Jesus Christ

Is this something we agree on?



I would clarify to say that it is the splinters that cannot stand, and not them and the True Church that cannot stand.

 

Actually by using the bible, the process of making an informed choice is fairly easy. When one knows what is true then you do not need to know every combination of what is false. Just the knowledge that we are not to learn war anymore and are not to take up the sword, eliminates the vast majority of religions leaving only a handful to be sorted out by continued use of the Bible's principles.

 

I guess my question would be; how do you prove apostolic succession?

 

Actually the Bible does say that we should not forsake the gathering of ourselves together and so we would have to go to “church” but realizing that a “church” is just a gathering of people.

 

Yes from before the creation of the universe right up to 325 C.E. when Constantine, professed to be converted to Christianity and acting as Pontifex Maximus, that is, Chief Religious Ruler, summoned the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E., although he had not as yet been baptized as a Christian, and formed what would be called the Catholic Church.

 

Or at least a whole lot easier!

 

Whoa! hold on a second, I know Peter was out spoken but as for speaking as the head of the other 11 Apostles, I don’t think so. I like to see the scriptural proof of that one.

 

The ancient mumblings of an eccentric preacher who was possibly suffering from schizophrenia.

Has anyone here seen "The life of Brian"?

 

Although Peter was given the keys, he was by no means the “Rock”, that was Jesus and Jesus alone.

Yes, Peter was out spoken and did from time to time speak on behalf of the Apostles but that’s a long way from being a “chief bishop” and at 1 Peter 5:1 Peter says that he is talking to the older men as a older man himself and is not calling attention to himself as some “chief bishop”.

 

That there is but one true "Church"?

Yes, we can agree on that.

But which one it is, I’m pretty sure we don’t agree on that.

 

Hi Rudenoodle, how have you been?

Okay, I hope.

Haven't heard from you in a while.

 

I've been busy the past few weeks.:cheers2:

 

I am busy most of today, So I'll get to all of these posts later, but for now

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

This quotation from the Spistle to the Corinthians from St Clement shows that 1) apostolic succession was a doctrine of the early Church, and that Catholic doctrines go back farther than AD 325. This doesn't prove it goes back to Christ, but the Bible does that.

 

Well it's nice to have you back. It is nice to have a little spice in some of these discussions.

This discussion's a little bland, maybe a good dose of Rudenoodle will spice it up?

 

Oh, if you are just talking about how far back Catholic doctrines go, I can help you out there, they go all the way back to Babylon.

 

He is not simply talking, he is "exhorting" the other bishops. He is the teacher of bishops!

In Matt 16:18, to what is Jesus refering?

John 21:15-17, cheif bishop. Jesus commands Peter to tend his [Jesus'] sheep. Even bishops are sheep of the sheppard, so Peter has authority over the other bishops.

 

Mark 11:21 Peter speaks on behalf of the Eleven

Remember, Peter doesn't exclude the other Eleven (he is ther first amongst equals), but he received special authorities from Christ.

 

With the Bible.

Eph. 2:20 The Church in Ephesus is built upon the foundation of the apostles, with christ being the cornerstone.

2 Tim. 2:2, Paul tells Timothy to entrust the Gospel into others for the purpose of teaching (the bishops, through apostolic succession. Paul entrusted Timothy, Timothy will entrust someone else).

2 Tim. 4:1-6 This is Paul warning Timothy that there will be those who perverse the teaching (as you claim I follow), anbd that the proper teachers (form the apostles, in this case Paul) will pick other teachers who will pick other teachers...

Acts 14:23 Elders in the church must be appointed by the apostles, who in turn can ordain new elders, and more and more and more.

Acts 9:17-19 Paul needs to have his hands laid on him, even though he received a calling directly from Christ.

 

another putdown. thanks for stopping by.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#Criticism

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.htm

Basically Hislop made stuff up.

For example, he argues that round communion wafers are symbols of sun worship, but fails to mention that manna directly from Heaven is round (Exodus 16:14).