No authority!

[marks]

Here is a challenge for you: Name one "office" that is NOT successive.

This is your argument?

For starters, the NT was NOT written in English - but Koine Greek. The Greek word used here is Episkopay (Bishopric).
The word in Psalm 109:8 is פקדתו (pek-ood-daw'), which means: "oversight, charge, office, overseer, class of officers"

Matthias was chosen to rake the office - the BISHOPRIC of Judas. This is not a mere "replacemet" - but a succession.

Greek, eh? Good to know.

Read just a little further down in Acts 1 . . .

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

This was not the first of some ongoing succession, this was to replace the 12th witness to Jesus' ministry and resurrection, and that ended with those men. The next generation didn't see Jesus alive, then dead, then risen to life again.

As always, context.

Much love!

 

[Illuminator]

I'm not the only one, of course!

But He has come to me, and brought me to Him.

Much love!

The authority to teach was and still is, transferred with the laying on of hands by a bishop. Scripture is quite explicit on this matter, I've already flooded you with Scripture upon Scripture, I'm not going to repeat myself. You are defending a paradigm trying to justify the abolishment of the office of bishop with word games.

If it were not for the episcopate preserving and proclaiming the canon of the Bible by Catholic bishops in the late 3rd century, we would have no Bible. If it were not for the bishops in the early 3rd century, we would all be Arians. But you have nothing to do with THAT Church, just denials of early church history, forcing you to make up your own.

 

[amigo de christo]

1. Romans 10:14
   How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2. Romans 10:15
   And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Then preach JESUS and not rome . You are not preaching CHRIST . TIME to return to bibles and let us learn that JESUS
and then learn what them true apostels would also write .

 

[amigo de christo]

Jn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that
should be written. Amen.

2 John 1:12
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

Wont argue with that . But the problem is when men bring so called teachings , use that line , and yet their new teachings
CONTRADICT what is written . that makes them false .

 

[marks]

You are defending a paradigm trying to justify the abolishment of the office of bishop with word games.

Untrue.

Elders have always been a part of the church. Bishop of course is ecclesiastical language in use at the time of the English translation, and was used in the Bible, however, as previously noted, the actual word is episkopos, and would be more properly translated "overseer". Epi, over, and skopos, to look, see. I suppose "bishop" was used to connect the teaching in the Bible to a role people were used to seeing in their church.

The authority to teach was and still is, transferred with the laying on of hands by a bishop.

Jesus gives teachers to the church. But I have to apologize, I was thinking you meant a greater authority than appointing teachers.

Much love!

 

[amigo de christo]

evidence???? No documentation ever!

Illuminators beloved pope francis , denies JESUS . HE denies the one true gospel .
HOW so you might ask , WHEN he kisses korans , budda statues , blows incense to indian pipes
and says we all serving the same GOD . Yeah , NO they aint . IF THEY WERE they would
be outta those religoins and serving and proclaiming JESUS as the only means of salvation .
ANY LOVE that can allow other religoins to feel saved in their religion , YEA , it aint no LOVE that comes from GOD .
ITS a hoax . HEED that pope , NOT I . NOT ME .

 

[Illuminator]

This was not the first of some ongoing succession, this was to replace the 12th witness to Jesus' ministry and resurrection, and that ended with those men. The next generation didn't see Jesus alive, then dead, then risen to life again.

The Bible doesn't give 'seeing Jesus' as a criteria for ordination. The next generation after the Apostles, and the next after that, and so on, had bishops. You don't like what they wrote, so you dismiss or ignore it.

The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.
What is the biblical support for apostolic succession?

 

[marks]

The Bible doesn't give 'seeing Jesus' as a criteria for ordination.

You refered to the selection of Matthias as an example of Apostolic succession.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

From the NLT:

21 “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus— 22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.”

Again, not Apostolic succession, instead, a witness of Jesus' resurrection.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The next generation after the Apostles, and the next after that, and so on, had bishops

Actually, Bishop was something much later.

They had elders and overseers.

You don't like what they wrote, so you dismiss or ignore it.

Why must I constantly receive accusations of intellectual dishonesty?

You think I care whether the Trust is this or that? You think I don't simply desire Truth?

Hardly a day goes by that I don't have to see that nonsense.

Isn't it enough to discuss the Bible without these judgments and pronouncements, which really is nothing more that one feeling free and bold to share their negative opinion of someone in front of others.

Can't we put that away?

The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.

I believe that point of view is based on the writings collected by the CC?

At the end of the day, if a million people from across the ages tell me something that isn't in the Bible, I'm not going to believe it. Appeals to authority outside the Bible will only carry weight with me if they say the same thing as the Bible says.

This part in Acts 1 is a great example. You've cited it as an example of Apostolic succession and it's not, plain and simple.

I going through the list of passages linked to show Apostolic succession, but I found the same thing. The verses themselves didn't make the statements claimed.

To me this isn't so complicated. They chose Matthias to be a witness to Jesus' resurrection. More is not stated. This reason is. I'm going with that.

Much love!

 

[Illuminator]

To me this isn't so complicated. They chose Matthias to be a witness to Jesus' resurrection. More is not stated. This reason is. I'm going with that.
Much love!

Fine. You go with that. Matthias was chosen to fill the empty chair (throne) previously held by Judas. I'll go with that.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Judas didn't follow Him, his throne was vacant, it did not vanish when he killed himself, or Jesus is making a false prophecy. Your assertions are absurd.

 

[Illuminator]

I believe that point of view is based on the writings collected by the CC?

It's not a point of view, but a historical fact. The unanimous consent of the Early Church Fathers doesn't fit your preconceptions, so you downplay their importance, or ignore them all together. That's dishonest.

 

[theefaith]

Wont argue with that . But the problem is when men bring so called teachings , use that line , and yet their new teachings
CONTRADICT what is written . that makes them false .

Name one?

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you're not going to explain why the Catholic church does not meet the way Paul says the church is to meet? You have to because you are claiming the Catholic church is the one, true, approved and correct church. Why don't they do what the Apostle Paul said to do? And you need not deflect by pointing out the failures of the anti-Catholic churches. I know all about their failures and I'm not defending them. This discussion is about your claim that the Catholic church is the one and only approved and accurate church of God.

Ummmm, first of all - can you show me where Paul say that the ONLY way the Church ahould meet is in the way described in 1 Cor. 14:26-23??

If you actually READ the verses that precede this, you will see that Paul is again scolding the Corinthians for their lack of order. This is an admonishment to the CORINTHIANS - to get their act together and NOT a mandate as to how a Mass should be celebrated in the Church everywhere.

Again, YOUR problem is that you cherry-pick Scripture verses out of context and build your bizarre little doctrines around them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The church is not invisible. It's not visible in the form of a one, true, authorized assembly of believers. The Catholic church is corrupt. The Protestant churches are corrupted. You can't find the true church of God the way you are saying the Catholic church is the one true church. It doesn't exist that way anymore. And it won't until we put an end to the business model of doing church and remove the wealth and power incentive built into our religious organizations that attract blind, spiritless leaders who lead churches into cold, dead, empty religious liturgy and the creation of complicated and overblown teachings of men and away from God.

That's beautiful.
A Protestant telling me that Protestantism is corrupt.

As for the Church NOT existing as ONE visible entity just because YOU say it has ceased to exist - who gave YOU the authority to usurp the words of Christ? He told Peter that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), which is:
- a "City on a hill that cannot be hidden"
- ONE body - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23) - and not tens of thousands

As for the "wealth and power" that "disgusts" you -it is the REASON why the Catholic church is the largest single charitable organization on the planet.
- Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than ANY organization in the world.
- Charities run by the Church include 5,305 hospitals including 1694 in the Americas and 1,150 in Africa.
- The Church also has 18,179 clinics including 5,762 in the Americas and 5,312 in Africa 3,884 in Asia.
- It also manages 17,223 homes for old people, the terminally ill and the handicapped – most of them (8,021) in Europe and the Americas (5,650).
- It also runs 9,882 orphanages – a third of them in Asia.

YOU may have a "problem" with that - but I assureyou that God doesn't . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is your argument?

Uhhhh, No.

Didn't you READ my post?? I laid out a Scriptural argument. I ended it with this challenge.
Thank you for illustrating that you couldn't find me an example, though . . .

Greek, eh? Good to know.

Read just a little further down in Acts 1 . . .

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

This was not the first of some ongoing succession, this was to replace the 12th witness to Jesus' ministry and resurrection, and that ended with those men. The next generation didn't see Jesus alive, then dead, then risen to life again.

As always, context.

Much love!

Oy . . .

Perhaps, a secular, historical example might help you to understand what an "office" is - and WHY it is important to START with an original adherent.
When the United States was formed - do YOU think that George Washington was a good choice - or should they have picked somebody who lived in a cave in the mountains who wasn't there in the fight for Independence?

Were ALL of the succeeding Presidents there with Washington fighting the British?
Does that diminish their office, responsibiolities or authority??

Get it now??
They HAD to start with an original follower like Matthias - and NOT some guy who just recently heard about Christ.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Ummmm, first of all - can you show me where Paul say that the ONLY way the Church ahould meet is in the way described in 1 Cor. 14:26-23??

Don't evade the point. The Catholics don't do 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 at all! I would think a church that insists it's the one and only true, approved church of God, that alone has the truth would do what the apostle Paul instructed the church to do. Don't distract from this particular thing the church is commanded to do by bringing up other things that they do. And don't bother reminding me the Protestants don't do it either. I know that all too well, lol. Let's focus on your boast that the Catholics, as the one and only approved and true church have obedience to the apostles teachings nailed. If they did you'd think they'd be doing what the apostle Paul told the church to do. Instead they do exactly what the apostle Paul rails against (cold, dead, carnal liturgy)!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

That's beautiful.
A Protestant telling me that Protestantism is corrupt.

Hey, I'm honest. At least it shows you I'm not servicing some kind of agenda here except the truth itself.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

As for the "wealth and power" that "disgusts" you -it is the REASON why the Catholic church is the largest single charitable organization on the planet.

It is the reason the Catholic church, particularly, is the most corrupt and rich church on the planet, lol.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

As for the Church NOT existing as ONE visible entity just because YOU say it has ceased to exist - who gave YOU the authority to usurp the words of Christ? He told Peter that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), which is:
- a "City on a hill that cannot be hidden"
- ONE body - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23) - and not tens of thousands

Where is this organization that represents all of the pure truths of the first church? Don't say the Catholic church. We've been showing you how wrong and corrupt it is. There is no organization at this time that truly represents and lives out all the truths given us in the pages of the Bible. There are some that are closer than others. But none are true to all the truths of the Bible. We true believers are dispersed among all these organizations that all claim to be the one true church. The sum total of us true believers are the church, not the organizations that say they are the true church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against that church.

 

[theefaith]

Hey, I'm honest. At least it shows you I'm not servicing some kind of agenda here except the truth itself.

what does this verse indicate to you?
Jn 1:29