostles fly through history only giving us certain facts. The book mainly covers Saint Peter [first few chapters of the book] and Saint Paul apostolic journeys. Other Apostles [such as Saint Thomas and some of the other "Twelve Apostles"] are not mention; most of what we know comes from Post-Apostolic History. We all know that they were commanded to preach and Baptized; they also appointed Bishops in various locations. The Holy Bible is not a History Book and thus does not cover every detail; some are cover but we only read a small fraction of History. The Bible's purpose is not about telling a long, detailed account of every Historical point; it is about the "Salavtion History" of mankind. Thereby, arguing that Saint Matthias were never mention again in the New Testament does not prove anything. It does not "minimized" him nor does it prove that he was not a "Apostle" because, in reality, he was part of the "Twelve Apostles" according to Scriptures [Acts 1] after Judas, through sin, gave up his office. P.S Now of coarse YOU may have need to support more for RELIGIOUS reasons but it is certainly NOT biblically support in anyway. I need to support it because: A) It is taught in the Holy Scriptures. B) It is a vital doctrine, has I briefly explain in my statements after you quotation: "Scripture STILL does not call them 70 Apostles. You are in err!". C) It was taught by every Christian in the Early Church [1st-8th Century] and for the past 2,000 years those in the East [Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, etc) and West [Church of Rome] have continue to believe this doctrine. D) History have proven that we do have Apostolic Succession. Historians, past [such as Eusebius, in his "Ecclessiastical History"] and present have proven that a succession of Bishops going back to the Holy Apostles does exist in my Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that of the West. To deny this fact will mean that I have allowed prejudice to override my reason of thought, which you have done Whathell. |
|
|
|
Post by whathell on Aug 29, 2008 7:40:43 GMT -5
I have respectfully already done this and that is what's bothering YOU. You have not given any Scripture that disproves Apostolic Succession. What you have done, however, are fourfold: 1) You "cherry pick" Scriptures that you have twisted to prove your point. 2) You made statements that can not be supported through Scriptures [although you proclaim "Sola Scriptura", another false doctrine that arose in the 16th Century]. 3) Ignore the clear truth that the word "Apostle" does not only applied to "The Twelve", but has a broader meaning. 4) Ignore the actual meaning of "Apostolic Succession", and when we have told you that you have a inaccurate definition of this doctrine, you completely ignore this. Of course, the only way you can refute us is by making a argument that is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I, and others, have alreadly refuted your claims and posted several Scriptures that you have yet to address. I, and others, have given Scriptures to support Apostolic Succession. Just because you do not accept them doesn't mean it isn't there. Making "just-so statements" does not prove anything. History proves we have Apostolic Succession. You will need to prove why History is wrong. You need to prove, through History, that the current Patriarch of Constantinople, All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I, does not have any linage back to Saint Andrew the Apostle. The same with the Bishop of Rome and Antioch [Successors of Saint Peter] and the other Apostolic Sees. Basically, you will need to re-write History.Again, 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.
" After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come" (Luke 10:1) Thereby, you err for not accepting they were Apostles, but not one of the "Twelve". These were the Seventy Apostles [using the word "Apostle" in the broader sense]. Again, Also please read Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 which specifically states "his office"!. For your convenience let me post it: "Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents." (Psalm 69:25)
"Let his days be few; and let another take his office" (Psalm 69:25).
Both were quoted by Saint Peter, and both were applied to Judas Iscariot. 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).
Saint Matthias was "ordained" (Acts 1:22) (doesn't matter that he was chosen by Lot, for he was ordained after). 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]. Second, that Saint 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]. Are we to believe that God did not hear the The Eleven? They pray and God used the The Eleven to choose Matthias. "Casting Lots" does not mean "not from God". God use the Eleven to choose Matthias; Christ have said that he will guide his Church. I believe him. Your argument is basically based upon a false conclusion that just because Saint Matthias was chosen by "casting lots" then it must mean that he was not chosen by Christ. Of course, contrary to your opinion, I firmly believe Jesus Christ when he taught that he will always be with the Church, guiding her to all truth (Matthew 16:18; John 16:13; c.f 1 Timothy 3:15). Your conclusion contradicts several Old Testament passages, which I alreadly given for your convenience. Also, let me say this again as you have completely ignore it. 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)
Again you err! Scriptures states he was a "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] not that he was one of the "Twelve Apostles"! Please show where it is said that Paul was one the "12 Apostles". You have yet to provide this Scripture. All you had provided are Scriptures that teaches Saint Paul was a "Apostle" [no arguments here], yet this is said to many others teachers that were not part of the "The Twelve". Others were called apostles, such as Barnabas and Apollo. So its not "The Twelve" but "The Fourteen" correct? Or perhaps "The Fifteen" if one include Saint Paul. Scriptures CLEARLY teaches one can be a "Apostle" and yet not be one of "The Twelve ". Apparently, you have not read certain books in the Holy Bible, but you want to come here and try to "teach" us Well, I choose to believe Scriptures. Scriptures states he will number with the Eleven Apostles, and after that they were called "The Twelve" (Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14). Plus, many others were Apostles, who were not part of "The Twelve". Argue with God not me. So to you, some parts of Scriptures are true while others are false, depending on what YOU decided are truth or false. You "pick and choose" which parts of Scriptures most fit your theology and throw away those which disagree with your theology. I am sorry, this is not a "All you Eat Buffet"! Yes, one can not be part of the "Twelve", but many can be Apostles [in the general sense]. Like I said, 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. Read Eph 4:11. One can be a Bishop, Deacon, etc; all which are biblical offices. Two things you err: 1) After Matthias, they were called "The Twelve" (Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14). This destroy your argument because this was before Saint Paul came into the scene. 2) Other were called Apostles besides Saint Paul, such as Barnabas (Acts 14: 14), but like Saint Paul, he was not part "The Twelve". I am sorry, you lack biblical studies. Read Acts 14. The term "Apostle" was also used in the NT in an non-Technical, general sense to identify commissioned representatives of a Church, such as a messenger appointed and sent as a missionary or for some other special responsibility: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me" (Saint Paul, Rom 16:7, cf. 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). Still, the word was used to denote other Christians who had a very special authority [other than "The Twelve"] to passed along the "Apostolic Faith", such Saint Paul (Gal 1:1; 2:7-8; 1 Cor 15:9) and Saint Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14). Check above, others besides Saint Paul were called "Apostles". But they were not part of "The Twelve". I am not part of the Roman Catholic Church, but nonetheless, they were "The Twelve Apostles" [they were the "unique" office of "Apostles"], and other "Apostles" that were not part of "The Twelve", like The Seventy [Luke 10], Saint Paul, Saint Barnabas [Acts 14:14], Apollo, Andronicus, Junia, and others. Like I have said many times before [but worth repeating], 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 Holy Apostles of the Apostolic Era. In fact, today there are many "Apostles" today (using the word in the general sense) [cf. Eph 4:11]; the only difference is that there are not part of "The Twelve": Saints 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). They are "The Twelve Foundation" that Revelation 21:4 taught about. Also, using the word "Apostle" in the general sense, [the great and holy myrrh-bearer] Mary Magdalene was the "The Apostle to the Apostles" because Christ told her to share the good news to the The Eleven Apostles (John 20:17). Thus, she was "send forth" as a witness to the Holy Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, according to you, approximately how many Scriptures are false (since you disagree with several; mainly those which states there were other Apostles other than "The Twelve" and those which teaches Apostolic Succession)?
Yes, I know. That is what we have been telling you. These Bishops could trace there linage back to the Holy Apostles, thus Apostolic Succession. What you just wrote is what Apostolic Succession teaches. My God, I think he got it!
Let me give you a example, if I may:
What about the Presidents of the United States? The current President of the United States of America [George W. Bush] (2001-) have Succession back to the first President, George Washington [1789–1797]. He is the forty-third successor of George Washington.
The same is true to the Bishops/Priests in our Church, who have succession to one or more of the Holy Apostles. Each Bishop, starting from the Holy Apostles themselves, ordained other Bishops [by "the laying of hands", c.f Acts 6:6] who in turn ordained other Bishops. That is why Saint Paul told Timothy, his spiritual son, "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). [/color]He needed to be careful who he ordained. He told the same thing to Titus [Titus 1:5-7], who he also ordained. This is Apostolic Succession; a Succession back to the Holy Apostles of the Apostolic Era. For example, the See [Church] of Athens has Succession back to Saint Paul. You need to reserach this. christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1143181&page=2You need to need study History. Whathell, your false teaching has been exposed. But your prejudice agaisnt the Roman Catholic Church has blinded your mind and thus you unable to see what Scriptures teaches. I am not sure what I or others can say any more. We have provided all the facts, but you still choose to reject them. I pray that you see the truth Whathell one day. Blessings, Ramon I like yarddog response: I also agree with yarddog that the New Testament only gives us a partial history of the Holy Apostles. Acts of the Apostles fly through history only giving us certain facts. The book mainly covers Saint Peter [first few chapters of the book] and Saint Paul apostolic journeys. Other Apostles [such as Saint Thomas and some of the other "Twelve Apostles"] are not mention; most of what we know comes from Post-Apostolic History. We all know that they were commanded to preach and Baptized; they also appointed Bishops in various locations. The Holy Bible is not a History Book and thus does not cover every detail; some are cover but we only read a small fraction of History. The Bible's purpose is not about telling a long, detailed account of every Historical point; it is about the "Salavtion History" of mankind. Thereby, arguing that Saint Matthias were never mention again in the New Testament does not prove anything. It does not "minimized" him nor does it prove that he was not a "Apostle" because, in reality, he was part of the "Twelve Apostles" according to Scriptures [Acts 1] after Judas, through sin, gave up his office. P.S Now of coarse YOU may have need to support more for RELIGIOUS reasons but it is certainly NOT biblically support in anyway. I need to support it because: A) It is taught in the Holy Scriptures. B) It is a vital doctrine, has I briefly explain in my statements after you quotation: "Scripture STILL does not call them 70 Apostles. You are in err!". C) It was taught by every Christian in the Early Church [1st-8th Century] and for the past 2,000 years those in the East [Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, etc) and West [Church of Rome] have continue to believe this doctrine. D) History have proven that we do have Apostolic Succession. Historians, past [such as Eusebius, in his "Ecclessiastical History"] and present have proven that a succession of Bishops going back to the Holy Apostles does exist in my Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that of the West. To deny this fact will mean that I have allowed prejudice to override my reason of thought, which you have done Whathell.[/quote]
You wrote:
[Yes, one can not be part of the "Twelve", but many can be Apostles [in the general sense].]
No, one can not biblical support being an Apostle by there own choice. Yeshua/Jesus MUST choose you for that position. What I meant when I stated "You can choose to pursue other offices but not this one per bible scripture" is offices non-apostolic which also list the critria for being select by the congregation.
You wrote:
[Basically, you will need to re-write History.]
Unlike you ...I do NOT regard mans history as an equal to God's Word (the bible).
If you can not PROVE that scripture teaches one must be a successor to be in the office of a Bishop/Pastor according NOT to mans history (which can be VERY corrupt) but God's Word then you have no basis for the doctrine. All you have without the Word of God supporting it is a history of err!
You can not say it is of God's Word based on what men recorded or desire to be truth.
Now, what is your KEY "scriptural support" for this teaching IN THE BIBLE (God's Word)?
Again, I know this bothers you because this means God is in support of any Bisphop/Pastor of any Christian church which simply chooses them per scripture. They do not need to be successively connect to any of the so-called Popes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 13:24:35 GMT -5
Oh, it looks like once I get situated in my new home, I'm going to have to open up a can of woop-donkey in here! ;D Have fun children...  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 13:35:16 GMT -5
I have respectfully already done this and that is what's bothering YOU. You have not given any Scripture that disproves Apostolic Succession. What you have done, however, are fourfold: 1) You "cherry pick" Scriptures that you have twisted to prove your point. 2) You made statements that can not be supported through Scriptures [although you proclaim "Sola Scriptura", another false doctrine that arose in the 16th Century]. 3) Ignore the clear truth that the word "Apostle" does not only applied to "The Twelve", but has a broader meaning. 4) Ignore the actual meaning of "Apostolic Succession", and when we have told you that you have a inaccurate definition of this doctrine, you completely ignore this. Of course, the only way you can refute us is by making a argument that is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I, and others, have alreadly refuted your claims and posted several Scriptures that you have yet to address. I, and others, have given Scriptures to support Apostolic Succession. Just because you do not accept them doesn't mean it isn't there. Dang Ramon! Leave some for me for when I get back!  |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 29, 2008 13:56:56 GMT -5
Ramon wrote: [ Yes, one can not be part of the "Twelve", but many can be Apostles [in the general sense].] What hell wrote: No, one can not biblical support being an Apostle by there own choice. Yeshua/Jesus MUST choose you for that position. What I meant when I stated "You can choose to pursue other offices but not this one per bible scripture" is offices non-apostolic which also list the critria for being select by the congregation. I have given you biblical evidence of apostles, which there is no biblical evidence that Jesus appointed them. Now how did these men become apostles? Acts 14:14 KJV Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, We know about Paul, but how about Barnabus? Do you deny biblical proof? Romans 16:7 KJV Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. How about Andronicus and Junia? Expalin these before you go on with your man made theories. Ramon wrote: [ Basically, you will need to re-write History.] Whathell wrote: Unlike you ...I do NOT regard mans history as an equal to God's Word (the bible). Why do you regard the man's history, which you or your church created, over the that of men that walked and learned directly from the Apostles or those great early christians which the Bible names? What does your church have that the early christians didn't? The answer to that is nothing. Whathell wrote: If you can not PROVE that scripture teaches one must be a successor to be in the office of a Bishop/Pastor according NOT to mans history (which can be VERY corrupt) but God's Word then you have no basis for the doctrine. All you have without the Word of God supporting it is a history of err! Did you read what the word successor means?  Anyone who follows someone into office is a successor. George Bush is a successor of Bill Clinton, who was a successor of George Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc... Do you understand what successor means? There is no "must" to it, it is just the fact of the matter. As for the err, you have yet to show the least bit of proof that there is error in this matter. NOT ONE SINGLE BIT. Whathell wrote: Again, I know this bothers you because this means God is in support of any Bisphop/Pastor of any Christian church which simply chooses them per scripture. They do not need to be successively connect to any of the so-called Popes. You cannot prove scripturally that your statement is correct. So this, by your own definition is manmade error. If you understood the teaching of the Catholic Church you would not make that statement. The Catholic Church is not against non-catholic Christian Churches. The Church recognizes the work of the Holy Spirit in many Protestant Churches. These is a movement for ecumenism within the Church to try and disspell many of the false ideas that people like you have about the Catholic Church. Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 17:07:42 GMT -5
No, one can not biblical support being an Apostle by there own choice. Yeshua/Jesus MUST choose you for that position. What I meant when I stated "You can choose to pursue other offices but not this one per bible scripture" is offices non-apostolic which also list the critria for being select by the congregation. Again, I choose to believe Scriptures. You have not given any Scripture to support your claims. "After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come [...] Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. " (Luke 10:1;3)
Thereby, you err for not accepting they were Apostles, but not one of the "Twelve". These were the Seventy Apostles [using the word "Apostle" in the broader sense]. Again, Also please read Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 which specifically states "his office"!.
For your convenience let me post it:
"Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents." (Psalm 69:25)
"Let his days be few; and let another take his office" (Psalm 69:25).
Both were quoted by Saint Peter, and both were applied to Judas Iscariot.
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.
"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen, to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place [....]And they gave forth their lots [Note: 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 the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:24;26)
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).[/color] 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 [Matthew 16:18; John 17:6; c.f 1 Timothy 3:15]. 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]. God used the Holy Apostles to choose Saint Matthias to succeed in Judas' office. Have you come to your senses that Scriptures identified others as being "Apostles" other than "The Twelve", such as Saint Paul, Saint Barnabas, Andronicus and Junia, Silvanus and Timothy [1 Thes 1:1; 2:6-7]? Or does your theories out weight what the Bible teaches?
Have you come to your senses that the word "Apostle" has a broader meaning, and does not always mean "The Twelve", but it includes others as well [this is how it was used in Scriptures: It was sometimes use in a unique sense (as with the case with "The Twelve" and Saint Paul/Barnabas: Gal 1:1; 2:7-8; 1 Cor 15:9, and Acts 14:14. They were authoritative figures within the Early Church] other times in a more general sense (Rom 16:7, cf. 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25) ? Or its' the Holy Bible in err?According to you, these Scriptures must be false because it does not fit with your requirements. Again, according to you, approximately how many Scriptures are false (since you disagree with several; mainly those which states there were other Apostles other than "The Twelve" , those which teaches Apostolic Succession and those which states Saint Matthias was number with the "Eleven Apostles" and they were "The Twelve" after that)?
[/b][/size] The only one who can not seem to accept Scriptures is you.Scriptures states Saint Matthias number with the Eleven Apostles, and after that they were called "The Twelve" (Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14) [Saint Matthias was "ordained" (Acts 1:22) (doesn't matter that he was chosen by Lot, for he was ordained after) ]. Plus, many others were Apostles, who were not part of "The Twelve". Argue with God not me. So to you, some parts of Scriptures are true while others are false, depending on what YOU decided are truth or false. You "pick and choose" which parts of Scriptures most fit your theology and throw away those which disagree with your theology. I am sorry, this is not a "All you Eat Buffet"!
The only one who have a problem with what Scriptures states is you. It doesn't fit with your requirements of what being "ordained" a Apostle means. You seem to think that being a "Apostle" means "The Twelve". But, in reality, an Apostle can also be simply a messenger and ambassador (Greek "apostello": "to send forth", "to dispatch"). See Ephesians 4:11. All you have proven is that, in reality, you do not believe the Bible is "God's Word" [using your own words] because some parts are false; words of false teachers. Unlike you ...I do NOT regard mans history as an equal to God's Word (the bible). I accept History. I went to School, study History, Science. I am not saying they are "Inspired" but are they untrue? No. Are you saying that all the history proven by Historians/Archaeological discoveries are all false? What we was taught in School are false? Did George Washington existed? Did War World I and II really happen? Did the Maya civilization [and the other ancient civilization] really existed? If you answer "no" to these questions, do you have proof? Of course you have to reject or be ignorant of History because it does not agree with "your" theology. You and your Church have a History, it started back in the 16th Century with no connection to the Holy Apostles. Our Church go back to the original Holy Apostles, through a unbroken line of Succession. We believe and proclaim what have been taught by God's Church for the past 2,000 years. Just like History have told us the many things that happened thousands and thousands of years ago, history have proven that we do in fact have Apostolic Succession. If you can not PROVE that scripture teaches one must be a successor to be in the office of a Bishop/Pastor according NOT to mans history (which can be VERY corrupt) but God's Word then you have no basis for the doctrine. All you have without the Word of God supporting it is a history of err! Did you read what the word "successor" means? Any who succeeds in a office is a successor. Let me repeat again, What about the Presidents of the United States? The current President of the United States of America [George W. Bush] (2001-) have Succession back to the first President, George Washington [1789–1797]. He is the forty-third successor of George Washington. The same is true to the Bishops/Priests in our Church, who have succession to one or more of the Holy Apostles. Each Bishop, starting from the Holy Apostles themselves, ordained other Bishops [by "the laying of hands", c.f Acts 6:6] who in turn ordained other Bishops. That is why Saint Paul told Timothy, his spiritual son, "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). . Did you notice that he was given a gift?. He needed to be careful who he ordained. He told the same thing to Titus [Titus 1:5-7], who he also ordained. This is Apostolic Succession; a Succession back to the Holy Apostles of the Apostolic Era. For example, the See [Church] of Athens has Succession back to Saint Paul. You need to reserach this.
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)
This is all we saying, but you reject Scriptures to fit your own theology. It is what it is Whathell. Deal with it!
Now, what is your KEY "scriptural support" for this teaching IN THE BIBLE (God's Word)?
I and other have given all the Key Scriptures. You have yet to address the issues at hand. Just because you do not accept the Scriptures we have given doesn't mean it is not there.
And besides, the Holy Bible calls others Apostles, besides "The Twelve", like Saint Paul, [and that Saint Matthais was part of "The Twelve"] but you still reject this so why command others to use Scriptures to prove there point when you do not even believe several things taught in the Holy Bible, Sacred Scriptures?
Again, I know this bothers you because this means God is in support of any Bisphop/Pastor of any Christian church which simply chooses them per scripture. They do not need to be successively connect to any of the so-called Popes. [/quote] Of course this your "Theology". There is no Scriptures to support your theory, which is why you did not give one in your above statement. What you doing is giving us your theories, which are only truth in your mind. Finally, you have yet to address everything I have said. You only "cherry pick" some of my statements which you can answer, while leaving the rest unanswered. You have not answer all my questions. What you have done, however, are Sixfold: 1) You "cherry pick" Scriptures that you have twisted to prove your point. 2) You made statements that can not be supported through Scriptures [although you proclaim "Sola Scriptura", another false doctrine that arose in the 16th Century]. 3) Ignore the clear truth that the word "Apostle" does not only applied to "The Twelve", but has a broader meaning.
4) Ignore the actual meaning of "Apostolic Succession", and when we have told you that you have a inaccurate definition of this doctrine, you completely ignore this. Of course, the only way you can refute us is by making a argument that is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. 5) You have not given any Scriptures that states Saint Paul was one of "The Twelve". All you had provided are Scriptures that teaches Saint Paul was a "Apostle" [no arguments here], yet this is said to many others teachers that were not part of the "The Twelve". Apparently, you believe because he was "chosen" by Christ personally, he became part of "The Twelve". Another man-made theory.
Contrary to your man-made belief, Saint Paul was called the "Apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8, 1 Timothy 2:7). He was never called "One of the Twelve" nor did he label himself as one. You can not understand this simple fact. Saying he was "One of the Twelve" is not biblical. Shame on you for believe that!6) You have not provided any Scriptures to support your man-made theory of one requirement a "Apostle" must passed before we can say he was truly a "Apostle". You really deny biblical proof. That is what separate you from us. While you reject certain Scriptures because it does not fit with your man made theories, we adhere to all what Scriptures states. You have a problem with some of the things the Bible teaches, not us. Blessings, Ramon P.S. I will suggest you pray Whathell because you have a huge issue with what the Holy Bible teaches. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 17:45:30 GMT -5
Dang Ramon! Leave some for me for when I get back! ;D Sorry, I just get carry away. Don't try to shut me up when I start discussing biblical themes  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 29, 2008 18:39:55 GMT -5
Hey Ramon,
One of Whathell's problems is that he can't seem to comprehend what Apostolic succession means. He is asking us to prove his definition instead of the true meaning.
Then he only accepts, from us, what is specifically spelled out in the Bible.
Maybe we should ask him if he believes that Paul or Peter died? If he says yes, then we ask him to prove it, biblically.
God Bless brother,
Yarddog
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 19:06:51 GMT -5
Hey Ramon, One of Whathell's problems is that he can't seem to comprehend what Apostolic succession means. He is asking us to prove his definition instead of the true meaning. Then he only accepts, from us, what is specifically spelled out in the Bible. Maybe we should ask him if he believes that Paul or Peter died? If he says yes, then we ask him to prove it, biblically. God Bless brother, Yarddog Which brings to question: Is "The Holy Bible" specifically spelled out in The Holy Bible? Can The Holy Bible be proven biblically? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 19:14:49 GMT -5
Well catholicism was invented by satan, how do I know?? HELLKNOWZ Hey helldoesn'tknowzshi*z, Do you understand that you may have committed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Considering that you don't know much about the bible, you probably don't understand that either Do you know why he's so mad at me? Because in the middle of one of his Anti-Catholic rants, I asked him a Christ related question that he couldn't answer. I think I asked him how many Beatitudes are there or what were Jesus' last 7 words or what was Jesus' final wish or what is The 11th Commandment...one of those throw them off questions. I challenged him to answer it without Googling the answer or referring to The Bible. All I got were insults and accusations that I wanted to win an argument at any cost. And...he never could answer a Christ related question (although I'm sure he could tell you how many times The Holy Bible "insinuates" that The Virgin Mary had sexual relations with Saint Joseph "after" Jesus was born). Just like the overwhelming majority of Anti-Catholics, they know everything about being Anti-Catholic, but extremely little about Jesus or His message. They are so easy to disrupt. Just make sure you have a shield ready for the insults they will hurl at you for stumping them on a Christ centered question. Me? I readily admit that I don't know every detail of Christ's life and teachings, but I know them a whole lot more than I know why I should be working to discredit other Christian religions. It's amazing how asking someone about Jesus could illicit such verbal abuse. That shows me that the source is "not" of Christ.  I just keep "exhaulting" them on their "exhault/smite" status. Keep blessing them. That's what we're supposed to do. Want to here something odd? On these Anti-Catholic websites, they spend more time telling people to stay away from Catholicism, but little if any time on telling people "why" they should come "to" Christ. They can tell you every sin of every Pope or Catholic, but can't tell you anything about The Church Fathers or about when The Holy Bible was Canonized or who God chose to canonize The Holy Bible (The Catholic Church). Imagine if they focused all that Anti-Catholicism on serving Christ what great Evangelists they'd make? But as I like to say..."God keeps score." |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 19:27:14 GMT -5
Hey Ramon, One of Whathell's problems is that he can't seem to comprehend what Apostolic succession means. He is asking us to prove his definition instead of the true meaning. Yes, this is one of the problems. I, you, and others have told him what we meant when we say "Apostolic Succession", but he have continue to ignore this fact. He want us to prove something that we do not even believe. Then he only accepts, from us, what is specifically spelled out in the Bible. Maybe we should ask him if he believes that Paul or Peter died? If he says yes, then we ask him to prove it, biblically. This another problem. Whathell has problems with several Scriptures. It doesn't fit with his theology so he simply label them as "Man's opinions". It is strange because Whathell originally said: 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). However, he reject Scriptures which states there were other Apostles other than "The Twelve" , those which teaches Apostolic Succession and those which states Saint Matthias was number with the "Eleven Apostles" and they were called "The Twelve" after that.
According to his theory, in order for a Apostle to be a legitimate "Apostle" he must be chosen by Christ personally. The only problem with this is that his theory is not specifically spelled out in the Bible. The Bible calls others Apostles, such Saint Paul, that was not part of "The Twelve".
He project teachings NOT in the "Word of God" and he follow man made teachings (inventions).
I choose to believe Scriptures instead of following what Whathell say. He has a huge problem with what the Holy Bible said. He thinks the Bible is a "All you Eat Buffet".
God Bless brother, Yarddog
God Bless you too Brother,
Ramon
Also, Which brings to question: Is "The Holy Bible" specifically spelled out in The Holy Bible? Can The Holy Bible be proven biblically?
I stated this in my second post in this this thread, when Whathell used a Scripture to somehow prove the man-made invention of "Sola-Scriputura" ("Bible Alone"). This is a great question to start of with any discussion in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 20:20:10 GMT -5
He got owned here, so he went elsewhere with it and nobody wants to hear it there either (maybe except for his mutal admiration society).
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 20:30:01 GMT -5
LOL, he is out with a force. Whathell remind of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They both are out with a force [they sometimes knock on my door and I always see them roaming my block; sometimes lurking behind the trees] ;D I feel sad for these Anti-Catholics. Whathell can't convince us that Scriptures are false, so he ran to another site. Anti-Catholics [and Anti-Orthodox] are more concern in spreading there venom. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 20:45:59 GMT -5
Know what's funny? WH said that Matthias wasn't chosen to succeed Judas,
but to fulfill the prophecy and nothing more...but let's see what The Bible actually says;
This calls for a detailed scripture study. First, the argument: Let us define "succeed" shall we?
suc·ceed 1. to happen or terminate according to desire; turn out successfully; have the desired result: Our efforts succeeded. 2. to thrive, prosper, grow, or the like: Grass will not succeed in this dry soil. 3. to accomplish what is attempted or intended: We succeeded in our efforts to start the car. 4. to attain success in some popularly recognized form, as wealth or standing: The class voted him the one most likely to succeed. 5. to follow or replace another by descent, election, appointment, etc. (often fol. by to). 6. to come next after something else in an order or series.
–verb (used with object) 7. to come after and take the place of, as in an office or estate.8. to come next after in an order or series, or in the course of events; follow. Well what do you know?
Don't those definitions of the word "succeed" highlighted in red accurately portray what The Apostles did when they chose Matthias? Acts 1 15 And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty), There's that Prime Apostle Peter as usual taking charge of the situation and telling the rest of The Apostles what was what. 16 Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry. 18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take. Here, Peter clearly states that the next one chosen is to take the place of whom? Of one of The 12 Apostles. Literally to "succeed" Judas as we can see in the reference for the synonyms of the word "succeed": Synonym Collection v1.1
Main Entry: replace
Part of Speech: verb
Synonyms: alter, change, depose, deputize, displace, oust, refund, regenerate, reimburse, relieve, renew, repay, replenish, reset, restitute, restock, restore, substitute, succeed, supersede, supplant  21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen, Proof that Apostolic Succession is inspired divinely by God (something only Catholic Christians still believe today as The Apostles did in The Word of God). 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place. "to take the place", in other words to "replace?"re·place
–verb (used with object), -placed, -plac·ing.
1. to assume the former role, position, or function of; substitute for (a person or thing): Electricity has replaced gas in lighting.
2. to provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of: to replace a broken dish.
3. to restore; return; make good: to replace a sum of money borrowed.
4. to restore to a former or the proper place: to replace the vase on the table.
—Synonyms 1. succeed. Replace, supersede, supplant refer to putting one thing or person in place of another. To replace is to take the place of, to succeed: Ms. Jones will replace Mr. Smith as president. Supersede implies that that which is replacing another is an improvement: The typewriter has superseded the pen. Supplant implies that that which takes the other's place has ousted the former holder and usurped the position or function, esp. by art or fraud: to supplant a former favorite. 3. refund, repay. 26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Matthias was "numbered" with The 11 Apostles making him the 12th as he replaced Judas.
And why is this important?
If only the original 12 Apostles were important,
why was the 12th needed to be replaced or succeeded?
Because there had to be a continuity of The Office of The 12.
Hence, "Apostolic Succession".
Thank you!
Thank you!
No, please, you are all far too kind!
Thank you!![]() www.tobez.org/presentations/dbix-perlish-yapc-eu-2007/perlish/bowing.gif [/img] [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWQ967VY3I0&feature=related [/yt]
|
|
Anyone who follows someone into office is a successor. George Bush is a successor of Bill Clinton, who was a successor of George Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc... Do you understand what successor means? There is no "must" to it, it is just the fact of the matter.
;D
