Judas lost his place, that makes 11. Matthias was then added to make TWELVE, just as scripture declares.
If you'd like to be more specific, then go right ahead and show us the 17 you're speaking about.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually, there were at least 13, maybe as many as 17 listed apostles. If you include Mattias to the original 12, that's 13.
What's wrong with extra-Biblical? Our Lord used extra-Biblical references himself. Now ANTI-Bibilical things are a different matter.
But we don't limit God to written words. He speaks, for He is a living God.
How did President Obama succeed President Bush if he wasn't President Bush?
Figure out what succession is, and you might get an answer for yourself.
The question was about popes. Saint Peter was the only apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ who was also pope.
That's true. There's no evidence suggesting that he did see himself in that capacity. The Roman Catholic Church believes that he was a pope, however, even if his jurisdiction was not then seen as universal and regardless of exactly how he saw himself.I dont think Peter was a Pope or saw himself as one either.
Well, that would be a different matter--whether or not any particular pope was a good pope.I also dont see the Pope following Peters example.
That's true. There's no evidence suggesting that he did see himself in that capacity. The Roman Catholic Church believes that he was a pope, however, even if his jurisdiction was not then seen as universal and regardless of exactly how he saw himself.
Well, that would be a different matter--whether or not any particular pope was a good pope.
There are TWELVE Apostles in scripture. You might disagree, so what. You said that there are at least 17 and yet all it is at this point is your own word.
Show everyone here the 17 Apostles.
Matt 23:2, for one.Like what for example?
Peter didn't proclaim himself pope. Jesus did Matt 16:18-20.Why is it that every time I ask this, there's typically nothing.
Then, your own self proclaimed pope Peter says that we have a more sure word of prophecy in the scriptures.
Well, there is no new revelation since the last apostle died.More sure than if you or anyone else wants to make some claim that God spoke audibly to you.
But here's your chance to show us how else He speaks.
I said at least 14, and maybe as many as 17. There were at least 14. Judas was an apostle, Mattias succeeded him, and Paul was also an apostle. That's 14. Depending on the names, when you gather them all together, there's more than 12.
Like what for example?
Why is it that every time I ask this, there's typically nothing.
Then, your own self proclaimed pope Peter says that we have a more sure word of prophecy in the scriptures.
More sure than if you or anyone else wants to make some claim that God spoke audibly to you.
But here's your chance to show us how else He speaks.
T
Well, that would be a different matter--whether or not any particular pope was a good pope.
Matt 23:2, for one.
Peter didn't proclaim himself pope. Jesus did Matt 16:18-20.
Well, there is no new revelation since the last apostle died.
He speaks through people now, just as he did through people in Biblical times. Every time the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals to the entire Church, God is speaking through him.
Judas didn't lose his place. he sinned, as did Peter, James, John (recorded) and the others (not recorded. Sinning does not disqualify one from being an apostle, or a successor of an apostle.
What i'm suggesting is that the whole idea of being a Pope and having others bow to you and kiss your ring, is in itself not following Peters example.
Judas didn't lose his place. he sinned, as did Peter, James, John (recorded) and the others (not recorded. Sinning does not disqualify one from being an apostle, or a successor of an apostle.
I see that we are now discussing neither Apostolic Succession nor "Scripture missing dogmas."
We are discussing both i guess.
No, it isn't. I can name a number of denominations which don't adhere to Apostolic Succession and have very unconventional doctrines--ones that are not justified by any reference to A.S.The two seemed to be linked as well because apostolic succession is needed to explain the need for dogmas not found in scripture.
Why are you having trouble understanding what Apostolic Succession IS? I've explained it several times and you've not even commented, pro or con. These are bishops, not additions to the ranks of the Twelve Apostles.I think we need neither a dogma which isnt found in scripture' or an apostle to give us that dogma in the first place.
Not that I have noticed. Every mention of Apostolic Succession brings your comment that it doesn't mean anything to you, so that doesn't seem much like a 'discussion.' And the 'Scripture missing dogmas' idea was left in the dust quite a few posts ago.
No, it isn't. I can name a number of denominations which don't adhere to Apostolic Succession and have very unconventional doctrines--ones that are not justified by any reference to A.S.
Why are you having trouble understanding what Apostolic Succession IS? I've explained it several times and you've not even commented, pro or con. These are bishops, not additions to the ranks of the Twelve Apostles.
If you only want to state an opinion and then refuse to discuss it or anyone else's ideas--or the topic of the thread for that matter--this wouldn't seem to be the place for it, being that it IS a "forum."I think i have shared a valuable opinion. If you dont find it useful then please dont comment on it because you only take things further away from where "you" "think" this discussion should be.
It is a foundational, dogmatic insistence in some Christian communities/denominations that while the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God, that it nonetheless is MISSING a whole bunch of really super important things that Jesus taught and that we must know and believe....
The spin goes like this....
God, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures:
The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible; it is His inscripturated words to the faithful. And He did so inerrantly. And thus, it is infallible. But.... the thing is....... well....... the Holy Spirit did a lousy job. Because He just forgot a whole mess of really, really, really important dogmas - essential, de fide dogmas - matters of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible, matters impacting the salvation of souls. Just.... forgot! Jesus taught these (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... and thus all 12-14 Apostles taught them (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... it's just that the Holy Spirit.... well...... forgot. He told us how many fish the disciples caught one day (153) but forgot a mess of super important, critical DOGMAS we gotta believe.
What to do?
Realizing the error, God could have done a re-write. But that would have been a lot of work. God just let it stand - and hoped for the best.
"Oral"
But...... while the Holy Spirit forgot, there was/were Christian(s) who remembered! And somehow (no one knows how)...... these super important DOGMAS Jesus and all the Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit forgot to include in Scripture.... well, they survived!
Eventually (maybe many, many centuries later), one denomination kinda learned about one or more of these!!!!! And eventually (maybe many, many centuries later) it itself decided to tell Christians about this!
This is sometimes called "Apostolic Tradition" (although it can NEVER, EVER be related to ANY much less all of the Apostles). It is sometimes also called "Second Testimony"
This missing stuff tends to be whatever is UNIQUE DOGMA in that specific denomination. "Jesus taught this as de fide dogma - it's just part of the forgot stuff but this denomination learned it somehow - and here it is." Oddly, these "forgotten dogmas" are never the same....
Stools
Some communities that buy into all the above (and they do so passionately and foundationally) state that because the Bible is so.... well, see above about God forgetting..... therefore we need TWO (maybe 3 - we'll get to that) EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL sources for our dogma:
1. Scripture (which is good - as far as it goes)
2. Oral Stuff (which is the forgotten stuff, equally important but usually more clear).
These are like two streams that blend into one inseparable river - one source, one revelation, one truth. All the equal teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and the Early Church (it's just that..... sadly...... we have NOTHING - absolutely nothing at all that indicates that Jesus or any of the Aposltes or anyone in the First Century and often for long after that ever even heard of any of these "oral stuff" Dogmas).
Now, some add a third stool: themselves (or the leaders self chooses from among self that are pleadged to agree with self). It just reinforces the ME part.
What do you think of all that?
Here is what I think....
1. I think there WAS a Christian "proclamation" for the 10 years or so between Easter and the first NT Book was penned and the NT began to take shape. This is called "the kerygma" Thing is: we don't know EXACTLY what "it" was for one simple reason, it was never recorded. But I find no reason to believe it included a whole bunch of super important DOGMAS that became lost (or at least with ZERO evidence - for CENTURIES).
2. I don't think the Holy Spirit forgot Dogmas. Yes, John tells us that Jesus DID some things not recorded in THAT specific singular book (the Gospel of John) but that's a whole other enchilada than insisting that THEREFORE God forgot a bunch of critical DOGMAS from the ENTIRE Bible.
3. I find no credible reason to believe that the NT is MISSING super important, critical DOGMAS taught by Jesus plus all 12-14 of the Apostles. No credible reason to believe the whole "God messed up.... God forgot" insistence.
4. I DO think that as time moved on, beyond the period of the Apostles, it is almost certain that questions and issues arose that no Apostle could be asked about (not that such would necessarily know) and that Scripture didn't address. Heaven knows, the Second, Third, Fourth Centuries were likely the most chaotic time in all of Christian history - there WERE questions and debates, and not always did those 27 books adequately address these. IMO, there were some very wise men with enormous insights and faith that often prevailed - applying Scripture. Some call these "Early Church Fathers." And I'm grateful for the Roman Emperors calling meetings in the Fourth - Seventh Centuries (we cal these the Seven ECUMENICAL Councils) that I think also did some very wise and very helpful work. But while I hold this in great esteem - I do NOT regard them as THEREFORE what JESUS and the 12-14 APOSTLES and every Christian in the First Century believed. NOT part of the "Oops, the Holy Spirit just forgot to include" stuff. And it means I place these UNDER Scripture - not EQUAL to such. Our words - however wise - are NOT ergo Jesus', it is not Jesus' job to parrot what WE eventually said - however wise we regard such.
I look forward to your responses.....
Pax
- Josiah
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?