LOL! There are 10 volumes of Christian writings that precede the Council of Nicea in 325. Perhaps you should consider reading them. There are also a number of writings outside this collection. Please!
Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'? It sure isn't in the Bible
Since you are not aware of the Church Fathers' massive amounts of writing, it is not surprising you have not heard of what the Church believed in the first couple of centuries. As to the Scripture, one merely needs to read the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles to figure out that men were being commissioned by the original apostles to continue the Work of the Body - to bring the Kingdom of God to a new generation of men. Didn't Christ say that He would be with men for all generations?
The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing. We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on.
Of course it was. But you misunderstand what "tradition" is. It is not oral tradition today. It was orally given initially before the Scriptures were written. But eventaullly, all of this got written down. Tradition is not something that is passed along orally TODAY. It is just something that the Apostles didn't directly address when the were writing letters to communities. They didn't find it necessary to teach EVERYTHING through those letters. It wasn't necessary to rehash EVERYTHING - only those things that people were unsure on or where there were problems.
Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes
Think for a second here. Christianity was an outlawed religion. It did not have the status of a protected religion like Judaism. It is ridiculous to think that the Church should have cathedrals in the first 300 years!
By the way, what version did you get that quote from?
Either the KJV or the NKJV. I don't remember.
anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success.
Ditto, brother.
Regards
Those writings are not secular history, they are religious writings.
We have very little secular history from the 1st century that gives us any knowledge of Christ outside of the Bible.
What we know about Christ and the Apostles comes from the Bible, not outside sources
Where does it state in the first two centuries anything about 'apostolic succession'? It sure isn't in the Bible Since you are not aware of the Church Fathers' massive amounts of writing, it is not surprising you have not heard of what the Church believed in the first couple of centuries.
And what do the 'Church Fathers' have to do with historical proof of Apostolic sucession.
The Roman Catholic Church began in the 4th Century.
No Apostolic sucession for the first 300 years.
As to the Scripture, one merely needs to read the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles to figure out that men were being commissioned by the original apostles to continue the Work of the Body - to bring the Kingdom of God to a new generation of men. Didn't Christ say that He would be with men for all generations?
Men were commissioned to lead the churches throughout the first century, other Apostles such as Timothy, Silvanus, James the Lord's (half) brother(Gal.1:9)(LOL!).
These men finished the work of overseeing the churches until the completion of the NT Canon in 96 AD.
The last writing we have from an Apostle is from John, the Book of Revelation, which warns us about false Apostles (Rev.2:2)
As for Christ being with the church, He is since He indwells each believer at the moment (not process) of salvation (Jn.14:23, Col.1:27)
The New Testament was formed by revelation to the Apostles and put in writing. We do not go by 'oral tradition' since there are no more Apostles left to pass it on. Of course it was. But you misunderstand what "tradition" is. It is not oral tradition today. It was orally given initially before the Scriptures were written. But eventaullly, all of this got written down. Tradition is not something that is passed along orally TODAY. It is just something that the Apostles didn't directly address when the were writing letters to communities. They didn't find it necessary to teach EVERYTHING through those letters. It wasn't necessary to rehash EVERYTHING - only those things that people were unsure on or where there were problems.
Well so much for the Bible!
What God had written down is what God wants us to know, not some 'tradition' that seems to get changed when it is convient to do so.
Christ had no use for any traditon that went against the Holy Scriptures (Mk.7:7)
Paul is addressing local churches, which were located not in buildings but in homes Think for a second here. Christianity was an outlawed religion. It did not have the status of a protected religion like Judaism. It is ridiculous to think that the Church should have cathedrals in the first 300 years!
Christianity was not in homes because of persecution, but because there was no need for a building.
The cathedrals came when Church and State united and forced everyone to be a 'Catholic'.
By the way, what version did you get that quote from? Either the KJV or the NKJV. I don't remember.
Well, neither have the word 'expedient' in it.
You probably had another verse in mind and mixed them together.
anytime I can get a Roman Catholic to actually attempt to use scripture to make a point, I count it a great success. Ditto, brother. Regards
Amen.