esmith
Veteran Member
and where do you read that?Clearly, if Jesus Christ said He was going to build His Church, it was a new one and not Judaism, but I think you already know that.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
and where do you read that?Clearly, if Jesus Christ said He was going to build His Church, it was a new one and not Judaism, but I think you already know that.
I agree. But I think the problem runs a lot deeper than even that.
there is reading, and then there is studying
no too many do the latter.
Matthew 16:18. "And upon this rock I will build my church..." Unless you think He was speaking of physically erecting a new synagogue, I think it's pretty clear that He said He was going to establish a new church, and that it was going to be His.and where do you read that?
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.It is all to do with faith.
How can a church claim to have apostolic succession if it is not led by apostles? Apostles are not the same thing as bishops or priests or anything else. Apostles are apostles. Period.I don't hold to objective truth claims, so don't take this as anything more then my opinion, but I think those who are closest to Christ in modern Christianity are Eastern Orthodox. I'm not sure Gnostic could be called Christian, however, Gnostics did have apostolic succession and they did claim to follow Christ. Apostolic Succession is one thing all the early sects agreed was important.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has that and they maintain a lot of the deeper more mystical teachings Gnostics also had. To me, this makes EO as far as Christianity goes, closest to Christ.
How can a church claim to have apostolic succession if it is not led by apostles? Apostles are not the same thing as bishops or priests or anything else. Apostles are apostles. Period.
Matthew 16:18. "And upon this rock I will build my church..." Unless you think He was speaking of physically erecting a new synagogue, I think it's pretty clear that He said He was going to establish a new church, and that it was going to be His.
A Church is spiritual or at least it should be - not based on national political or any other human devised idea.And may I ask what church was that? I thought that everyone has agreed that the Jesus that Christians call Christ was Jewish? Therefore I assume you are saying that the Jewish religion is the only true religion.
You can not hand Apostleship from one person to another.Does the NT ever really suggest the successor of an Apostle has to be an apostle?
You can not hand Apostleship from one person to another.
Only GOD appoints an Apostle.
To me, it couldn't be more obvious. I see it this way: The successor of the President of the United States is another President of the United States. It's not just a senator who fills the role of the President and claims to have the authority of the President. An Apostle was a person who had a specific calling and role. He was ordained to that role and given the authority to fill it. It came with certain rights and responsibilities. When one Apostle died, the others had the authority to choose a successor and to ordain that person to the calling. The Bible frequently referred to the Apostles as "the twelve." They were a group with a clearly defined function in the ancient Church, and Paul said that they were part of the organizational structure Jesus set apart as the foundation upon which His Church was to be built and that without this organization, Christ's followers would be without the leadership they needed to keep from being "as children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." I don't know how much plainer it could possibly be, but that's just me.Does the NT ever really suggest the successor of an Apostle has to be an apostle?
Whatever. I'll go with the straightforward meaning. He said He was going to build His Church, not a branch of some existing Church, but to each his own.Not sure what he was talking about and unless you know for sure you are just speculating. Maybe he wanted to start a branch of the Essenes there.
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.You can not hand Apostleship from one person to another.
Only GOD appoints an Apostle - one sent from God.
Where does it say that bishops have the authority to ordain other bishops? I'm not aware that it says that, but if you can point me to a specific citation, I'd be glad to know.The NT does say the Apostles ordained Bishops who have the authority to ordain other Bishops. Would that not make Bishops the successors of the Apostles? Now mind you, I'm not saying that the church can't become corrupt under Bishops, to me it did when political interests won out over Christian diversity when Orthodoxy was established by the Empire.
A Church is spiritual or at least it should be - not based on national political or any other human devised idea.
God takes HIS people from ALL nations Acts 10v35 so that squashes your assumption.
The only reason the Church started out with and fom jewish members was not because of their nationality but because the Jews were the only nation to keep and maintain GOD's SANCTIFIED and HOLY SABBATH.
The whole World has/is missing that vital point.
Where does it say that bishops have the authority to ordain other bishops? I'm not aware that it says that, but if you can point me to a specific citation, I'd be glad to know.
From scripture we see that JESUS called and ordained the original NT Apostles - and all authority was given him of God.The NT does say the Apostles ordained Bishops who have the authority to ordain other Bishops. Would that not make Bishops the successors of the Apostles? Now mind you, I'm not saying that the church can't become corrupt under Bishops, to me it did when political interests won out over Christian diversity when Orthodoxy was established by the Empire.
Whatever. I'll go with the straightforward meaning. He said He was going to build His Church, not a branch of some existing Church, but to each his own.