One true church?

[dallas1125]

Where does the Bible say the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle?

Why change the position?
One day a apostle dies.
A. Darn we need another one.
B. No we cant have another one.
A. Why?
B. Cause we cant.
A. Ok so now what?
B. Lets have a pope.

I also have a question, does the sucessor of a prophet have to be a prophet?



Ok, ok. I need to admit something. I didn't understand your question....could you please explain it to me?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Why change the position?
One day a apostle dies.
A. Darn we need another one.
B. No we cant have another one.
A. Why?
B. Cause we cant.
A. Ok so now what?
B. Lets have a pope.

I also have a question, does the sucessor of a prophet have to be a prophet?



Ok, ok. I need to admit something. I didn't understand your question....could you please explain it to me?

Well I mean traditional Christianity that has Bishops and traces this succession back to Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, etc., which were all Bishops, claims that a Bishop was the successor of an Apostle. I'm asking why did Christianity not traditionally believe the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle?

 

[spanjo]

Well I mean traditional Christianity that has Bishops and traces this succession back to Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, etc., which were all Bishops, claims that a Bishop was the successor of an Apostle. I'm asking why did Christianity not traditionally believe the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle?

The bible clearly shows that bishops and apostles are two seperate postions or callings in the church.
Why did Christianity not traditionally believe the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle? Because they ceased to receive direct communication from God through a living prophet to guide the church. Without God leading the way, people make mistakes. Those prophets do come in handy.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The bible clearly shows that bishops and apostles are two seperate postions or callings in the church.
Why did Christianity not traditionally believe the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle? Because they ceased to receive direct communication from God through a living prophet to guide the church. Without God leading the way, people make mistakes. Those prophets do come in handy.

Spanjo you're rewriting Christian history for your own purpose. There were HISTORICALLY Bishops, early church fathers, who were the successors of the Apostles, or at least the Apostles ordained them and charged them with the keeping of the apostolic doctrines.

 

[dallas1125]

Spanjo you're rewriting Christian history for your own purpose. There were HISTORICALLY Bishops, early church fathers, who were the successors of the Apostles, or at least the Apostles ordained them and charged them with the keeping of the apostolic doctrines.

Well, whether they kept the doctrine or not is debatable.

The mormon church believes that the priesthood was lost after christ and the apostles died. Thats the key part.

 

[dallas1125]

Well I mean traditional Christianity that has Bishops and traces this succession back to Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, etc., which were all Bishops, claims that a Bishop was the successor of an Apostle. I'm asking why did Christianity not traditionally believe the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle?

Well they are different callings. Bishops in the LDS church are called as LDS apostles. By an apostle replaces an apostle, it means you dont have an apostle who dies, then replace him with a bishop. You take the bishop and give him the different calling.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well, whether they kept the doctrine or not is debatable.

The mormon church believes that the priesthood was lost after christ and the apostles died. Thats the key part.

To me I think were Mormonism parts ways with Catholicism, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Mormons believe that after the Apostles had died, the Bishops who succeeded them were not faithful in keeping their doctrines, and the Church eventually apostacized, leading to the need for a re-establishing of the true church. Am I correct as far as Mormon belief is concerned?

 

[dallas1125]

Delete

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm not saying I disagree about the church apostacizing, but I'm not sure I'd consider Mormonism the restoration either. No disrespect intended.

 

[dallas1125]

I'm not saying I disagree about the church apostacizing, but I'm not sure I'd consider Mormonism the restoration either. No disrespect intended.

None taken.

I see it as the restored one, just different interpretations though.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well dallas I guess it's hard for me to believe some of the Mormon Church's claims because I come from an Anglican background, but don't worry, it's hard for me to believe some of fundamentalism's claims too. I was raised to believe that the need for doctors of the church: St. Augustine, St. Francis, Martin Luther, John Wesley, etc. was because the Church can get off course, but the doctor of the church always puts it back on course, but doesn't establish a new church to do it.

 

[dallas1125]

Well dallas I guess it's hard for me to believe some of the Mormon Church's claims because I come from an Anglican background, but don't worry, it's hard for me to believe some of fundamentalism's claims too. I was raised to believe that the need for doctors of the church: St. Augustine, St. Francis, Martin Luther, John Wesley, etc. was because the Church can get off course, but the doctor of the church always puts it back on course, but doesn't establish a new church to do it.

Hey, no worries. I dont expect you to believe anything I do. I welcome criticism, just not hatred.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Hey, no worries. I dont expect you to believe anything I do. I welcome criticism, just not hatred.

It is very hard to get me to hate anything. I'm not really a hateful person, but I admit, at times I struggle with that one when it comes to Islam.

 

[dallas1125]

It is very hard to get me to hate anything. I'm not really a hateful person, but I admit, at times I struggle with that one when it comes to Islam.

Really? I really dont have a problem with Islam. Except for the radicals...I dont like people trying to blow me up. (No offense intended.)

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Really? I really have a deep appreciation for Islam. Except for the radicals...I dont like people trying to blow me up. (No offense intended.)

Well I really try to understand Islam, and I have deeper respect for Muhammad, then I do for say Islam. I know it's the radicals I have to worry about, but the radicals are yelling the loudest right now, so to speak.

 

[dallas1125]

Well I really try to understand Islam, and I have deeper respect for Muhammad, then I do for say Islam. I know it's the radicals I have to worry about, but the radicals are yelling the loudest right now, so to speak.

Yeah, I get watch ya mean, :yes:

 

[spanjo]

Senedjem, I don't hear you talk much about your Kemetic Orthodoxy/Buddhist beliefs. What are your/their views in regard to the topic of one universal truth or faith. How did you come to make that choice for religion?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Senedjem, I don't hear you talk much about your Kemetic Orthodoxy/Buddhist beliefs. What are your/their views in regard to the topic of one universal truth or faith. How did you come to make that choice for religion?

I'd prefer if you ask me this in the Kemetic DIR, if you please. That would be more appropriate. Or otherwise, I give you permission to start a thread addressing me specifically, that way it isn't against forum rules.

 

[xkatz]

The Pope is a Latin term applied to the Bishop of Rome, which means Papa, since father is an honorary title of a Bishop.

So is Papa Roach a band of Catholic archbishops who happen to make terrible music?

 

[foxjazz]

There isn't a church on earth that has a truthful bone in it's body.

It's all faulty. Even the pope measures degrees of sin, as proven by his recent antics.