oops....no I can't because I said it wrong. I meant to say the HS WOULD BE our guide. I mistakenly put in the word "not." Sorry about that.



nope, I've studied many many history books over the years.



I know you don't want to hear this...but Luther was right on. If not for Luther you and I would not be having this discussion. You would not be reading your bible. Because of Luther and the other reformers we now have access to scripture which is what Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and all the biblical writers wanted. They wanted us to read the scriptures. The RCC said no. They took it away.

As far as priests....I read this today in a history of the Church dictionary.

"The term priest either alone or in combination with "high" or "chief" occurs 700 times in the OT and over 80 times in the NT. Etymologically the English term "priest" is a contraction of "presbuteros," which itself is rendered regularly in English as "elder." "Priest" renders hiereaus which never refers to a Christian minister in the entire NT though in the gospels and Acts it usually refers to Jewish priests.

In the NT the idea of Christ as the culmination of the HP finds expression in the Book of Hebrews.......Here Christ is a HP and through His sacrifice He is able to reconcile man to God, which was the purpose symbolized by the older Jewish sacrifices of sheep and goats.

In the Christian church the "priesthood" did not emerge as a function until well after the apostolic period. Apart from a questionable reference in Ignatius the term does not appear to have been applied to Christian ministers until c200. Perhaps by the early fifth century, the priest had accrued the authority to administer the sacraments, and thus the way opened for the doctrine of the priesthood which would reach full flower in the medieval period. The reformers in general REJECTED the concept of the priesthood because it had bome to be seen in connection with the Mass."



where's all your scripture backing this up? There isn't any. Christ said quite plainly his Kingdom was NO part of this world. He did not come to set up a denomination. His church are born again believers REGARDLESS of man made theology.

I just heard recently that the CC is now rejecting their doctrine of purgatory? Well for many hundreds of years this was used as a scare tactic and now they are quietly getting rid of this belief? Truth never changes.

This is NOT true. I've already shown you this way back. You just don't buy it because the CC is telling you different.

Yes, he was A leader. He possessed a natural gift of leadership. I agree. He gave the first sermon. He is notable also as the first apostle through whom the first Gentile convert was admitted into the church. Yep. But we do see after that that it was Paul NOT Peter who ministered to the Gentiles. Peter's ministry focus was on the Jews, not the Gentiles.

But did you know that Paul "rebuked" Peter (Gal 2:11). Also it's quite clear that Peter's missionary work was eclipsed by that of the Apostle Paul. Acts contains no details of Peter's activities after the Council of Jerusalem, so it is impossible to be certain what those activities were, and much must be left to conjecture (or RCC tradition).

Also it's quite clear by reading the events of this first council (Acts 15) that James, NOT Peter was the head of it. Peter had to abide by James's verdict after hearing from all those present who wished to speak.

But I've already told you this. You'd rather skip this info.

Tradition associates the death of Peter with Rome and this is usually dated at approximately 68 AD. The further claim of the RCC that Peter founded the church at Rome and was for 25 years its bishop is without support in the earliest testimony.

Think about it. Peter died in 68 under Nero. Paul, Peter, Luke, John, James & Jude wrote the entire NT. Not once was it mentioned that Peter was the first leader or even considered higher than any of the other Apostles. Surely something would have been written about this. Nothing was to give us any indication that Peter even started the RCC in scripture. In fact I can show you in ACTS and Romans where it names the founders of the church at Rome (not RCC) and Peter's name is NOT mentioned as one that was instrumental. Check out the letter to the Romans Chap 16 and see all the names.....Peter's name is missing. Surely if he was the founder, he would have been mentioned? The letter was directed at the church in Rome.



Pope: "latin for papa from Gr. papas "father." The supreme head of the RCC. Formerly denoting all Christian bishops the title in the West has from the NINTH century been appropriated exclusively by the bishop of Rome.

Bishop: From the Latin biscopus, the word is often given as a translation of episkopos in the NT. "overseer." Within the NT it seems to have denoted a function of the ministry and to be an alternative for presbyter (Acts 20:17, Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 3; Titus 1:7. Christ himself was regarded as the Bishop (1 Peter 2:25).

Among the early church fathers only Ignatius speaks of monarchical episcopacy and with him the emphasis is on unity around the bishop in perilous times not on the divine institution of the office.

The division of Eastern & Western Christendom, the close association of church and state, and the rise to power in the West of the see of Rome had an important effect upon the development of episcopacy.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants wished to reform or to aboslish the office of bishop since its medieval accretions alarmed them. The Calvinist churches equated the office of bishop with that of pastor or minister.

So just because Clement called Peter a bishop (overseer) of Rome doesn't mean he meant Pope. Show me anywhere that Peter was called Pope by anyone in the first century. You can't. It's impossible. This term evolved over time by the RCC as they determined to conquer the laity. It was NEVER meant to be like that.

First off there were NO priests ordained in the NT. None. Read Acts 14 again.

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church......."

Notice elders is plural and church is singular. Why did they need more than ONE in each church?



This is true. The term "presbyter" was shortened to "priest" during the Middle Ages while the presbyter-bishop assumed a superior position. So again priests came about later not anywhere in NT scripture.

So basically it started out with the Apostles ordaining "elders" in all the churches as overseers to feed the flock of God with the word of God. Timothy was one that Paul entrusted as overseer. You mentioned Acts 14, same thing. It was only later on that it was distorted to be a much higher elevated position. This again, is where the RCC stepped up and used this power to conquer the laity.

If you're going to take scripture and make it fit what the RCC decrees then why don't you take the following as criteria as well? It's very plain.

"A bishop (Pope according to RCC theology) then must be blameless, the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; NOT given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre but patient, not a brawler not covetous. On that rules well his own house, HAVING CHILDREN in subjection with all gravity; for if a man knows not how to rule HIS OWN HOUSE, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Tim 3:1.

So the RCC is trying to say and take scripture and make it fit by twisting it or re-writing it by changing the definitions but then ignore other parts that are mainly and plainly seen.

puh-leeeeese!! That is a stretch. Now since we've already covered Peter and the rock a million times in different directions let me try a diff approach for a million and one.

Going back to this Matt 16. What was the question? "WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM?

The focus was on Christ...NOT PETER. Christ didn't ask "WHO DO YOU SAY PETER IS?

When Peter shouted out the correct answer Christ went on to praise Peter for he had received this insight through divine revelation and NOT human influences.

He then goes on to explain that the church would be built on the confession of Peter.....NOT PETER HIMSELF. We know all that confess Christ live forever. Christ is ALWAYS the rock...not Peter. "Upon this rock" is NOT PETER. It's CHRIST.

KFC POSTS:

The Lord began it with the Twelve who represented the future of the People of God. In fidelity to the mandate received from the Lord, initially the Twelve, after his Ascension, completed their number with the election of Matthias to replace Judas (cf. Acts 1:15-26), and later they associate others progressively to the functions entrusted to them to continue their ministry.

St. Paul, despite the fact he was called by the Lord as an apostle, is concerned to transmit what he has received (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3-4) and in the distribution of the missionary tasks is associated with the apostles, together with others, for example, Barnabas (cf. Galatians 2:9).

Just as at the beginning of being chosen an Apostle by Jesus, there is likewise a call and sending by the HS and an invitation to others takes place. With the strength and grace of the HS, the one who is already constituted in the apostolic ministry lays on hands. This is the path by which the ministry will continue and later, by the second generation is called episcopal ministry, "episcopé."

The word bishop means in Italian "vescovo" and in the Greek "epíscopos." This word makes reference to one who has a vision from on high, who sees with the heart. In his first letter, St. Peter himself calls the Lord Jesus guardian and shepherd of souls; the successors of the apostles were later called "bishops," "epíscopoi." They were entrusted with the function of the "episcopé." This specific function of the bishop is carried out progressively with respect to the beginnings until it assumes the form, already clearly attested by Ignatius of Antioch, at the beginning of the second century when the function of bishop, priest and deacon was set. It is a development led by the Spirit of God, which assists the Church in the discernment of the apostolic succession.

The succession in the episcopal function that has been entrusted to us by the Lord. The link between the College of Bishops and the original Apostles is understood and seen in historical continuity. Associated to the Twelve is first Matthias, and then Paul, and afterward Barnabas and later others, up to the second and third generation of the ministry of the bishop. Therefore, continuity is expressed in this historical chain.

The guarantee of the continuity of the succession is found in the perseverance in the ecclesial community, in the apostolic College, gathered by Christ around Him who promised to be with His Chruch until the end of time.

The Church Fathers wrote about Apostolic succession. Irenaeus of Lyon writes about the succession: "the Tradition of the Apostles has been manifested to the universal world in the whole Church, and we can enumerate those who have been constituted bishops and successors of the Apostles up to us. (The apostles) wanted those whom they left as their successors to be 'perfect and irreproachable' in everything (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6-7), to entrust the Magisterium to them in their place: If they act correctly it will be followed by great usefulness, but if they fall, it would be the greatest calamity" ("Adversus Haereses," III, 3, 1: PG 7,848).

Then, Irenaeus, when presenting this network of the apostolic succession as the greatest guarantee of perseverance in the Lord's word, concentrates on that Church, among "the most ancient and known by all, the Church founded and constituted in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul," underlining the Tradition of the faith proclaimed, which comes to us through the apostles and through the successions of the bishops.

In this way, for Irenaeus and for the universal Church, the episcopal succession of the Church of Rome becomes the sign, criterion and guarantee of the uninterrupted transmission of the apostolic faith: "It is necessary that every Church be in harmony with this Church, whose foundation is the most guaranteed -- I refer to all the faithful of any place, because in her all those who are found in all places have kept the apostolic Tradition" ("Adversus Haereses," III, 3, 2: PG 7,848).

The apostolic succession, verified in virtue of communion with that of the Church of Rome, is therefore the criterion of permanence of each one of the Churches in the Tradition of the common apostolic faith, which through this channel has been able to come to us from the origins: "By this order and succession the Tradition has come to us that was initiated by the Apostles. And this shows fully that the one and only vivifying faith that comes from the Apostles has been kept and transmitted in the Church until today".

What the apostles represent in the relationship between the Lord Jesus and the early Church is represented analogously by the ministerial succession in the relationship between the early Church and the present-day Church. It is not a mere material concatenation; rather, it is the historical instrument of which the Spirit makes use to make present the Lord Jesus, head of his people, through whom they are ordained by the ministry through the imposition of hands and the prayer of the bishops.

The Church is part of salvation history. Through the Apostolic succession, Christ comes to us. He speaks to us in the word of the Apostles and their successors. He acts in the sacraments through their hands. And also today, as at the beginning, Christ himself is the true Shepherd and guardian of our souls, whom we follow with great confidence, gratitude and joy.

You can only be dishonest at this point. You have been made aware, if you weren't already, that the various positions as Bishop were for SALE for centuries. You cannot be so ignorant of catholic history as to believe the college of bishops has retained its original gilding.

Bishops, especially the ones who bought their office, were key in selling indulgences and raising money for the Church. A notable example is Pope Leo X and his "you sell them and we'll split the profits" deal. There seems to be some noteworthy gaps in that perfect chain of history from the apostles to now.



Once upon a time, there was a man who forced Jews into ghettos, burned their holy books, and forced them to wear yellow to make them visibly recognizable as Jews. Hitler? Nope, Pope Paul IV. He claimed he could not tolerate the religious effrontery that Jews, "cursed", could dare to live side by side with Christians.

So, Lula. If you had lived then, would have it been necessary for you to be in harmony with such thinking? The same Pope tasked the inquisition with the imprisonment, torture, and execution of people who might be tainted by protestantism. The scoured schools for teachers and students that were "heretics". The fact is the inquisition was still persecuting Jews ( like stealing their children ) right up to the modern era.

So, I defy you to prove that the "holiness" of Christ has in any way been represented in an unbroken chain by the Catholic Church. I defy you to tell me a Catholic could have been a good Christian and kept to the corrupt and hateful PAPAL policies that held sway for the majority of its existence. As I said, I have to assume that you you persist in this fallacy out of dishonesty. You can't have been shown what you have been shown and remain ignorant.

When the inquisition was burning people alive for being "secret jews", do you really believe that it was our holy responsibility to be in harmony with such filth?

There is no such thing as Apostolic succession in scripture. It's a church doctrine not a biblical doctrine. This is where tradition trumps the bible.

It's not a coincidence that we hear NOTHING about Matthias after his selection by the apostles in Acts 1 which is before the HS's presence I might add.

I think they figured this all out. James died (Acts 12:2) but he was NOT replaced.

Also you quoted me Acts 1:15-26 but did you read it too quickly? Stop and reread v21-22 carefully again. As they were considering casting lots they said this:

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and among us. Beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection and they appointed two Joseph called Barsbas.....and Matthias."

What they were saying is there were qualifications to be an Apostle. One had to have been in and among them WITH Jesus, knowing HIM personally and had to be a witness of the resurrection.

That's why we DO NOT believe in Apostolic Succession. There are none qualified to be Apostles today.

KFC POSTS:



Like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not, Apostolic succession is in Sacred Scripture as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Didache, and is historically evident from the fact there has been an uninterrupted continuum of Popes from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI.

The mission and sacred power to teach, rule and sanctify that Christ conferred on His Apostles has been perpetuated in the Church's episcopate. The Apostles appointed successors in their pastoral mission to preach, baptize, forgive sin, and teach men to observe all that Christ had commanded. When Christ gave them the commission, He promised He would be with them “all days, to the end of the world.” St. Matt.28:20. The promise of abiding divine assistance given in the context of the Apostolic mandate implies that the mandate itself was to endure. The mandate has endured through the Apostle’s laying of hands (Holy Orders) on chosen men who make up the priesthood of the New Covenant under the Kingship and headship of Christ, our Eternal High Priest.

The twelve Apostles were sent by Christ to lay the first foundation of His Holy Church, the Catholic Church. With Christ as the head Cornerstone, Peter was chosen as the foundation rock and the Apostles the foundation stones. The first 10 chapters in Acts show us in what sense Peter was the foundation and first primate of the early Church.

Following the example of Christ, who had sent them out to continue His work and to build up the kingdom, the Apostles in turn chose other men and shared with them their mission and Apostolic authority. Throughout their travels, they preached the Good News and baptized converts into the Church. They assembled together and read reading OT verses and continued as Christ commanded to offer sacrifice to Him by consecrating the bread and wine into His Body and Blood and eating it.

By the will of God, the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose. "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." This is confession of sins. St. John 20:23. This authority, within its own sphere, is guaranteed against error by divine power. The successors of the Apostles in this divinely given authority are the Bishops. They exercised the power of teaching, governing and sanctifying. Acts 1:12-26; 2:37-43; 4:35-37; 5:1-11; 28-41; 8:14-20. In Acts 5, there were 72 disciples appointed to carry on the work of the Apostles.


St. Peter tells us in his letter that upon the death of these successors other proven men should be appointed to succeed them 1St. Peter 2: 9, 12, 25; 5 . Under the Apostles, a hierarchy began to appear with bishops, presbyter (priests) and deacons. Acts 6 relates to the appointment by the Apostles of the "seven". This is the second identifiable group of disciples entrusted to the ministry of the Early Church. V.6 The Apostles establish the seven in their office or ministry through prayer and the “laying on of hands”, a rite that the early Church had adopted as a symbol of the conferring of a spiritual grace of office. The authority to carry out the ministry which implies a calling from God, is something he must receive through ordination, which the Apostles confer. Today, it’s called the Sacrament of Holy Orders. God, not men, gives them a spiritual power which equips them to govern and teach the Christian community, administer the Sacraments, including the Mass and consecration of the Eucharist and preach the Word.


In chapter 13:3, Sts. Paul and Barnabas are ordained. In 2Tim.1:6, Timothy received the grace of his ministry through the laying on of hands." from St.Paul. 1TIm. 4:14 tells us that others were with St. Paul when he conferred the fullness of the priesthood on Timothy. He also ordained Titus. Both Timothy and Titus were sent out and they ordained priests and deacons. 1Tim. 3:1; 5:17-22; Tit. 1:5.

A continuous hierarchy was established to continue the work of the Twelve. These men were given the Greek name, Episkopas, literally overseer, and in English, we term "bishop". After St. Peter is St. Linus, then St.Cletus, and then St.Clement of Rome.
There is no doubt that from the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, and with evidence from Scripture, that within 3 decades of the death of Christ, the Church had already hierarchically organized just as I have described.

Thus the apostolic succession is maintained through the popes, who are successors to Peter as the Vicar of Christ, the bishops, successors to the Apostles, the priests, successors to those early priests, and the deacons. Christ was with His original Apostles, and now through His promise of the Holy Spirit, is with their successors. Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th successor to St. Peter. He now holds the key to the kingdom of God. Refusing to accept him doesn't change truth and reality.


And besides that, the following is taken from the Didache. 14:1, 3, 4 which testifies that the Church's present teaching is that of Apostolic times: "On the Lord's own day, {the first day of the week: (Apoc.1:10; Acts. 20:7) assemble to Bread (1Cor. 16: 1-2) and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that you are pure.” It is the Sacrifice which the Lord has said (Mal. 1:11), "In every place, at every time, a clean oblation shall be offered to my Name, for I am a great king and my name is great among the Gentiles." For there is one flesh in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one chalice that brings union in His Blood of the New Covenant as there is one altar, as there is one bishop, with the bishops, priests and deacons in union with him keeping the one sheepfold.

It is the episcopal college that succeeds the apostolic college. Bishops are by divine right the successors of the Apostles.

There is no doubt about the fact that from the 2nd century to the Protestant Revolution, Christianity unanimously recognized in its bishops the divinely-established successors of the Apostles.

KFC POSTS:



Let's get back to Acts 6:2-7,

"And THE TWELVE summoned the body of the disciples and said, 'it is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren PICK OUT from among you SEVEN MEN of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, WHOM WE MAY APPOINT TO THIS DUTY.....6 THIS THEY SET BEFORE THE APOSTLES, AND THEY PRAYED AND LAID THEIR HANDS UPON THEM. 7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and A GREAT MANY OF THE PRIESTS WERE OBEDIENT TO THE FAITH.”


Here, the Apostles establish 7 men into the ministry through prayer and the laying on of the hands. This gesture was also found in the OT, principally as a rite of ordination of Levites. Num. 8:10. and as a way of conferring power and wisdom on Joshua, Moses successor as leader of Israel. Num. 27:20; Deut.13:9. The early Chruch retained this rite as can be seen quite often in Acts and also found in 1Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2Tim 5:22. In v. 7, we here of the spread of the Chruch this time reporting the conversion of ‘a great many of priests”.


Again, let’s address St. Peter’s Successors in the Primacy.

St.Ireneaus 120-202, writes, “Matthew for his part published also a written Gospel among Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were at Rome, preaching and laying the foundation of the Chruch. The same martyred bishop of Lyons testified to the passing of the primacy from St.Peter to Linus, elected in 67 and died on Sept. 27, 79 AD. Of this Linus, St.Paul mentions in the Epistle to Timothy, 2Tim.4:21. After that the Bishopric of Rome was alloted to St.Cletus, elected in 67 and died a martyr in 88. From St. Cletus, the chair is alloted in 88 to Pope St. Clement. From his writings, we know he had seen the blessed Apostles St.Peter, Paul and John, had conferred with them and had their doctrines firmly established in his mind. We know he was a contemporary of Sts. Ignatius, Polycarp, and Bishops Timothy and Titus.

If the primacy was ‘invented’ would not at least one of the many who had been instructed by the Apostles have pointed that out? Irenaeus, a Syrian by birth, had been taught by Polycarp, who had been taught by St.John the Evangelist, who had been taught by Christ. There was no protest about the succession of Bishop of Rome claiming a primacy of jurisdiction by anyone until 1517 when the Protestant Revolters ditched papal authority claiming each protester was his own pope.

St. Optatus of Milevi reproduced St. Irenaeus’ list and St.Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo in Numidia, added to that in about 400 AD. He wrote, “ If the lineal order of the Succession of Bishops is to be taken into account, and how much certainty and true benefit do we begin count from Peter himself, to whom, as bearing the figure of the whole Chruch, the Lord said, “upon this rock I will build My Chruch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it....” The successors of Peter are Linus, Cletus, Clement, Evaristus elected 105 died 115, Sixtus elected 115 to 125, Telesphorus 125 to 136 , Hyginus 136 to 140, Pius 140 to 155, Anicetus, 155 to 166, Soter 166 to 175, Eleutherius 175-189, Victor 189-199, Zepherinus 199-217, Callixtus 217-222 , Urban I 222-230, Pontain 230-235, Antherus 235-236, Fabian 236-250, Cornelius 250-253, Lucius I 253-254, Stephen I 254-257, Sixtus II 257-258, Denis 259-268, Felix I 269-274, Eutychin 275-283, Caius 283-296, Marcellinus 296-304, Marcellus I 308-309 Eusebuis April 309- Aug. 309, Miltiades 311-314, Sylvester I e. 314 d. 335, Mark Jan.-Oct. 336, Julius I 337-352, Liberius 352-366, Damasus I 366-384, Siricius 384-399, Anastasius I 399-401.
This list shows the unbroken succession in the See of Rome down to the fifth century. From then on there is no difficulty for after that date, records became plentiful and were more easily preserved.

No it's NOT! Ha, this reminds me of a well known preacher who was very against the whole speaking in tongues abuse that's been going on in the Charismatic movement. He was told by one of the women in the movement...."just shut your bilbe and get in the spirit."

Ya, right.

Believe it's in scripture if you want Lula, but try as you might arm twisting and messing with scripture has to be done to come up with this idea. It's not biblical...it's traditon that tells you this not the bible. That's why you keep coming up with church history OUTSIDE of scripture to try and prove your point because it is not in scripture. I already showed you the qualifications and you never even commented on that .....AND YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You totally discounted what I said regarding Acts 1:21-22. This is a common tactic Lula. Leave the discussed passage and go to find something else that will back you up. You're the one that brought that passage to the table and then run when I show you CLEARLY what was said by examining it in context.

I don't do that. I exegete and look at the passage in context and get back to you. You go from one to another bouncing around. It's called topical teaching. If you do that rather than expositional there is much more danger in the twisting of scripture because you are lifting scripture from context and looking for others throught the bible to come up with a theology.

You probably don't know this but it's a huge problem with the false churches. They love to do this type of teaching because it's easy to fool the people that way.
They never teach expositionally. Always topical...and that's the reason.

KFC POSTS:



Well, excuuuuse me, as I thought I did a stand up job in responding to your point and defending my own.


This is what you posted:

Acts 1: 21-23, Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and among us. Beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection and they appointed two Joseph called Barsbas.....and Matthias."

What they were saying is there were qualifications to be an Apostle. One had to have been in and among them WITH Jesus, knowing HIM personally and had to be a witness of the resurrection.

That's why we DO NOT believe in Apostolic Succession. There are none qualified to be Apostles today.
-------------------------------------------

We know that only the twelve Apostles proclaimed the new revelation. Those men whom the Apostles appointed as their successors could not/did not proclaim new revelation. In every way except that, the Apostles themselves chose their successors to carry on in their pastoral mission to preach, baptize, forgive sin, and teach men to observe all that Christ had commanded.

So in order to show Apostolic succession, I provided chapter and verse showing that it was the Twelve Apostles themselves, (the ones who had been with Jesus and witnessed the Risen One), who appointed others to follow them and they in turn appointed others, etc. I even capitalized the important words to make it easy reading. Here it is:

Let's get back to Acts 6:2-7,

"And THE TWELVE summoned the body of the disciples and said, 'it is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren PICK OUT from among you SEVEN MEN of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, WHOM WE MAY APPOINT TO THIS DUTY.....6 THIS THEY SET BEFORE THE APOSTLES, AND THEY PRAYED AND LAID THEIR HANDS UPON THEM. 7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and A GREAT MANY OF THE PRIESTS WERE OBEDIENT TO THE FAITH.”

Laying on of the hands is the way they ordained other men.
Here, the Apostles establish 7 men into the ministry through prayer and the laying on of the hands. This gesture was also found in the OT, principally as a rite of ordination of Levites. Num. 8:10. and as a way of conferring power and wisdom on Joshua, Moses successor as leader of Israel. Num. 27:20; Deut.13:9. The early Chruch retained this rite as can be seen quite often in Acts and also found in 1Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2Tim 5:22. In v. 7, we here of the spread of the Chruch this time reporting the conversion of ‘a great many of priests”.

The original Twelve were called the Apostolic College. There are no replacements. That's why it's the episcopal college that succeeds the Apostolic college. Bishops are by divine right the successors of the Apostles.


Then you wrote, "Believe it's in scripture if you want Lula, but try as you might arm twisting and messing with scripture has to be done to come up with this idea. It's not biblical...it's traditon that tells you this not the bible.

Well, KFC, Apostolic succession is the Apostles' appointing other men as their successors to carry out Christ's mission in establishing and teaching His kingdom at first in Jerusalem and then beyond to all the world. This is shown in Scripture...over and over again in the Book of Acts. Does Tradition and history back this up...you bet. Not me, I'm not messing with Scripture...when I read the Acts...it's with eyes wide-open. I love reading Scripture and the history of the Ancient Holy Catholic and Aostolic Church....especially from God's own inspired Book...ooohh...it's a many splendoured thing.

Bottom line: We interpret Scripture differently.

If you are going to quote 2-7, lula quote it all...



It's obvious from that:



...simply isn't true. They didn't chose anyone, and the job at hand wasn't what you are even pointing out. They tasked "the multitude" to pick them out for the everyday work in the churches. Look at why they said they needed them:



By "serving tables" they meant overseeing the charitable work, out in the world. You'll find that in the passage you skipped, verse 1:



The necessity arose not from carrying on after they were gone, obviously. They were still there. The Greeks were mad because the Hebrews weren't seeing to the needs of Greek widows, i.e. the day to day health and feeding of the poor and downtrodden.

Call me nuts, but I don't recall seeing many of the Catholics in the funniest hats spending much time ladling soup. This isn't about creating an everlasting priest class among believers, it was about a dispute between Hebrews and Greeks because of favoritism within their charitable infrastructure.

There's simply no disputing that. Your quotes even work against you without the conveniently omitted setup of verse 1. The apostles didn't pick these men, the multitudes did. Do the multitudes pick the Catholic elite?

Meaning, evidently, that you can buy "divine right" if you have the ducats...

Yes, Baker, you did such a great job I don't have much to add only that we are talking "deacons" in contrast to elders.

The word "serve" here in Acts is where we get our word deacons. The word is "diaconeo." It has absolutely nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.

In our church we do this as well. The church votes and picks the deacons of the church while the Pastor himself picks and ordains the elders as spiritual heads. The deacons are in charge of the building maintenance and the physical needs of the church people. The elders meet and pray weekly as they discuss the needs of the church. They also are the ones we turn to for spiritual help and teaching.



I want to tackle this Lula. This is not priests of the CC as I'm sure you know right? These are basically the Pharisees that came on board...became Christians as a result of what they saw. So they were Jewish converts to Christianity. When the veil of the temple split like it did (Matt 27:51) one probable result of this supernatural tearing of the veil is recorded here in Acts. Remember this tearing of the veil was during Passover. The temple was very busy with priests abounding and they were all able to see this tearing and believed.

As for the ordaining by the laying of hands. We do that as well still. It's a formal sign of appointment to this service. This rite indicates a link or association between the parties involved. Sometimes it was related to healing or to the impartation of the Spirit or as here in Acts was a sign of ordination for special service.

When we ordain elders or deacons our Pastor and Assoc Pastor and present elders do an ordination service where they lay hands and pray on each individual. There's nothing like seeing these men picked out sitting up there with their wives by their sides and other Godly men standing over them with their hands on the new deacons shoulders praying over them.



Then why are they not following the dictates of scripture? The Bishops of scripture (overseers also referred to as elders) were TO BE MARRIED.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.....not GIVEN TO WINE......one that rules well his own house having HIS CHILDREN in subjection with all gravity. For if a man knows not how to rule his own house how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Timothy 3:2-5.

The Bishop/Elders of scripture are totally diff than the Bishop/Priests of the RCC.

Hi Bakerstreet,


I'm pressed for time and will

get back to you with more detail on this as well as respond to your previous post. You point is well taken. Concerning the reason the Apostles needed some to appoint others was twofold--to take care of the menial labor...and also to choose 7 good men whom the Apostles themselves layed hands on and thereby ordained as deacons.