Except I told that I wasn’t referring only to that text once you asked. Perhaps, jumping into the thread you lost context. Should a reader of the Bible parse it word by word or verse by verse ignoring the context, audience and other Biblical references? The answer is unequivocally no. That’s not eisegesis, but correct and proper exegesis.
Perhaps, you don’t like the answers, but Apostolic succession is a reasonable inference from the text of the New Testament. Many Christian churches adhere to this interpretation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Churches_claiming_apostolic_succession
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Are you arguing from a hatred of Mormonism and desire for the approval of your fellows? If these, who you accept and admit as Christians, believe in Apostles and Apostolic succession, why the beef with Mormons? You just don’t agree with the doctrine, right?
As regards your interpretation of Acts 1 in toto and for 1:22 specifically, you are simply wrong. Take another look at the entire chapter and do so in context. http://biblehub.com/ylt/acts/1.htm
NB 1:22 is describing Jesus’ ministry as beginning with John’s baptism to his [Jesus’] ascension, not that an apostle must be one who witnessed all those things first hand. If you know which Apostles witnessed the baptism of Jesus Christ please tell me and cite your verses (from the Bible only).
Here’s the Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/acts/1-22.htm
Note that witness/martyr is in the genitive in 1:22
http://biblesuite.com/greek/3144.htm
Therefore it is a figurative witness, not a literal [your word - physical] witness. They may have been physical/literal witnesses, but it is their Spiritual witness that really matters.
Do you honestly believe that the Apostles named in Acts were witnesses to the ends of the earth, everywhere, and that their mission was completed within their lifetimes?
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/1-8.htm
This verse from Rev. might help: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-5.htm
Take a look at John 1:35-51
http://biblehub.com/kjvs/john/1.htm
It would also benefit you to look at the references given for Matthew, Mark and Luke under the heading Jesus Calls His First Disciples as well.
As for delivering Peter’s letter look here: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-1.htm
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia are provinces and very big: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Roman_Empire_125_political_map.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Augusto_30aC_-_6dC_55%25CS_jpg.JPG
You’d have to deliver the letter to someone in each of the churches in that region. To whom would that be? How would you determine that? By what authority? What political boundary would that church have? How many people should get it and would you just give it to anyone who claimed to be a leader or a Christian?
The question of delivering Peter’s letter is fundamental to understanding the nature of the early Christian Church and its organization and leadership. That’s how we can come to an expectation of what His True Church will be like.
I never said that a reasonable inference couldn't be made. A compelling argument is a different issue altogether. I warned against dogmatism on the position since there are many churches and theologians who do not hold to apostolic succession.
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
I had already decided that my last post was going to be just that, my last post on the issue. It was clear that we were just going round in circles.
Are you arguing from a hatred of Mormonism and desire for the approval of your fellows?
This is insulting and in violation of the religion forum rules on impugning motives.
If these, who you accept and admit as Christians, believe in Apostles and Apostolic succession, why the beef with Mormons?
There are many issues with which I can agree with these churches. Theologically, there is little or nothing in Mormonism with which I agree.
You just don’t agree with the doctrine, right?
Right. I don't agree with it whether held by Mormons, Catholics, whoever.
NB 1:22 is describing Jesus’ ministry as beginning with John’s baptism to his [Jesus’] ascension, not that an apostle must be one who witnessed all those things first hand.
Huh? Acts 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” From the text: one of these men MUST become with us a witness. Which men? "One of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us..."
If you know which Apostles witnessed the baptism of Jesus Christ please tell me and cite your verses (from the Bible only).
Apparently, Justus and Matthias. However, why would I have to know? I'm not making the selection. Presumably, the eleven Apostles knew.
You’d have to deliver the letter to someone in each of the churches in that region. To whom would that be? How would you determine that? By what authority? What political boundary would that church have? How many people should get it and would you just give it to anyone who claimed to be a leader or a Christian?
If Peter commissioned me to deliver his epistle, I'm sure that he would tell the necessary information to complete the task. It takes no apostolic powers or office to accomplish this. Anyone with common sense who sends a messenger would do it.
Authority? Political boundaries? Sounds like the type of leading questions which someone with preconceived notions would ask.
