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.
Who is Peter to you? Why can he "commission" you? Are you just doing him a favor? Do you recognize his authority, if yes, why? After Peter's death who would you look to for Christian direction?
Authority? Political boundaries? Sounds like the type of leading questions which someone with preconceived notions would ask.
There aren't any preconceived notions, unless Peter is paying you, why are you obligated to deliver his missive? Regarding the political boundaries of those territories, Rome, as the political authority in the region, set those boundaries. You do realize that you'd be delivering Peter's epistle to an area about the size of modern Turkey, correct? So Peter would need to know by name and location who the proper Christian authorities are in each locale and there would be dozens of them. How did they get their authority?
As a schismatic Catholic these are the questions you must ask if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church.