• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for Christians

esmith

Veteran Member
You can not hand Apostleship from one person to another.
Only GOD appoints an Apostle - one sent from God.

I assume you are referring to Apostolic Succession which is the Catholic belief and a few other Christians sects. This dogma was started by the early orthodox Christians. From what I understand the belief is that this Apostolic Succession started with Peter. The Apostle Paul, in fact, rebuked Peter when Peter was leading others astray Galatians 2:11-14. Apostolic Succession is not biblical. I will give you one reference, you can take it or leave it (I assume you will disagree with it though)
Is apostolic succession Biblical?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

Was Timothy an Apostle? No, he was a Bishop. Early church history in conjunction with scripture shows he was:

Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6)

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine… (1 Timothy 1:3 ESV)

If this is correct that Timothy was a Bishop, and that Paul charged him to keep his doctrine and pass it on to other holy men who could do the same, does this not make Timothy, a bishop, Paul's successor?
I don't believe it does. Apostles could ordain other apostles. They could also ordain bishops, who were over individual congregations.

Speaking specifically of 1 Timothy 1:3, I believe Paul was charing Timothy to keep the doctrines he (i.e. Paul) taught pure and to charge others to do the same. Maybe it's a matter of how we're interpreting the word "charge." To me it means to "command" or "direct." Timothy was certainly expected to command or direct anyone he came in contact with to not take license with the doctrines of the Church. That certainly wouldn't mean that he had been given the authority to ordain others to the office of bishop.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Actually, that is not the straightforward meaning. Mainly because there is no straightforward meaning for that. ;)
It certainly is to me. "I'm going to build my Church" means exactly that. But if you see it in another way, that's fine with me.
 

Beta

Well-Known Member
If you're an Apostle, you certainly can. If they did not have the authority to confer the apostleship upon future Apostles, how would the line continue? The Apostles did hand the Apostleship to other people, but they were guided by revelation as to the individual God wanted them to select.
Well yes , I can agree but we don't really know of any other Apostles in the NT do we ?
There is still talk of the original ones but what I see happening is that their message and teaching has become so perverted to have actually resulted in a different religion than Jesus set out to establish in HIS Church.
Christianity is basically ANTI-SABBATH and ANTI-COMMANDMENTS which were/are the foundation of God , eternal.
It was the custom of Jesus and Paul to attend Synagogue/Church on the sabbath. In Lk.6v46 Jesus says : why call you me Lod Lord and do not the things I say ? He is talking to christians since no one else calls him Lord.
When the foundation is faulty everything else is wrong and will not endure.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
It certainly is to me. "I'm going to build my Church" means exactly that. But if you see it in another way, that's fine with me.

That is the problem with a majority of the Christian faith: if they can not give a concise answer and just deflect it with a non-meaningful statement. If you can not tell me what faith the NT Jesus was teaching please say that you do not know or not sure. One question, do you believe that the Jesus of the NT was Jewish?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It certainly is to me. "I'm going to build my Church" means exactly that. But if you see it in another way, that's fine with me.

What does he mean by "my church"?

It means that he will make a new building. That is the literal and direct meaning of that sentence.
He is NOT saying he will create a church with a new religion.
 

Beta

Well-Known Member
You keep referring to this "Church" and as of yet you have not said what faith this "Church" represents. I said that since Jesus of your NT was Jewish he must have been teaching the tenants of the Jewish faith as he saw them. As far as I know there were no other religious faiths, except for pagans, in the region under discussion. Was there another faith that Jesus was teaching?
You seem to be concentrating on 'nationality' and 'jewishness'.
Neither of these play a major part in the establishing of God's Kingdom which is the present role of Jesus. ALL nationalities will be accepted in his Kgd.Acts10v35.
Jesus had a lot to say about jewish misguidance and was hardly likely to continue their wrong ways in a new Church so much so he was killed for all the changes he proposed.
As already stated the reason for Jesus (as Jew) and his jewish Apostles was that they observed and kept God's eternal Sabbath-Command which was never meant to be abolished as christians claim and carried out resulting in false christianity.
 

AllanV

Active Member
It is all to do with faith,

I wish I could agree. Unfortunately, I look at the world's two billion Christians and must admit that a great many of them have every bit as much faith as I do. If faith were all that was required in order to "get it right," we would not have Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentacostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. We'd have "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism," not 30,000 varieties of Christianity.

The Bible definition of faith
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith, or is that belief and talking out, is required to make a transformation from something that is familiar to something that is unfamiliar and can't be comprehended from the present viewpoint.

Too much of their own selves is in their belief and this makes an impure mind.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
How does a person come to a pure mind and heart.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Psa 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Belief must be built to break the inner man. The natural man cannot be broken to the proper depth. The natural man will not allow this. The belief must be increased and the old personal belief from own perspective must be broken. The hardeness in the heart must be got passed.
 

Beta

Well-Known Member
It is all to do with faith,



The Bible definition of faith
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith, or is that belief and talking out, is required to make a transformation from something that is familiar to something that is unfamiliar and can't be comprehended from the present viewpoint.

Too much of their own selves is in their belief and this makes an impure mind.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
How does a person come to a pure mind and heart.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Psa 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Belief must be built to break the inner man. The natural man cannot be broken to the proper depth. The natural man will not allow this. The belief must be increased and the old personal belief from own perspective must be broken. The hardeness in the heart must be got passed.
Yes I would certainly agree that a true Christian has to believe all that. But what do you say about the 10 Commandments and God's Holy days ? There is never any mention of these.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Good thread.

My husband and I attend a United Methodist Church. However, that's just our local congregation - the circle of friends and acquaintances and church leadership locally which we feel most comfortable worshipping with.

If asked, neither of us would identify our faith as "Methodist." We would say we are "Christians."

Many, many sects of Christianity, including Roman Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Church of England, Methodist, Presbyterians, Reformed (and who knows how many others) believe in the basic tenets of the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Now - I am not saying that those churches and individuals who have some differences with those tenets are NOT Christian - that's really between them and God - I'm just saying that those churches which do stand on those tenets in my opinion are in accord (on those basics) with the teachings of Christianity as outlined in the New Testament.

In the end, we do the best we can. When we stand before our Maker, we won't be standing with our church -we will stand alone. God is just and holy, and I trust Him to be able to discern and judge our hearts and motives. I do not think that He is legalistic.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
You seem to be concentrating on 'nationality' and 'jewishness'.
Neither of these play a major part in the establishing of God's Kingdom which is the present role of Jesus. ALL nationalities will be accepted in his Kgd.Acts10v35.
Jesus had a lot to say about jewish misguidance and was hardly likely to continue their wrong ways in a new Church so much so he was killed for all the changes he proposed.
As already stated the reason for Jesus (as Jew) and his jewish Apostles was that they observed and kept God's eternal Sabbath-Command which was never meant to be abolished as christians claim and carried out resulting in false christianity.

What is this "nationality" thing you keep referring to? There was no nation of Israel in that time period. That part of the Ancient Near East around Jerusalem (Judah) was a territory of Rome governed by a Roman governor. Would you please explain your statement:
"Jesus and his Jewish Apostles was that they observed and kept Gods' eternal Sabbath-Command which was never meant to be abolished as Christians claim and carried out resulting in false Christianity"
Also, what, in your opinion, is the true Christianity?
Oh, and by the way from what I understand Jesus was executed as a criminal for bringing disorder to Jerusalem which could have cause riots during Passover.
 

Blackheart

Active Member
To follow any church is a mistake because our churches are man made and therefore subject to imperfection. This is the very reason why each denomination will claim that they are the true path yet they are all different. Each individual is responsible for adhering to the teachings of the messengers with Christ being the most high of these. To blindly subscribe to any church is to ignore the messengers of God and follow the imperfection of man. Big mistake in my opinion. I believe that the church of God is within you and that salvation is about your relationship within that church.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
You seem to be concentrating on 'nationality' and 'jewishness'.
Neither of these play a major part in the establishing of God's Kingdom which is the present role of Jesus. ALL nationalities will be accepted in his Kgd.Acts10v35.
Jesus had a lot to say about jewish misguidance and was hardly likely to continue their wrong ways in a new Church so much so he was killed for all the changes he proposed.
As already stated the reason for Jesus (as Jew) and his jewish Apostles was that they observed and kept God's eternal Sabbath-Command which was never meant to be abolished as christians claim and carried out resulting in false christianity.

Read:

[Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV)

17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ]

It is clear he never intended on building a new religion. His church would surely use the already existing law.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
To follow any church is a mistake because our churches are man made and therefore subject to imperfection. This is the very reason why each denomination will claim that they are the true path yet they are all different. Each individual is responsible for adhering to the teachings of the messengers with Christ being the most high of these. To blindly subscribe to any church is to ignore the messengers of God and follow the imperfection of man. Big mistake in my opinion. I believe that the church of God is within you and that salvation is about your relationship within that church.

Then why do you insist that your Christ is the most important? If I do not believe in your Jesus Christ but do believe in God do I not have a good standing with God.
 

Blackheart

Active Member
Then why do you insist that your Christ is the most important? If I do not believe in your Jesus Christ but do believe in God do I not have a good standing with God.

I believe that you do. The reason why I say that Christ is the highest is because I believe that he is involved in all of Gods religions/belief systems in some shape or form. I believe that he is consistently present in the story of this planet. Thats my personal belief.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Originally Posted by Beta
You seem to be concentrating on 'nationality' and 'jewishness'.
Neither of these play a major part in the establishing of God's Kingdom which is the present role of Jesus. ALL nationalities will be accepted in his Kgd.Acts10v35.
Jesus had a lot to say about jewish misguidance and was hardly likely to continue their wrong ways in a new Church so much so he was killed for all the changes he proposed.
As already stated the reason for Jesus (as Jew) and his jewish Apostles was that they observed and kept God's eternal Sabbath-Command which was never meant to be abolished as christians claim and carried out resulting in false christianity.



Read:[Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV)
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ]

It is clear he never intended on building a new religion. His church would surely use the already existing law.

Koldo; I totally agree with your reply to Beta, even though I do not believe that Jesus is who the NT says he is. If one would believe in the Jewish Jesus then I would have to say the Ebionites were the original believers in the message that Jesus was supposedly teaching. Ebionites were born Jewish or converted to Judaism they kept the Jewish customs and strictly followed the Jewish Law. They said Jesus was born human from a sexual union of Joseph and Mary. Believed God adopted Jesus at his baptism and was the most righteous person on earth. As God's adopted son, Jesus had a specific task: to fulfill the Jewsih expectations of a messiah by dying for the sins of the world. But this was a Jewish God and a Jewish son. You had to be Jewish to be right with God.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Top