Let's see some Scriptural authority for APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

[robycop3]

OK, we went thru a whole thread, & still have no Scriptural authority for the office of pope, proving it's a man-made hoax. So, let's move on to the next RCC fraud, apostolic succession.

Can you RCs provide any Scriptural authority for apostolic succession ?

 

[Adonia]

A lot of the same arguments still apply. The fact that the Apostles had the power to "bind and loose" things here on earth is irrefutable. The Apostles were passing this power on to their successors - it's called the act of "the laying on of hands" or "ordination" if you prefer, to the succeeding leaders (Bishop's) of the newly emerging Christian Church. The historical record is clear - this actually happened and the great majority of faithful Christians the alive in those early centuries believed it. Your rejection of all of this despite the evidence remains, the question then becomes why?

 

[HankD]

OK, we went thru a whole thread, & still have no Scriptural authority for the office of pope, proving it's a man-made hoax. So, let's move on to the next RCC fraud, apostolic succession.

Can you RCs provide any Scriptural authority for apostolic succession ?

Well I'm a former Catholic.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

 

[robycop3]

A lot of the same arguments still apply. The fact that the Apostles had the power to "bind and loose" things here on earth is irrefutable. The Apostles were passing this power on to their successors - it's called the act of "the laying on of hands" or "ordination" if you prefer, to the succeeding leaders (Bishop's) of the newly emerging Christian Church. The historical record is clear - this actually happened and the great majority of faithful Christians the alive in those early centuries believed it. Your rejection of all of this despite the evidence remains, the question then becomes why?

There's not one example of any apostle making another apostle to succeed any of the 12. A pastor or pastor emeritus can ordain a new pastor, of course, but neither of them were or are apostles.

There were only 14 apostles ever, if Iscariot is counted as one, with the last one to be made being Paul, & the last one to die being John.

Most of the laying on of hands was for healing, or to ask the Holy Spirit to come upon he who was having an apostle's hands laid on him, except where we see Paul & Barnabas being consecrated for special work.

Apostolic succession is just another of the "traditions of men" that Jesus spoke against in Mark 7:8.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...

There were only 14 apostles ever, if Iscariot is counted as one, with the last one to be made being Paul, & the last one to die being John....

Not to derail, but just an insight on a few texts, what do you think of the following texts?

Act_14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Gal_1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

 

[robycop3]

Not to derail, but just an insight on a few texts, what do you think of the following texts?

Act_14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Gal_1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

For THAT matter, Silas, Andronicus & Junias, Timothy, and Apollos are called apostles by some. Whether they were or not is entirely GOD'S choice,

However many apostles there were in God's sight, when the last one died, there were no more apostles. There was no "apostolic succession".

 

[Alofa Atu]

For THAT matter, ... Andronicus & Junias ... are called apostles by some. ...

Those were not Apostles, notice what the scripture says:

Rom_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.

Andronicus and Junia (a woman), were "of note" "among the apostles", meaning the Apostles recognized them in their efforts, even as the rest of the passage takes note of others likewise, in salutation, greeting, and their deeds. Persons abuse this text to try to push for women's ordination into the bishoprick, or office of bishop.

The text does not say that Andronicus and Junia were "noted Apostles".

 

[Yeshua1]

Those were not Apostles, notice what the scripture says:

Rom_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.

Andronicus and Junia (a woman), were "of note" "among the apostles", meaning the Apostles recognized them in their efforts, even as the rest of the passage takes note of others likewise, in salutation, greeting, and their deeds. Persons abuse this text to try to push for women's ordination into the bishoprick, or office of bishop.

The text does not say that Andronicus and Junia were "noted Apostles".

True, as there was no Bishopes/Elders/Pastor ever appointed by Apostles in the local churches that were female!
They should know what the Lord Jesus meant by male leadership/headship!

 

[OfLivingWaters]

A lot of the same arguments still apply. The fact that the Apostles had the power to "bind and loose" things here on earth is irrefutable. The Apostles were passing this power on to their successors - it's called the act of "the laying on of hands" or "ordination" if you prefer, to the succeeding leaders (Bishop's) of the newly emerging Christian Church. The historical record is clear - this actually happened and the great majority of faithful Christians the alive in those early centuries believed it. Your rejection of all of this despite the evidence remains, the question then becomes why?

A certain Bishop in my area has had sexual allegations put against him . They are allegations right now. But this same bishop back in the day was know by local police for keeping some very queer company according to a much much older gentlemen I knew who was a retired detective. Things back then he said were overlooked and swept under the rug. He would be seen in a certain park with young men (teenagers). My point is, when the bishops fail then what? Are regular guys again going to be chosen by Christ or is it going to remain an appointing of certain men in a certain fraternity?

 

[robycop3]

True, as there was no Bishopes/Elders/Pastor ever appointed by Apostles in the local churches that were female!
They should know what the Lord Jesus meant by male leadership/headship!

The KJV says "Junia" while newer versions generally say "Junias", a male name. The KJV is not too reliable in the "name' dept.

That being said, we don't see anyone but Jesus appointing any apostles.

 

[robycop3]

A certain Bishop in my area has had sexual allegations put against him . They are allegations right now. But this same bishop back in the day was know by local police for keeping some very queer company according to a much much older gentlemen I knew who was a retired detective. Things back then he said were overlooked and swept under the rug. He would be seen in a certain park with young men (teenagers). My point is, when the bishops fail then what? Are regular guys again going to be chosen by Christ or is it going to remain an appointing of certain men in a certain fraternity?

The RCC has a long history of sexual misconduct among its clergy, mainly because of their goofy insistence of celebacy for them. Never mind that the first man they recognize as pope was married.

But bishops are appointed by other men, same as cardinals & popes. And none are apostles.

 

[Alofa Atu]

The KJ(B) says "Junia"

That's because the GNT TR says, "ιουνιανG2458 N-ASF"

while newer versions generally say "Junias", a male name.

That's because they're per-Versions (a Version "per" this person, and a Version "per" that persons, to each their own "Version"). And because they are so, and teach so, we have a bunch of per-Version today in swapping genders. Amazing ain't it.

 

[robycop3]

That's because the GNT TR says, "ιουνιανG2458 N-ASF"

That's because they're per-Versions (a Version "per" this person, and a Version "per" that persons, to each their own "Version"). And because they are so, and teach so, we have a bunch of per-Version today in swapping genders. Amazing ain't it.

It's "KJV", not "KJB". It's not "the" Bible; it's just another old, outdated version of it. It has its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

The only perversion here is the false KJVO myth. It's entirely man-made, & a lie. And you can't show us any more SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it than the RCs can for apostolic succession.

But this is the wrong forum for discussing the KJVO myth. I'll be happy to tear it apart for you in the "Bible versions" forum.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

A lot of the same arguments still apply. The fact that the Apostles had the power to "bind and loose" things here on earth is irrefutable. The Apostles were passing this power on to their successors - it's called the act of "the laying on of hands" or "ordination" if you prefer, to the succeeding leaders (Bishop's) of the newly emerging Christian Church. The historical record is clear - this actually happened and the great majority of faithful Christians the alive in those early centuries believed it. Your rejection of all of this despite the evidence remains, the question then becomes why?

PULITZER CENTER.
Bishops Behaving Badly
December 18, 2012 | GlobalPost, National Catholic Reporter
By
Jason Berry
google this.
(Oh!, but the statement in the article...the RCC is the OLDEST CHURCH in Christendom, is false, it is not because it is a gentile church a branch that was grafted into the Original Tree- the Jews.)
Now, since it is a FACT that the institution of Christ's time- the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees....... which stood as the standard was, NOT from which Christ drew from to establish His heads .It therefore, is not an exclusive right of hierarchy- Apostolic Succession. Christ drew from among common men. The scholar Judas, was shown to be too preoccupied with the politics of everything and thinking what he knew, was better than Christ's plan.he lost his crown, THIS SPEAK VOLUMES FOR TODAY"S FOLLOWERS especially for those who thump SEMINARY. An institution which teaches men's precepts at times OVER God's

And as for Matthias he was not part of the Apostolic Succession because Judas lost his crown he became an apostle and received Judas' crown.

All who obey the order follow in succession through time as in obedient to the Order, uphold the heads appointed by Christ.It is not a designation for only Bishops and/or the pope . If, who is considered to be a "lay" person is obedient to the order of the Apostles and the Bishops are not, who do you think Christ is going to give the Key of David to?

Point: we are not to follow any wayward Pope or Bishop. And Stewardship is not the exclusive right of a fraternity that is NOT obedient to Christ.

That is all the ,meaning of the Title Bishop means for the idiots in the room who do not know it simply means the OVERSEER -PRESBYTER of a congregation in a municipality . Of which Christ is Head over and the apostles teachings are the Order handed down and preserved by those who TRULY love Christ. That order has many parts concerning functions of the Body of Christ. And women do have a role in that. But a Bishop -presbyter is a man. And we are given what his duty is in scripture and it is not to be changed.

Concerning the Pharisees (Then and for today) Christ said to the disciples " do as they say and not as they do", that resonates today. But He added " Unless your deeds outdo the Pharisees , you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven." For what the Pharisees do is not what they say".

We are to do both -say what Christ says and LIVE =do according to His teaching. The Pharisees taught -OBEY GOD but they themselves did not . That is just as it is today. But the only difference is, we should not even do what they say. Because they STOPPED saying OBEY GOD, but rather follow me. With all this "Love" thing going on - All religions lead to God, "I choose love" garbage of Jorge and embracing all religions . This is upheld by MOST of the Cardinals and Bishops. I DID NOT SAY ALL, but if the ones who do not , are not speaking loud enough against the false doctrine being promoted by Jorge then they are NOT doing their jobs. I would also argue that if they did ( speak out LOUDLY) and do their jobs by being obedient to the Apostolic teaching and continued the succession in that OBEDIENCE, they would be ex-communicated by the "Pope"papa over his heretic doctrine.

So in conclusion, if the "laity" is obedient, they are given the crown, not the Bishop. For it is in OBEDIENCE that one teaches in Christ. It is simply commonsense. That is why we are to outdo the Pharisees. This is the preservation of the faith. If it is simply to hierarchy the gates of hell would prevail.
Jeremiah 31:32-34
Mourning Turned to Joy
…32It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant they broke, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33“But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 34No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.”…

Do you notice the order (from the least to the greatest). This therefore, is throughout time. And will remain as such because when men think higher than they ought to of themselves, they are full of Pride. It is the the least, the, little ones that all truth is always preserved. This is how God keeps order.
Romans 12:2-4
Living Sacrifices
…2Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. 3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you. 4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and not all members have the same function,…

 

[OfLivingWaters]

The Bishop -Presbyter according to scripture:

1 Timothy 3:2,4,5
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; …
Full context:
1 Timothy
Qualifications for Overseers
3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

The Bishop must be married , but to one wife. WHY IS THAT? This allows him to properly judge the affairs of men. And he is to protect his wife even laying down his life as Christ did the Church. Also, if he can rule his household then he can rule those of the House of God. Bishops who are married and have children of their own, will then be more compassionate toward victims of sex abuse and HARSH toward perps. who would dare pretend to be as sheep,when they are wolves. When these practices laid down by scripture are bi-passed we have chaos! Celibacy is a personal choice, and more so has to do with the crisis which has and will occur again. But for sure the qualification to be a Bishop, is laid out in scripture.

This is a commandment, unlike what Paul said which is a suggestion concerning the Crisis he was witness to through persecution. It is not a command , but a suggestion which frees one from having to deal with distractions in serving God. But this person , is not under the rules for the Bishop -Presbyter concerning being married.

This type of person is free to come and go as he please and preach the gospel everywhere, without the fear of his or her family being persecuted because they have no family-husband , children.
But the qualifications for the OVERSEER, he must be married but once. But if his wife dies he is not to be married again. It is clear:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,

 

[Alofa Atu]

"KJB"

Still stuck on it I see. Eastre(lamb) is just fine. It's a carryover from Tyndale, etc. It's referring to the Jews typical feasts of that week, beginning from the 10th (gathering), then holding for 3 1/2 days, until the 14th (also a day of unleaven), and the next was the 15th, and 16th (beginning the count until Pentecost), until the 21st. It is defined in many other places by another English word, as following Isa. 28:10.

This has been gone into in some detail in the past, I am sure with you. If you are stuck on it, well, some will always find that nail to hang their doubt to deny God's perfectly preserved word (Ps. 12:6-7) somewhere, that they may have their own 'version' in their heads (imaginary), though existing nowhere in physical reality.

 

[robycop3]

Still stuck on it I see. Eastre(lamb) is just fine. It's a carryover from Tyndale, etc. It's referring to the Jews typical feasts of that week, beginning from the 10th (gathering), then holding for 3 1/2 days, until the 14th (also a day of unleaven), and the next was the 15th, and 16th (beginning the count until Pentecost), until the 21st. It is defined in many other places by another English word, as following Isa. 28:10.

This has been gone into in some detail in the past, I am sure with you. If you are stuck on it, well, some will always find that nail to hang their doubt to deny God's perfectly preserved word (Ps. 12:6-7) somewhere, that they may have their own 'version' in their heads (imaginary), though existing nowhere in physical reality.

This is the wrong forum to discuss the KJVO myth, but I'll remind you of three things: First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts", second, Ps. 12:6-7 is about PEOPLE, especially V7, & last, you have NOT provided any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever for your KJVO myth. Just head over to the "Bible versions" forum, or start another thread on the KJVO myth here, & I'll be glad to destroy that myth further for you.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

We still see NO Scriptural evidence for "apostolic succession". Appears the RCs here have given up this fight as well, as they couldn't provide any Scriptural authority for a pope.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

This is the wrong forum to discuss the KJVO myth, but I'll remind you of three things: First, EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts", second, Ps. 12:6-7 is about PEOPLE, especially V7, & last, you have NOT provided any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever for your KJVO myth. Just head over to the "Bible versions" forum, or start another thread on the KJVO myth here, & I'll be glad to destroy that myth further for you.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

We still see NO Scriptural evidence for "apostolic succession". Appears the RCs here have given up this fight as well, as they couldn't provide any Scriptural authority for a pope.

NOOOO, most correctly is, you do not understand the meaning of words- Titles in respect to LANGUAGES. Again there is scriptural support for people (Men) being set up as spiritual teachers RABBIS-fathers, pope simply means that- papa=father.

But the RCC's pope does not have exclusive claim over that position. For I argue that, if one is devoted to Christ he becomes a spiritual father to those who have a lesser knowledge. I would further argue, that ones that are less knowledgeable persons, who become more knowledgeable in those matters of the faith, they in turn become spiritual fathers to those less knowledgeable,so forth and son on. God is equalizing the playing field in this. And the position of a spiritual teacher-Rabbi, priest- father-papa is not exclusive to a group of men in a fraternity, but is a RIGHT in Christ for all men who love Him. LOVE of TRUTH gets one promoted to the role of a papa to less knowledge men. But the end result is simply more papas not one papa who keeps all under his foot.

From the least to the great, a checks and balances. This, in order for the Church (Body of Christ) to not be prevailed over.
1 Corinthians 4:14-16
Paul Warns his Children
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children. 15Even if you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have (many fathers); for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16Therefore I urge you to imitate me.…
And in turn so forth and so on, through obedience to that gospel which Paul proclaims ,each in his own turn through that obedience, becomes a father to others. Paul upholds the concept of a Spiritual father to those who are less knowledgeable. Hence, 16Therefore I urge you to imitate me.…

 

[OfLivingWaters]

As for you Roby Rotten:

You seem to have set yourself up as some authoritative spiritual teacher-papa. But your doctrine maligns the way of truth and does not follow suit in imitating Paul. And I can assure you Paul and all the apostles are of ONE MIND in Christ. What one says they all say for each builds up and holds up the other. Therefore, Paul is of one mind with John in his respect to mother Mary as all papas-fathers-Rabbis- pastors(paters)- teachers are to be.

 

[robycop3]

As for you Roby Rotten:

You seem to have set yourself up as some authoritative spiritual teacher-papa. But your doctrine maligns the way of truth and does not follow suit in imitating Paul. And I can assure you Paul and all the apostles are of ONE MIND in Christ. What one says they all say for each builds up and holds up the other. Therefore, Paul is of one mind with John in his respect to mother Mary as all papas-fathers-Rabbis- pastors(paters)- teachers are to be.

You should take your garbage to the forum & thread where it belongs. This thread is about whether or not there's any Scriptural authority for apostolic succession. Your mariolatry isn't welcome here.