Can you prove it?

[AlightSeeker]

God and Jesus are and always will be the same. Can God change his mind, yes.

It's not a change in my opinion. He knows what's he's doing. In the beginning he created male and female and they became one. This represents Christ and the Church. So God always knew what his plan was. It has never changed. Also God created our works in the very beginning before he rested from his work

 

[Laodicean60]

-
​

If there was apostolic succession, then they would be all Jewish. Also these apostles would be able to add to The Bible, with any new revelation from God

Like the two witnesses in Revelation?

 

[d taylor]

Like the two witnesses in Revelation?

Yes and i forgot to add if there was apostolic succession, the apostle would be able to do miracles (signs and wonders). Because that was the sign of the apostles in the early church in Acts.

The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?

You cant really prove stuff like this.

You can say what you think and give your reasoning.

From there you discuss the strength or weakness of the reasoning.

the person is then either convinced by your reasoning, or not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

p.s. - this has left me a bit confused about that you believe, including what you believe about the Sermon on the Mount, that I focused on in my last post (#51). Are you saying that, generally speaking, our beliefs about all of these things are actually the same, with apostolic succession being the sole exception? Thanks

I think that if you go back and read my replies again the confusion will dissipate, besides my replies and OPs in other threads make my views quite clear.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What part of the Sermon on the mount isn't for us?

That is not a question for me because I do not hold the "only applies to the people directly addressed" hermeneutic.

 

[AlightSeeker]

Like the two witnesses in Revelation?

Are we sure they're not symbolic? How much of revelation is literal?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What about it?
I'm not entirely sure what it means, but why would it affect the things which Jesus taught?
How does believing/not believing in the apostolic succession change the fact that Jesus told his disciples to love their enemies, for example?

If what Jesus said to the apostles applies to people in subsequent generations that using that as a part of the interpretive framework for the new testament why would anyone think that what Jesus said to the apostles or to his disciples about being led into all truth, speaking for him with authority, and leading the church, does not apply to subsequent generations too, specifically to the bishops who are the successors of the apostles?

 

[AlightSeeker]

That is not a question for me because I do not hold the "only applies to the people directly addressed" hermeneutic.

I see thanks

 

[Hammster]

Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?

What will you accept as proof?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What will you accept as proof?

Give it a try and see.

 

[Hammster]

Give it a try and see.

If you can’t say, then there’s no point. You’ll just keep moving the goalposts.

 

[BobRyan]

Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?

1. Apostolic succession is only recorded in the Bible for Judas. Even James was not "replaced" according to scripture.

2. Matt 28 Jesus said to teach all others what Christ taught them -- that is how we even get the Gospels written to begin with . The idea that a Christian would not follow the teachings of Jesus is not logical, not reasonable. The burden of proof that a Christian should not follow the direct teaching of Jesus is not on the one that hears such a claim -- it is on the one that makes such a claim.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If you can say, then there’s no point. You’ll just keep moving the goalposts.

ordinarily - you'd expect the persuader to select their own argument.

But i dont know if there are any universally accepted rules about this???

I guess it should be assumed that neither side is trying to persuade, both sides are trying to discuss and discover??

 

[Hammster]

ordinarily - you'd expect the persuader to select their own argument.

But i dont know if there are any universally accepted rules about this???

I guess it should be assumed that neither side is trying to persuade, both sides are trying to discuss and discover??

If he had asked for our best argument, that would be one thing. Or even evidence. But he asked for proof. There has to be a standard of what he considers proof.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If he had asked for our best argument, that would be one thing. Or even evidence. But he asked for proof. There has to be a standard of what he considers proof.

Yeah courts use the word "proof" when i think they mean "convincing to a reasonable person" - beyond reasonable doubt.

in this case I guess the question is (as you rightly say): "whats the standard of proof?" and the answer I assume is: "beyond reasonable doubt". I guess this means convincing to a reasonable person.

But - trying to convince someone probably isnt good for finding the truth. it's ok for competition - like a debate or in court.

Finding truth is another matter though.

In the case of finding the truth, you can both lay out your final thought and explore your reasoning in cooperative discussion (like two mechanics working well together to find an engine problem)

 

[Strong in Him]

If what Jesus said to the apostles applies to people in subsequent generations that using that as a part of the interpretive framework for the new testament why would anyone think that what Jesus said to the apostles or to his disciples about being led into all truth, speaking for him with authority, and leading the church, does not apply to subsequent generations too, specifically to the bishops who are the successors of the apostles?

1. It's your belief that Bishops are successors of the Apostles. Some churches agree; I'm not sure if I do.
Successors in what way? It can't be though blood line. Maybe it's because they had hands laid on them by someone who had hands laid on them and so on - all the way back to the Apostles?
But it's not the person's hands which were special, but their prayer, as Spirit filled believers, that a new believer would be filled with the Spirit.
Any Christian can pray that prayer for someone. That's the point. In the OT people had to approach God through prophets to ask for prayer. In the NT Jesus taught that we could pray to God ourselves, in the sanctuary of our own rooms or with other believers, and he would be there in their midst. He said that we could call God "Abba", and told him that he would send us his Spirit, if we asked him.
We are now the body of Christ - a holy priesthood, as Peter said. EVERY spiritual blessing is available to those who are in Christ.
Why are clergy thought to be "successors to the apostles" and not the rest of us?
2. It is the Holy Spirit who leads into truth. The Holy Spirit was poured out on all at Pentecost, in fulfilment of prophecy. One does not need to go to a priest or member of the clergy to be filled with the Spirit.
3. Clergy, Bishops, Archbishops etc have a greater responsibility than most; that does not make them better, holier, or more special people

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Clergy, Bishops, Archbishops etc have a greater responsibility than most; that does not make them better, holier, or more special people

true, why mention it? No one suggested bishops are holier, better, or more special. They are called, as are all priests, but that is a vocation not personal superiority.

 

[Strong in Him]

true, why mention it? No one suggested bishops are holier, better, or more special. They are called, as are all priests, but that is a vocation not personal superiority.

Agreed.
But you said that Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Why, and how so?
We've already established that they are no holier, or more special, than other believers. What gives them more authority than any other Spirit filled believer?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Agreed.
But you said that Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Why, and how so?
We've already established that they are no holier, or more special, than other believers. What gives them more authority than any other Spirit filled believer?

The apostles were not better, holier, or more special than others; why act as if they were?