From a historical and theological standpoint? I believe in Apostolic Succession but I’m not sure which Church is “The Church”.
>>16590882Ebionites/Nazarenes.
if you accept apostolic succession then *every* church that can trace the lineage back to an apostle is the true churchthere isn't just one, just like there wasn't just one apostlebasically what this means is all the orthodox churches (Roman, Greek, Coptic, etc, etc) are goodeven heretical groups like Nestorians, Arians, etc would probably qualify in that sense before even most protestants
>>16590929The Arians are now Jehovah's Witnesses.
>>16590931the Arians either went underground or disapperedJWs are just ripping them off, and badlythere's no connection there
>>16590944I seem to recall Hitler focusing a lot on the Arian heritage of the Germans though, so clearly they didn't disappear.
>>16590951Yeah, Arianism was so widespread and popular that IIRC most of the earliest copies of the bible we have were actually copied by Arians.
>>16590999>>16590944arianism is what the vikings/normans mostly went under, even the varangians.its not the same as "aryan" though.it has to do with God being the first self, the holy spirit being the first thought, and the son being the first creation, in that order specifically.What the Nicene retards won out on was the idea that the Father, spirit and son emerged at the same time as a trinity from the very start (even though that's not what the introductory verses of the bible spells out)arianism is the 115iq take that was banished by the retard majority, like how Dan was banished by Israel for not dumbing down their symbolism and throwing out their holy objects that the poor people got envious of.
>I believe in Apostolic SuccessionThat's not biblical.
>>16591155basically arianism is byzantism, but with an IQ to stop it from becoming an avalanche of golden regurgitative iconography. (which is why the crusaders, spearheaded by underground arianists, sacked Constantinople)
>>16590929>before even most protestantsOur churches came out of the church of Rome.
>>16590929Some protestant churches have Apostolic Succession.
>>16590882Work 8 hours a day. You still have 4 hours at night to pursue any kind of higher goal, or project. Side business, arts, writing, music, etc
>>16590882The one that you hate.
orthodoxy'ate heretics'ate the pope'ate copts'ate protestantsluv me passoversimple as
>>16590882Messianic jews
>>16590882If Christianity is true then Orthodoxy probably really is your safest bet. The zoomer tradlarpers are right.
>>16592008but any good christian sect should consider themselves the jews, or the successors to the jews, there shouldnt be anything special about messianic jews other than that they adhere to different traditionsthis is what the orthodox believe, since christianity was founded by jews, that christianity is the jewish religion, but it is not a talmudic heresy like modern judaism and some messianic jews
>>16592015>but any good christian sect should consider themselves the jews, or the successors to the jewsNo, yahweh only cares about Jacob's bloodline. That hasn't changed.
>>16592043You seem to care far more, schizo.
>>16592057>simply state facts pertinent to the discussion>noo i'm mad at facts ehhhhhh
>>16590882There never was a "true church" as an institution. Even in its earliest days (perhaps especially then) there were many different forms of Christianity that had different theologies and practices and had various views on the role and divinity status of Jesus. Ultimately institutional religion was created as a means of social control for normies/NPCs. This is not to say that various sects haven't helped produce saints or holy men each in their own right. However, I do not believe that being spiritual is something that can be cultivated by being raised within a certain religion, it is something that must come from within, often at odds with tradition.
>>16592109>Even in its earliest days (perhaps especially then) there were many different forms of Christianitymany different forms of heresies*
>>16590882>From a historical and theological standpoint? I believe in Apostolic Succession but I’m not sure which Church is “The Church”.The very first followers of Jesus merely saw Jesus as the Moshiach, a messiah. A mortal leader of mankind given by God. At that time God was one just as in Judaism.Then up until around 400AD Christianity was mostly Binitarian. So the equivalence of God with Jesus. The spirit was almost never mentioned.Jesus was frequently seen as subordinate, or weaker than God etc. The composition of the Gospels 100 years after the death of Jesus paint him as a miracle maker leading to his interpretation as a manifestation of God. Thus the binitarianism. However Jesus himself never claims to be God in the Gospels.The first artistic Christian depiction of a trinity was in 350 AD and the first modern understanding of a true trinity was discussed in the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD). Although the trinity is never explicitly stated or explained in the NT and so is actually a church consensus doctrine.So you can see the complete evolution of Christianity away from its Jewish birth...
>>16590882The Catholic Church. If it wasn't the real Church people wouldn't hate it for all the wrong reasons.
>>16590882We can see historically that Catholicism is the main character. And Jesus prayed that His followers be one, so everyone will eventually come back. You can click here on papacy and Peter related quotes by the Church Fathers:https://www.churchfathers.org/>>16591163Apostles and their successors literally concocted the bible because the have the authority to do so. So if you accept the bible you already accept the authority of the apostles and that of their successors.
>>16592116>actually believing that you happened to stumble into the correct, exclusive, Divinely-ordained™ Institution and that everyone else is le hereticsYou know that the other sects think the same thing about you, right?
>>16590882This lecture on how the papacy stems from the Old testament and other old historical sources is good:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl3pD4l0K5U
>>16592126retards will be wrong, whats new?
>>16592137Huh, yeah, guess you're right.
>>16592120The church was started by Christ Jesus in the First Century AD. The events of the Gospels and Acts actually happened, and the New Testament was written by the apostles. The Bible has many triadic statements showing the fundamental reality of the Holy Trinity.Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."John 1:1-3"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."John 1:14"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,"Matthew 28:19-20"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."1 John 5:7"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."John 14:26"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."John 16:13"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."Titus 3:4-6"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;"There are many more triadic statements like the above one I could post and share.
>>16592120>>16593630Here are a few more triadic statements in the Bible just to give a few examples:"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."(Psalm 33:6)"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."(John 4:23-24)"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"(John 15:26)"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."(Acts 5:3-4)"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."(Acts 20:28)"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."(2 Corinthians 1:21-22)"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."(2 Corinthians 13:14)"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth."(Revelation 1:4-5)
>>16592125>Apostles and their successors literally concocted the bible because the have the authority to do soNo, your masters are not "their successors", nor does any man have the authority to "concoct" the bible because it is the word of God. It derives its authority entirely from God its author, and is bestowed upon the Church (which passively receives it) by His free will.
>>16593630Amen brother. God bless you.
>>16593687Thanks anon. "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:5-6)
>>16590882Christian Identity
>>16591754I have very strong reasons to doubt that.Especially in the case of Calvinists.Anglicans might have a better argument to make, but it's still not airtight. At least the RCC outright denies their orders are legit.>>16591168Luther wasn't a bishop. He didn't have the authority to consecrate new priests, that's why Lutherans in Germany abolished bishops entirely.The monarchical episcopacy is clearly what every single church that retains apostolic succession clings to, and this was rejected by Luther.
>>16594311Are laity boards against Catholicism? There is an organization that uses laity boards and I find that a problem.
>>16594349idk what laity boards are, or at least what they do
>>16594311I would say it doesn't matter what man's recognition is, only what God's recognition is.Also, Paul wrote: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." (2 Thess. 3:6)That means whoever goes against what we have from the apostles is disorderly. And of course, in 2 Peter 1:20 it says that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, and in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit will guide each believer individually into all truth (as confirmed by 1 John 2:27, 1 Corinthians 2:13, etc). Thus, the only people who aren't guided into the truth are unbelievers, and the world is composed mostly of unbelievers. Each brand of Catholicism, then, is a cult - because none of them follow what we have from the apostles in the Bible; they practice idolatry and other things Jesus taught against.
>>16594367>That means whoever goes against what we have from the apostles is disorderly.So that means protestantism is disorderly.>none of them follow what we have from the apostles in the Bible; they practice idolatry lmaoapostolic tradition includes the bible, it isn't limited to it
inb4>protestantism isn't disorderly*schisms**affirms gay marriage*
>>16594383That's pharisaic, anon. It's just like the pharisees, just a different specific type of blasphemy. As such, such false doctrine was rebuked even before it existed when Christ said this in the Gospels:"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."(Mark 7:6-13)
>>16590882Any church with trinitarian baptism is part of the visible church.
>>16590882Armenian Apostolic Church. Most times you don't have to be Armenian to join, just deny the Pope.
>>16594408This
>>16594408>>16594414>The Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as its official religion under the rule of King Tiridates III, of the Arsacid dynasty in the early 4th century.[7][8] According to tradition, the church originated in the missions of Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus of Edessa in the 1st century.
>>16590882Apostolic succession is useless without apostolic teaching. And apostolic teaching is the Bible. Succession was also just an system ancients kept order. Greek pagans practiced this type of succession with their philosophers. It was a way to verify who was a successor of which philosopher and who wasn’t.
>>16594393No, it isn't.2 Thessalonians 215 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.>hold the traditions which ye have been taught>whether by word, or our epistleThe apostles taught their flock things that aren't recorded in the bible. And they were told these things are traditions that should be held to.You are directly comparing the apostles and their successors with the pharisees. That is fucked up and backwards, especially when the literal pharisees still exist. Peter was given the power to bind on heaven and earth. This power is qualitatively different from the judgements the Pharisees made based not on the Mosaic law, but on their own tradtitions of men not blessed by God. Even if the ultimate source of those traditions may have been from the patriarchs, the way the Pharisees interpreted them was specifically to loophole the spirit of the law by autistically pilpuling the letter of the law.You know, kind of how some protestants will lecture you for hours about the precise meaning of a single word in a single verse. It's missing the forest for the trees, it's formulaic.In this case, honor thy parents is being sidestepped for no reason other than convenience through this corban practice.This is why Paul says the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.The apostolic tradition IS blessed by God. That's the key difference.
>>16594429>apostolic teaching is the Bible"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."Note, not all the teachings of the apostles are in the New Testament.Apostolic tradition contains the bible, but it isn't limited to it.
>le sola scripturale scriptura: 2 Thessalonians 2:15
>>16594431There wasn't a separate mystical gnostic teaching that was only allowed to be taught by word of mouth and never written down. The point there is that the word of God is the same whether it is written or heard spoken aloud. So when we read the Scripture, it's the same as if the apostle himself was there telling it to us. That's what Paul is saying here. Not that there is a gnostic hidden teaching that can't be written down (except here).>You are directly comparing the apostles and their successors with the pharisees.The people claiming to be successors have no connection. They are not related to the apostles any more than Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism was, or Marcion was. I don't believe anyone is an actual successor to the apostles, because they are still alive in heaven. Only Judas Iscariot had to be replaced since he was damned for his betrayal, the exception proves the rule. If you think the apostles had successors, you are literally saying they are like Judas Iscariot.>Even if the ultimate source of those traditions may have been from the patriarchsNo, anon. They just had literal made up nonsense that they called "oral tradition." Some random cultist made it up. Paul calls it "cleverly devised fables." They insisted that whatever nonsense some guy made up was from the "oral law" when it really wasn't and there was no such thing in the first place. It's the same today.>especially when the literal pharisees still exist.They have copycats. Those copycats are no less damnable in their manmade doctrines than the pharisees are.>You know, kind of how some protestants will lecture you for hours about the precise meaning of a single word in a single verse.Jesus Christ exposed their doctrines as being manmade. According to God it stood in contrast, to what? To the written word of God. It was completely made up.It wasn't just reinterpreted or whatever, it was made up from nothing. And there are people going around, today, doing that.
>>16594431>>16594433>>16594439The Thessalonians received the Gospel first by word from the Apostle Paul. That's what the verse is saying. If your tradition has a still-living apostle giving direct divine revelation as the word of God, then yes, the passage would apply. I don't think any church in the post-Apostolic age has that.
>>16594456>Paul calls it "cleverly devised fables."I meant to say Peter. Here is the reference:"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."(2 Peter 1:16-20)
>>16594366When laity establish their own missions and churches. In these organisations, laymen exercise the authority which ordinarily is reserved to the bishop or his nominee.
>>16594433>2 ThessaloniansThe true patristic interpretation of that verse is that it is about creedal statements handed on and taken SOLELY FROM SCRIPTURECat. Lect 5.12, 4.17 and 12.5 Not convincing. it was so considerate of the Apostles to leave behind a definitive written record of their oral traditions of whose authenticity we can be morally certain. We’re not Stone Age tribes. The Bible is written tradition. Tradition is tradition whether it be written or oral. Written tradition is way more trustworthy and reliable than oral. No one can be morally certain of the authenticity of the teachings of Jesus outside of the Bible.
>>16594456>There wasn't a separate mystical gnostic teaching that was only allowed to be taught by word of mouth and never written down.Did I say "allowed"?Dude, they simply didn't write everything down because they weren't afflicted with autism. Inspiration doesn't only happen when you write something down.It just so happens those writings which were canonized were inspired. It doesn't mean that's the only possible instance of inspiration that ever happened.>the word of God is the same whether it is written or heard spoken aloudPaul uses the word "traditions". In the plural. The word of God is never referred to in the plural.What he is talking about are the traditions of the apostles, which are different than scripture.>I don't believe anyone is an actual successor to the apostlesYou don't seem to differentiate between the church militant and the church triumphant.>They just had literal made up nonsense that they called "oral tradition." That's the made up nonsense here. There absolutely were traditions passed down from the time of Moses, from Abraham, from the patriarchs.There's lots of evidence for this. While rabbinic Judaism retains some of these traditions, they have added their own fabrications onto them and this only accelerated after their rejection of Christ. We all know that.>Paul calls it "cleverly devised fables." Verse?>They have copycats. They have lineal descendants, from the Pharisee Akiva who escaped the siege of Jerusalem by collaberating with the Romans.
>>16590882Protestants believe in the invisible church, not meaning that there's no visible churches, but that the church means all true believers and isn't confined to a single organisation.Considering how flawed every church is, this makes the most sense to me.
>>16594465oh, so the Gospel is one of the apostolic traditions Paul is writing aboutcool>I don't think any church in the post-Apostolic age has that.The apostles are literally still alive. There is no "post-Apostolic" age in the bible.>>16594489>Written tradition is way more trustworthy and reliable than oral. Not necessarily. Written things can be corrupted by malicious or incompetent editors or scribes.Oral traditions are memorized and passed down directly in a chain from master to disciple.
>>16594495Ok Chief Little Turtle. A perfect example of the unreliability of unwritten sacred tradition is found in Irenæus.In Against Heresies, Irenæus explains how Jesus was at least 50 when he died. Reading it as part of the whole really puts it in context showing just how dangerous and misguided it is to base believes and doctrines merely on unwritten tradition.In Bk 2:25 Irenæus writes how those who believe Christ’s public career only lasted for one year robs “Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age” he further adds how Jesus began as an infant for infants, an adult for adults and “He was an old man for old men. He further notes how Jesus arrived at an “advanced age” which Irenæus understands to be no less than 50 years (!), writing, “He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now this is an embarrassing fact (this I say, not to detract from all the good and pious and true things Irenæus wrote and taught) that many defenders of unwritten apostolic tradition shy away from. Irenæus misguidedly grounded this awkward historical blunder in. For he writes, “all the elders testify [that this is the case]; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan [died in 53 AD making Christ at least 53-56 years old at his death]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?”
>>16594503This should serve as a stark and serious warning about the unreliability of unwritten traditions and how dangerous and mistaken appeals to it can be. Read the Holy Scripture and trust it, it alone is infallible and is able to correct and reprove any other authority. Unwritten tradition are liable to error and deception, even if otherwise good and trustworthy sources in the 2ndcentury ground them in apostolic teaching and preaching. If these cannot be trusted, then how much less should be trust the appeals to the Assumption of Mary in the 7th century or the defense of the worship of icons made in the 8th century being unwritten apostolic traditions? Indeed, according to Irenæus unwritten tradition taught that Jesus had a public ministry of at least 20-30 years! (From Jesus was 30 to He was 50-56)
>>16594492>There absolutely were traditions passed down from the time of Moses, from Abraham, from the patriarchs.So you think the Pharisees also had extrabiblical inspired teachings, huh? Tell me again how what you're saying is different from them right now?>Verse?"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."(2 Timothy 4:4)"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"(Ephesians 4:14)Also Peter in 2 Peter said this:"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."(2 Peter 1:16-20)Notice what Peter said at the end there in the last two verses. He is saying that we have a "more sure word" of prophecy, and then explicitly connects it to scripture. People are always making (devising) new manmade doctrines all the time, but Scripture doesn't change. And Paul says, as mentioned here (>>16594367) that we must all follow what we have received (directly) from the apostles. That is, what they wrote. This applies to everyone living today. And if they don't, the believer is to withdraw from them because they are disorderly.>They have lineal descendants, from the Pharisee AkivaMore superstition.
>>16594503>>16594510>dude look at this one dude who could have been wrong>that means you're all wrong LMAOuh, where in any of the Gospels does it specify the exact age at which Jesus died?See, you're attacking oral tradition and extrabiblical content. But you actually rely on these same things for your idea that Jesus was 33 when he died.John 8 57Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”Meanwhile, Irenaeus was literally quoting scripture when he made his error. His interperitation of scripture led him into error.>“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.”
>>16594528Wrong once again my friend,"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"(Luke 3:23)You don't need oral tradition to know this.
>>16594519>you think the Pharisees also had extrabiblical inspired teachingsYou keep trying to put words in my mouth, and in such a hostile manner.Why would stories of the flood passed down from Shem to his sons necessarily be inspired? Something can be true and useful without being inspired.>2 Timothy 4:4If you check the context of the previous chapter it's clear Paul is talking about the end times.>For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.Isn't Peter warning them about people like Simon Magus here? Who never knew Christ during his ministry but rather pretend to have sucession from him in the way his apostles actually do? Who pretend to share in the authority of the apostles, but are really usurpers and charlatans? That's what he mentions at the very beginning of the next chapter.Hmm...Regardless, it's clear he's not talking about the Pharisees here but rather the wolves in sheep cloth who were active at that time trying to decieve the early church and steal her converts away.>More superstition.It's not. It explains why they persecuted the Christians for centuries after the fall of Jerusalem.Wake the fuck up bro. The Pharisees didn't disappear in the same way the Sadducees did.
>>16594535>Luke 3:23This is at the beginning of his ministry, there is absolutely no information on how old Jesus was when he died in the bible.Sorry, but you rely on extrabiblical sources for your timeline. Hate to break it to you, but this wasn't a problem for any of the early Church Fathers. It's only a problem for sola scriptura heretics.>You don't need oral tradition to know this.But I guess you need US Naval Observatory data to date the supernaturally occuring darkening of the sun on Good Friday.That's basically the same thing as the bible.
dude, they didn't bother including Jesus' age at time of death in the Gospels or even the epistles and Acts because it simply wasn't that importantthey were more concerned with the message and teachings than the autismo biographical details only later historians would care aboutthat's why apostolic tradition is cool, it fills in those less critical narrative gaps
>>16594547>You keep trying to put words in my mouth, and in such a hostile manner.You literally said back here (>>16594492) that "While rabbinic Judaism retains some of these traditions, they have added their own fabrications"This is implying that these "traditions" are inspired. Now you're backing away from that?>Regardless, it's clear he's not talking about the Pharisees hereI disagree, see what it says in Titus."Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."(Titus 1:14)The people promoting manmade Jewish fables were pharisees, sadducees, and scribes. The point is that these people are promoting things that are cunningly crafted to look like real Biblical tradition, but they aren't. They are just manmade, just as the Pharisees who "set aside the commandment of God." As it says in Mark 7."Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."(Mark 7:7-8)The Pharisees and scribes were following manmade traditions. These were things that were devised to appear like they came from a long tradition, but they are not written anywhere in actual Scripture. They are satanic frauds, and the practice of making up oral traditions is still continuing today, and it is pharisaic.
>>16594578>This is implying that these "traditions" are inspired.No, it really doesn't. Again, you seem to be equating truth with inspiration. That's wrong headed.The Pharisees inherited some true stories from their ancestors. The also probably inherited some false ones. They also tacked their own traditions onto both of these, and Jesus called them out on it. That doesn't mean these ancient stories and life hacks were inspired like the Mosaic law found in the Pentateuch is.>hey are not written anywhere in actual Scripture. They are satanic fraudsdude, try taking a chill pill and hopping down off your pulpit for just one secondsomething not being written down in the Pentateuch doesn't suddenly mean it's a lie or of the fallen onescripture does not contain literally everything, it is a book written with a specific purpose in mind, and it cannot contain everything
>>16594555>but you rely on extrabiblical sources for your timeline.You can know from the Gospel of John that Jesus attended three annual Feasts of Passover through the course of his ministry. John 2,6, and the passover of his crucifixion. You can add more time for the things he did before the first Passover. By the time of that first Passover (in the spring of 30), Jesus had already traveled from the area of the Jordan to Cana to Capernaum to Jerusalem. He had been baptized by John (Matthew 3:13–17), been tempted in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1–2), began His preaching ministry (Matthew 4:17), called His first disciples (John 1:35–51), performed His first miracle (John 2:1–11), and made a trip to Capernaum with His family (John 2:12). All this would have taken several months, at least. So we can tell from the Bible his ministry lasted 3 years not 20-30 years.
>>16594608>three annual Feasts of Passover through the course of his ministryAt a minimum, sure. But that only provides a lower bound for the length of his ministry. It's possible that Jesus could have celebrated more passovers than are mentioned, but personally I think the number three is significant here. Look, we're in agreement here. I think Jesus was 33 too, I just recognize that it's not an important issue. And it's certainly NOT worth throwing away the entire concept of apostolic traditon over just because a single church father made a chronological error. Baby, bathwater, you get the idea.For the record, I notice that you are relying entirely on John and Matthew for your argument. Moreover, every example you post is from a chapter before the 5th in each book. Meaning it's very limited in terms of it's textual reach. The chronology isn't really my area of study.
>>16594311Anglicans actually are airtight. The first archbishop of Canterbury was also the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury. Furthermore, the Anglicans have also given it to the Episcopalians, who in turn have granted it to other Protestant denominations in America as a condition for entering full communion with them.
>>16594756>Anglicans actually are airtight.It seems like there's some disagreement over this issue. >the Anglicans have also given it to the EpiscopaliansSo that would mean the Episcopalians are really Anglican bishops, not Episcopalian bishops. And by extension, all the bishops the Episcopalians ordain in America would be Anglicans by extension.That's basically how ordination works. If the Anglicans didn't actually ordain the Episcopalian bishops, then they wouldn't have apostolic succession. At least supposing Anglicans really do enjoy that.And if the Anglicans get their bishoprics from the Romans, that would make everyone who's in communion with them Roman Catholics by extension. Which I'm sure there is also some disagreement over.Correct me if I'm wrong.There is also the matter of Anglicans having women priests and bishops, a clear violation of the epistles of Paul. This alone suggests there is some kind of spiritual disconnect.
>>16594794First of all, just because all Catholics given it by the Catholic church are a part of the Catholic church doesn't mean that it can't be granted from one church to another. It's all a matter of authority. The way a church is run was done by man, and all the corruption within the Catholic church hasn't revoked its succession. Or are you suggesting that everyone ordained by corrupt priests are invalid? Because that would raise a lot of troubling implications for literally every church, no matter the denomination.
>>16594846>doesn't mean that it can't be granted from one church to anotherSo you're telling me that the Episcopalians could just have easily have ordained Anglican bishops?I don't think that implication would fly over at Anglican HQ.See, the way they look at it the validity of Episcopalian orders now flows necessarily from the validity of their own orders.>Or are you suggesting that everyone ordained by corrupt priests are invalid? There is actual doctrine relating to this issue. Yes. If a priest or bishop obtained his position through monetary transaction, so-called "simony", then his own ordinations are not valid.It is a problem, no matter the denomination.
>>16594854>So you're telling me that the Episcopalians could just have easily have ordained Anglican bishops?Not unless the Anglicans gave them permission. After all, it's the Anglican churches decision whether someone gets to work as a priest under them.>There is actual doctrine relating to this issue. Yes. If a priest or bishop obtained his position through monetary transaction, so-called "simony", then his own ordinations are not valid.Seeing as how the Catholics have had literal criminal popes elected under shady circumstances and plenty of people entered the clergy because they were some third son of a noblemen and forced into it without necessarily being true believers, then it becomes questionable how much Apostistic succession even exists anymore.
>>16594597>That doesn't mean these ancient stories and life hacks were inspired like the Mosaic law found in the Pentateuch is.And so that's what you would call traditions of the sort we're talking about? Because before we were talking about the traditions that Paul was talking about.>scripture does not contain literally everything, it is a book written with a specific purpose in mind, and it cannot contain everythingI believe it contains everything that God has ever inspired."As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."(Isaiah 59:21)"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."(Proverbs 30:5-6)"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."(Psalm 119:160)"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."(Isaiah 40:8)"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:"(Isaiah 30:8)"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."(Matthew 24:35)"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."(Luke 16:17)"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."(2 Timothy 3:16-17)The purpose is that the man of God may be perfect, that is to say complete. Peter also says (1 Peter 1:23-25) that the word of the Lord is incorruptible, unlike man's word. He quotes Isaiah 40:8 and says the word of the Lord shall stand for ever.
>>16594897>He quotes Isaiah 40:8 and says the word of the Lord shall stand for ever.And what that means is that everything God inspired has been preserved for us today. It hasn't been forgotten and then some guy like Joseph Smith suddenly finds/remembers part of God's word. It doesn't work that way.
>>16594890DId Episcopalians ordain any Anglican priests?>>16594897Oh, and what tradition was Paul talking about specifically?The apostolic tradition, I think not.>it contains everything that God has ever inspiredNo.John 2125 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
>>16594913>DId Episcopalians ordain any Anglican priests?Technically Episcopalians are Anglicans, but they're Americans and operate autonomously from the Church of England. They didn't schism or anything, it was an official restructure. But no, Episcopalians do not to my knowledge ordain any Anglican priests.
>>16594913>what tradition was Paul talking about specifically?The inspired (God-breathed) word of God, anon. See 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. I quoted the first one, here's the second:"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."(2 Peter 1:20-21)>John 21:25Not a single word of God is absent from the Bible. Or else you'd be saying that everything Scripture says about this is false. Every single word that God inspired is in the Holy Bible, John 21:25 being the ending of John's Gospel. There is not a single inspired word of God that is not in the Bible.As it says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:16-17)In verse 17 we see that all scripture is given so that "the man of God may be perfect." That means there is nothing missing. His word is complete and perfect, it is exactly what we are supposed to have, and nothing else is on the same level authority. Everything else that claims to be on the same level is a fraud and satanic, like the pharisees we mentioned earlier. It is what the apostles warn us about. Everyone should be officially warned about this. That is exactly why Paul warns us about those who do not follow the traditions we have all received."If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."(1 Timothy 6:3-5)
>>16594931>Episcopalians do not to my knowledge ordain any Anglican priestsExactly.>>16594937>Not a single word of God is absent from the Bible. Jesus said things that are not quoted in the bible. True things And he did things we don't know about too.Those categories might as well be identical when discussing him.So you are directly contradicting John 21.
>>16595129Anon, you are saying anyone can make up anything and we have to accept it as the word of God. That proves you don't know what John is talking about.
>>16594637Jesus’ final Passover is in John 11. I’m not just using the first few chapters of the books. I just provided an example of unwritten oral tradition being completely unreliable and dangerous. No one can be morally certain of this claimed apostolic oral tradition. Also it is more than just one church father. According to Irenæus own words it was the consensus of the church at the time. So a significant part of the church believed this error. This just further shows its unreliability. And the only thing someone can be morally certain of is the written apostolic teachings. Which is the Bible.
>>16595129I don't think you understand Apostolic succession is about more than a position in a specific organization. Otherwise it wouldn't matter at all.
>>16595976It's inherently political, because the whole thing is really about getting men to recognize you as something which no one really is. Whether that be the successor of an apostle or even the "Father" of all (i.e. Pope). The latter of which is also directly against what Christ taught in Matthew 23:9, because that title belongs to God alone.Recall what it says in Luke though,"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."(Luke 16:15)
>>16595259>I just provided an example of unwritten oral tradition being completely unreliable and dangerous.But your example is of someone using John 8:57 to extrapolate Jesus' age. Not any unwritten tradition, he cites a specific verse in John.Nowhere does he claim it's a tradition, his conclusion is a product of his particular reading of scripture.
>>16595217>you are saying anyone can make up anything and we have to accept it That's what you're saying apostolic tradition is.People just making things up.That is highly disrespectful to your faith.
>>16590882>Which Christian Church is the true Church?This one, but the ADL deliberately described some of the critical details incorrectly.
