====Ok, and what happened when the last of these people died? Did the church die with them?
No The Church continued on as it had before with the Head of the Church - Chirst and the Elders (Bishops) and Decons Continuing to do the task as given them by the Apostles.
====Or did the Apostle appoint others to carry on their mission the way that Christ appointed them?
No Record of Apostles appointing any others to be Apostles save Mathias in the New Testament.
====The Apostles have the authority to select their successors. And so on and so forth.
And the only recorded time they did they used requirements as stated in Acts 1 21-22
====We look at Irenaeus, and one of the things he talks about is having a list of bishops - and how the continuity from one bishop to another is important.
Bishops - Elders are not Apostles the means by which a Elder - Bishop - Overseer is chosen does not have the requirements of an Apostle.
====What we don’t see is the argument that Alex is making here. This is significant. If it were so, we would see it then. But we do not.
====We’re supposed to believe that a Church that has no existence whatsoever before John Knox has it right, while the Church that was in existence prior to Knox has it wrong.
Mr Knox opinion on the matter is not relevant really, as the New Testament quite clearly states when Christ’s Church was begun. As well as laying out the positions and their requirements.
====Does that make much sense to you?
“No The Church continued on as it had before”
So the Apostles selected Bishops, Bishops selected other Bishops. There is historical continuity from the time of the Apostles to now, correct?
“And the only recorded time they did they used requirements as stated in Acts 1 21-22”
Yet, you just said yourself. The Church continued on after the Apostles. The Apostles appointing their successors the Bishops, who had the authority to select their own bishops. Correct?
“Bishops - Elders are not Apostles the means by which a Elder - Bishop - Overseer is chosen does not have the requirements of an Apostle.”
Then the Church died with St. John.
“Mr Knox opinion on the matter is not relevant really”
Alex’s position is that Knox’s definition is the correct definition of apostolicity. Ergo, his position *is* relevent to this argument.
If Knox is wrong about this claim - then we have to go back to the core question here - what is apostolicity? Who has it? Why does the Church dating back to the first century has it when the church dating to the 16th does not?
“as the New Testament quite clearly states when Christ’s Church was begun.”
Which was in the first century. Which church today is this church?