Apostleship vs. Apostolic Succession
A question was presented to me concerning the Apostleship...my Apostleship in particular.
"Regarding you being an Apostle, can you trace your apostleship back to the original 12 Apostles? If you can please start a new blog, listing all the men in your spiritual genealogy back to one of the 12.
Of what significance is it if the authority behind the hands laid on you, cannot be traced by, man to man to man, through the centuries to the original 12? Black people probably can't trace their spiritual genealogy back past slavery. Then you get into Protestant Europe, then back to the Roman Catholic church.
If you cannot list your spiritual lineage, I suggest that you refrain from using the term "Apostle".
The doctrine/idea this individual has set before me and us all to see is one called Apostolic Succession. This comes from a thought on the Papacy/Bishopric being able to trace its origins all the way back to the original twelve Apostles as a lineage/family tree.
There are several problems with such a doctrine, but for the sake of this conversation, I am going to approach it from the office of the Apostle. We Apostles do not trace our line all the way back from person to person, Apostolic fathers ordaining us along the line as time passes and people die. The Apostleship is not gained by such. Such an idea derives from the thought of a "monarchy", and not from the origin of the office. A king chooses his successor after him to fill the place of rulership.
Contrary to such, the Apostles do not choose who will be the next Apostle down the line. It is the LORD GOD the FATHER, the LORD JESUS, and GOD the HOLY SPIRIT who decide the next Apostle. Only in the case of the 12 did the LORD choose one to replace a fallen Apostle. This Apostle was Matthias (Acts 1). By definition, Judas has to be the Apostolic father of Matthias. This is heresy because Judas was dead already, so there was no "succession", but a replacement. Each Apostle is elected and ordained directly by the LORD JESUS Himself. Man cannot ordain an Apostle, only "affirm" his Apostleship. Paul was not ordained by any man on Earth. James, Peter, and John gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, thus affirming their Apostleship (Galatians 2:7-10). If Paul was to trace his Apostleship back to the 12, then he wouldn't have said what he said in Galatians 1, or 1st Corinthians 9:1-2.
It was the Papacy and the "Episcopal Monarchy" that brought about the heresy of Apostolic Succession.
"Regarding you being an Apostle, can you trace your apostleship back to the original 12 Apostles? If you can please start a new blog, listing all the men in your spiritual genealogy back to one of the 12.
Of what significance is it if the authority behind the hands laid on you, cannot be traced by, man to man to man, through the centuries to the original 12? Black people probably can't trace their spiritual genealogy back past slavery. Then you get into Protestant Europe, then back to the Roman Catholic church.
If you cannot list your spiritual lineage, I suggest that you refrain from using the term "Apostle".
The doctrine/idea this individual has set before me and us all to see is one called Apostolic Succession. This comes from a thought on the Papacy/Bishopric being able to trace its origins all the way back to the original twelve Apostles as a lineage/family tree.
There are several problems with such a doctrine, but for the sake of this conversation, I am going to approach it from the office of the Apostle. We Apostles do not trace our line all the way back from person to person, Apostolic fathers ordaining us along the line as time passes and people die. The Apostleship is not gained by such. Such an idea derives from the thought of a "monarchy", and not from the origin of the office. A king chooses his successor after him to fill the place of rulership.
Contrary to such, the Apostles do not choose who will be the next Apostle down the line. It is the LORD GOD the FATHER, the LORD JESUS, and GOD the HOLY SPIRIT who decide the next Apostle. Only in the case of the 12 did the LORD choose one to replace a fallen Apostle. This Apostle was Matthias (Acts 1). By definition, Judas has to be the Apostolic father of Matthias. This is heresy because Judas was dead already, so there was no "succession", but a replacement. Each Apostle is elected and ordained directly by the LORD JESUS Himself. Man cannot ordain an Apostle, only "affirm" his Apostleship. Paul was not ordained by any man on Earth. James, Peter, and John gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, thus affirming their Apostleship (Galatians 2:7-10). If Paul was to trace his Apostleship back to the 12, then he wouldn't have said what he said in Galatians 1, or 1st Corinthians 9:1-2.
It was the Papacy and the "Episcopal Monarchy" that brought about the heresy of Apostolic Succession.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene on
-
Silly! Do you even know what the Magi were?
-
Permalink Reply by Anna on
-
Your turn Trevor, since you are so smart, first "Apostle/Teacher":
1) tell me what book, chapter and verse you find the word MAJI,
2) then give me the definition of MAJI, from the Strong's concordance, or any lexicon.
Since you won't be able to find it, since the word MAJI, is not in the Bible, we will all know then who is really silly....lol
Any true Apostle would know that the word MAJI, is not in the BIBLE....
-
-
Matthew, Chapter 2 - About The Wise Men
THEY WERE ETHNIC HEBREW RABBIS
The so-called "Kings" or "Wise Men" or "Magi" actually were ethnic Hebrew Rabbis, descended from the millions of Hebrews taken captive by Assyria more than 700 years previous, and taken captive by Babylon about 600 years previous; for only about 80 thousand Hebrews ever returned to eretz Israel (and only to the environs of Judea) back in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.
The ethnic Hebrew population in the Persian-Assyrian-Babylonian region was much more than 100 times that of Israel's ethnic Hebrew population, as the Samaritans peopled the northern part of eretz Israel.
More ethnic Hebrews were in the massive metropolis of Babylon, alone, than in all of Israel.
In the Diaspora, piously devout and faithful Hebrews faced toward Jerusalem in prayer.
During their pre-dawn and late evening devotions, Hebrews would have easily noticed a NEW celestial object that appeared toward the west, toward Jerusalem.
Babylon was a Rabbinical headquarters and had numerous Hebrew seminaries, a magnet for piously devout and faithful ethnic Hebrews.
Babylon's royal treasure house still possessed the objects looted from the Hebrew's Jerusalem temple more than 500 years earlier, including the Holy Scripture scrolls.
Babylon's Rabbis had been the source of Jerusalem's new copies of the Holy Scripture scrolls.
Babylon's Rabbis had been the source of the Talmud (Torah commentaries).
Who ELSE would care to study the Hebrew's Holy Scriptures?
Who ELSE would care to travel to Jerusalem, for months, across desert terrain?
Who ELSE would know about (or even care about) a prophesied Hebrew Messiah?
Who ELSE would know about (or even care about) a long forgotten, unanticipated, Hebrew Messiah?
Who ELSE would care to search-out a newborn, infant, babe-in-arms "King-Of-The-Jews"?
THEY TRAVELED WEST, TO JERUSALEM, BECAUSE THEY CAME FROM THE EAST
They most likely joined-up with a merchant caravan for safety and traveled the fertile crescent trade routes.
Their entourage could have numbered many hundreds; with potentially many dozens of Rabbis along with many more Hebrew seminary students; along with many other piously devout and faithful ethnic Hebrews making their own pilgrimage to Jerusalem for one of the three Scripturally commanded High Holy Days.
Being Hebrew Rabbis, they would have longed to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, especially for a High Holy Day, for an Annual High Sabbath celebrated at the rebuilt Hebrew temple.
A great many Hebrew pilgrims from outside of Israel often came to Jerusalem for one of the 3 Annual High Sabbaths, to celebrate one of the 3 High Holy Days, along with the attendant ceremonies, feasts and festivals.
-
-
The gospel's mágoi (Greek) or magūšāyā (Aramaic) is typically translated as "wise men", a meaning that is also found in the commentaries of St. Justin, Origen, St. Augustine and St. Jerome. The term appears in both Old- and New Testament with the meaning of "Magicians". (Acts of the Apostles 8:9; 13:6, 8, and the Septuagint of Daniel 1:20; 2:2, 2:10, 2:27; 4:4; 5:7, 5:11, 5:15).
So yes, the word Magi DOES in fact appear in the Bible.
-
-
Trevor, how many times does the Bible refer to YHWH as the "God of the Gentiles"?
-
-
I don't try to think Hebraic, or Greek. I have the mind of CHRIST, which transcends racial differences.
-
Permalink Reply by James Pierce on
-
Trevor,
Yashah kept Torah, so I doubt you have Yashah's mindset. Better stick close to your, according to you, lawless Paul.
-
-
Trevor, you said:
" I have the mind of CHRIST"?
Obviously you are not talking about the one in our Bible.
He didn't break and teach others to break His father's commandments.
If you think He taught as you do, you need to read that Bible again, and again, and again.....
He instructed His disciples to teach even the Gentiles, WHATSOEVER HE COMMANDED;
That you do not do.....
There is not Apostle of or Savior who taught as you do.
Teaching people to break the Sabbath is just 1 of the differences you have wit Him.
Did your Christ ever break the Sabbath?
Did any of the Apostles ever break the Sabbath?
If you cannot find where they did break the Sabbath, then you are NOT following their example. The question is then whose example are you following?
You cannot have the mind of Christ teaching and breaking YHWH's law, He made that very clear.
As did the Revelator John, to enter the kingdom you must have faith in Yahshua and keep the commandments of YHWH.
No, the mind of Christ/Messiah you do not have.
-
-
Anna, you asked:"Trevor, how many times does the Bible refer to YHWH as the "God of the Gentiles"?
Lets see what the Bible says, and not what Anna says:
Romans 3:29- "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:"
-
-
Trevor,
How about you address ALL of Anna's questions :).
-
-
Trevor, you didn't answer my question.
I didn't ask IF the Bible uses the term, but HOW MANY TIMES, does it say YHWH is the "God of the Gentiles".
SO Trevor, how many times do you find that phrase?
Then tell us how many time you find the phrases, God Of Israel, the Hebrews, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc.
Let me give you a little help.
The term "God of Israel" is used 225.
The term "God of Abraham" is used 17 times
The term "God of the Hebrews" is used 6 times
The term "God of Jacob" is used 25 times
-
-
I didn't make a count Anna. What is the point though? Is HE or is HE not the GOD of the Gentiles? Does the number of times that He declares it matter? If HE says it 50 more times, does the statement become more true than if HE said it once? The point is if HE actually says it and is it true?
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
