Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mannyfit75 said:
Act 1:16-25.

"My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: 'May another take his office.’ Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

In order to replace the 12 Apostle, Peter and the Apostle selected Matthias to replace Judas. He took over his office. I could go on and provide you more Scriptural proof text that the Apostle lay hands to their successors. But this is just one of the verse.
Click to expand...
The Apostles do not have successors. This is a one time exception and they decided by casting lots and God chose. Paul was not chosen by anyone except God and he was an apostle. He had hands laid on him by a common disciple, not an apostle. Apostolic succession is a myth that takes a great deal of faith. Especially since the offices of bishop and deacon were not seperated early on.
Oh yeah, cast any lots lately…I did not think so.
 
HailMary said:
Nobody is denying that. Do you think that the bible, as you see it today, was together in that form or are you aware that it took almost 1000 years for the OT canon to be determined and about 400 years for the NT canon?

I am aware that God did not need a formal council of Catholics to get his canon of the OT.
I’m sure you have heard of:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
The Apostles do not have successors. This is a one time exception and they decided by casting lots and God chose. Paul was not chosen by anyone except God and he was an apostle. He had hands laid on him by a common disciple, not an apostle. Apostolic succession is a myth that takes a great deal of faith. Especially since the offices of bishop and deacon were not seperated early on.
Oh yeah, cast any lots lately…I did not think so.
Click to expand...
They did have successors. If they didn’t they would not have appointed Matthias to succeed Judas. It would make no sense for Peter and the Apostles to appoint a successor. Paul himself laid hands on Timothy. History proves that Apostles handed their authority down to their successors. If they didn’t how would the Church preach the Gospel once all twelve Apostles died. They had elders, priests, deacons, who spread the Gospel orally.

We see this in Clement’s Letter, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Ireneaus (disciple of Polycarp), Justin Marytr, etc.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Obviously seem devious scribes attempted to subtract from Gods word
Click to expand...
Devious scribes translated the King James version of the Bible? It appears that you not only believe yourself to be the sole arbiter of what’s picture says but also of what translation should be used, I assume from your comments you reject the King James version of the Bible as beng false?
 
Rightlydivide said:
I am aware that God did not need a formal council of Catholics to get his canon of the OT.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit guided the Church which books of the Bible were Canonical to include 46 OT text and 27 NT canons. Since this is isn’t about Biblical Canon. I would not discuss that.
Funny Peter did not need a council from Africa to call Paul’s writings scripture…did he?
Click to expand...
He did its called the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts, which the Apostles and the elders had to decide whether or not Gentiles needed circumcision before converting. This council was a model for future Church Councils.

Paul’s writings were consider canonical as early as the 200 AD.
By the early 200’s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation[6], see also Antilegomena. Likewise the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[7] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.[8]
Click to expand...
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[9] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[10]** The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 AD**.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
 
Mannyfit75 said:
They did have successors. If they didn’t they would not have appointed Matthias to succeed Judas. It would make no sense for Peter and the Apostles to appoint a successor. Paul himself laid hands on Timothy. History proves that Apostles handed their authority down to their successors. If they didn’t how would the Church preach the Gospel once all twelve Apostles died. They had elders, priests, deacons, who spread the Gospel orally.

We see this in Clement’s Letter, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Ireneaus (disciple of Polycarp), Justin Marytr, etc.
Click to expand...
Clements letter says that each church gets to chose their own based upon a vote. Ignatius is a forgery. Polycarp never metions a Pope. Papias never mentions a Pope. Justyn Martyr never metnions a Pope.
They did not have successors because the office of Apostle, according to scripture has to have certain signs. History proves that some people strayed from their biblical teachings and that it got progressively worse. Since you asked.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Fair enough, I thought someone brought it up.
He did its called the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts, which the Apostles and the elders had to decide whether or not Gentiles needed circumcision before converting. This council was a model for future Church Councils.
Click to expand...
I still think that common minded Bible believers can do this as long as they do not go beyond God’s word.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
Devious scribes translated the King James version of the Bible? It appears that you not only believe yourself to be the sole arbiter of what’s picture says but also of what translation should be used, I assume from your comments you reject the King James version of the Bible as beng false?
Click to expand...
I wonder, what Bible translation does he think is the correct one?
 
Rightlydivide said:
The Apostles do not have successors. This is a one time exception and they decided by casting lots and God chose. Paul was not chosen by anyone except God and he was an apostle. He had hands laid on him by a common disciple, not an apostle. Apostolic succession is a myth that takes a great deal of faith. Especially since the offices of bishop and deacon were not seperated early on.
Oh yeah, cast any lots lately…I did not think so.
Click to expand...
History proves Apostolic succession. The Early Church Fathers writings proves Apostolic Succession. Christ said he will guide His Church. And thats what He did for the past 2000 years. The Bible proves that there were offices in the Early Church (Bishops, Deacons, Priests, etc; 1 Tim 3 etc).

Believing in God also takes a great deal of faith.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Fair enough, I thought someone brought it up.
Click to expand...
So we won’t discuss this then in this forum. Since this thread does focuses more on the historical Christian, and that she is Apostolic.
I still think that common minded Bible believers can do this as long as they do not go beyond God’s word.
Click to expand...
Bible Believers is more than just believing in a Holy Book, my friend. It is living the faith, and believing what Jesus said and passed down through his Apostles.

I believed that Jesus Christ established One Church. He build it upon Peter (Our first Pope) (Matthew 16:18-20) and then to the rest of the Apostle. They in turn handed their authority to their successors, the bishop and priests of today. The Church Jesus Christ established is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
So we won’t discuss this then in this forum. Since this thread does focuses more on the historical Christian, and that she is Apostolic.

Bible Believers is more than just believing in a Holy Book, my friend. It is living the faith, and believing what Jesus said and passed down through his Apostles.

I believed that Jesus Christ established One Church. He build it upon Peter (Our first Pope) (Matthew 16:18-20) and then to the rest of the Apostle. They in turn handed their authority to their successors, the bishop and priests of today. The Church Jesus Christ established is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
You hit it right on the nail my friend!👍 😃
 
Mannyfit75 said:
I wonder, what Bible translation does he think is the correct one?
Click to expand...
Not any modern ones and not any early ones. It most certainly is not found in any early translation prior to Avilas in the 4th century. It did find its way to some translations of the Vulgate but was later removed.
 
DarkMark said:
So that means God just dropped the Bible from the Heavens one Sunday Morning? There were many books around, the Church had to establish which ones was truth and which was false.
Click to expand...
you are quoting, not me, but Rightlydivide.

:eek:
 
DarkMark said:
History proves Apostolic succession. The Early Church Fathers writings proves Apostolic Succession. Christ said he will guide His Church. And thats what He did for the past 2000 years. The Bible proves that there were offices in the Early Church (Bishops, Deacons, Priests, etc; 1 Tim 3 etc).

Believing in God also takes a great deal of faith.
Click to expand...
Priests is not an office. That is a mistranslation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top