Apostolic Succession as Authority

This is a thread started to prevent derailing one already in progress—curiosity posted the following here at
Is the fear of God equal to the fear of Satan? See her post id# 2325918 posted on 7/8/2006 for the whole thing—and this is the quoted part that spurred me to answer as I have, below.

from: THE ANTICHRIST by Larry D Harper, New Matter Copyright @ 1992 by the Elijah Project

Unbelivers have their schools of thought (haereseis), each with its own disciples (mathetes) and its own tradition (paradosis). Christianity also has disciples and a tradition. However, Christianity is not a school of thought because the apostolic tradition is divinely revealed to the Apostles. So it is not the product of human thought processes. The heretics have made the apostolic tradition a school of thought by changing it to suit themselves. Therefore the difference between the Church and Christian heresies is obvious. The church does not change the apostolic tradition. The heretics do.

What is an apostle, though, according to how the Apostles used the word applying the themselves, in the Koine Greek used by the believers of Christ in those days?

G652
apostolos
From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.
G649
apostellō
From G575 and G4724; set apart, that is, (by implication) to send out (properly on a mission) literally or figuratively: - put in, send (away, forth, out), set [at liberty].

Formed from two roots:

G575 apo
A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.
G4724 stellō
Probably strengthened from the base of G2476; properly to set fast (“stall”), that is, (figuratively) to repress (reflexively abstain from associating with): - avoid, withdraw self.
G2476 histēmi
A prolonged form of a primary word στάω staō (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): - abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up). Compare G5087.

The last word, G2476, is rooted in the word ‘stao’, and is one that is common to both the word apostle and the word translated as resurrection—which is:

G386 anastasis
From G450; a standing up again, that is, (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, general or by implication (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): - raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

Formed from:

G450 anistēmi
From G303 and G2476; to stand up (literally or figuratively, transitively or intransitively): - arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up (-right).
G303 ana
A primary preposition and adverb; properly up; but (by extension) used (distributively) severally, or (locally) at (etc.): - and, apiece, by, each, every (man), in, through. In compounds (as a prefix) it often means (by implication) repetition, intensity, reversal, etc.

As you can see, G450 is also rooted in G2476—these words are both about ‘standing.’ An apostle, then, is ‘sent forth’ and ‘set apart’ for the purpose of being a divine Ambassador commissioned by God the King of the Universe. And an ambassador is a bringer of good tidings, not threats and ultimatums. Ambassadors have their mission rooted in friendliness, not war or destruction.
Now, who is sent? Prophets and angels are ‘sent’ and of course, set apart by default. No prophet is honored in his own town, remember? The true prophet is a hermit and outcast—and happier for it, too, no doubt.
Here is a list of verses in the NT that mention something or someone being ‘sent’:

• Matthew (2:8,16; 10:5,40; 11:2; 13:36; 14:10,22-23,35; 15:24,39; 20:2; 21:1,34,36-37; 22:3,4,7,16; 23:37; 27:19)
• Mark (1:43; 3:31; 4:36; 6:17,27,45-46; 8:9,26; 9:37; 12:2- 6)
• Luke (1:19,26,53; 4:18,26,43; 7:3,6,10,19-20; 8:38; 9:2,48,52; 10:1,16; 13:34; 14:17; 15:15; 19:14,29,32; 20:10-12,20; 22:8,35; 23:7,11,15)
• John (1:6,8,19,22,24,33; 3:17,28,34; 4:34,38; 5:23,24,30,33,36- 38; 6:29,38-39,40,44,57; 7:16,18,28-29,32-33; 8:16,18,26,29,42; 9:4,7; 10:36; 11:3,42; 12:44-45,49; 13:16,20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3,18,21,23,25; 18:24; 20:21)
• Acts (3:26; 5:21; 7:12,14; 8:14; 9:17,30,38; 10:8,17,20-21,29,33,36; 11:11,22,30; 12:11; 13:3-4,15,26; 15:27; 16:35-36; 17:10,14; 19:22,31; 20:17; 23:30; 24:24,26; 28:28)
• Romans (10:15)
• 1 Corinthians (1:17; 4:17)
• 2 Corinthians (8:18,22; 9:3; 12:17-18)
• Galatians (4:4,6)
• Ephesians (6:22)
• Philippians (2:28; 4:16,18)
• Colossians (4:8)
• 1 Thessalonians(3:2,5)
• 2 Timothy (4:12)
• Philemon (1:12)
• Hebrews (1:14)
• James (2:25)
• 1 Peter (1:12; 2:14)
• 1 John (4:9,10,14)
• Revelation (1:1; 5:6; 22:6,16)

I’ll just quote a few of them, for the sake of space.

…Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat…from Matthew 10

The parable of the vineyard is much to do with the idea of being ‘sent,’ in Matthew chapter 21, starting in verse 33; and also Mark chapter 12.
Then we have the parable of the King’s wedding feast starting in with chapter 22.
The following is also an important passage which includes ‘sent.’

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23:34-39)

Here is Gabriel, an angel, the Herald, also ‘sent.’

And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. (Luke 1:19)
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, (Luke 1:26)

Glad tidings—things of good, peace, and word of promises fulfilled!
And of course, our LORD Yehoshua was sent! Sent not to condemn but to save. Those claiming apostolic authority condemn with impunity and never say, for sure, that even themselves are considered ‘saved.’ It’s a game of suspense to the last breath. Hopefully one’s family can afford a payment toward one’s early release from purgatory.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
(Luke 4:18-19)

The people heard this, and like it—until he said the following:

But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. (Luke 4:26)

Then they wanted to push him off the cliff and kill him! They didn’t like what the Apostle (sent) had to say about another who had been sent (prophet)!
[continued...]

[edit on 7/8/2006 by queenannie38]

Being sent always includes a ‘mission’ statement, divine orders from the Most High God—the Father, who is spirit, not flesh.
Luke 15 is the parable of the two sons—one is ‘sent’ and one stays home—this another significant part of the whole, and Luke 19 is another one that bears contemplation.

And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them. And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. (Luke 20:19-20)

Now, the verse above is a very prophetic message; in fact the whole of the NT is prophetic in nature.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

Every name in the bible is significant, without exception. John means: the grace or mercy of the Lord.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:17-18)

There really isn’t anything in the canon to suggest that apostles are generational—that is, they aren’t something the proceed, one from another, out of themselves. They are sent by God. Every time an Apostle is among us, God sent that one.

For he whom God hath sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure unto him.
(John 3:34)

The church fathers rely upon ‘apostolic succession’ and that means they really aren’t coming in the name of God, the Father. They bank on the Son’s name and they use that name as their badge—entitling them to condemn at will, anyone who doesn’t speak what they say is truth. And yet, the bible doesn’t hold up their testimony—and so we have the copious amounts of their writings and the Bishop’s catechism—and the never ending maze of papal decrees. Even what I’ve read in the church fathers is not supported by the canon—and certainly the catechism is misleading at best and blasphemous at worst. See the following verse?

I receive not honor from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?(John 5:41-44)

That honor isn’t by the will of men, but from God who is the God of the Living, not the dead!

Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that sees me sees him that sent me. (John 12:42-45)

Even the trinity doctrine, framed by the Nicene creed (created in response to so-called heresies) is a refutation of the scripture and the LORD’s words, themselves:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I could go through, and pick apart the numerous conflicts in these words, as compared to the very words of Yehoshua, himself—but I won’t. But hopefully it will be seen by some—I’m not trying to force anyone’s mind to change. It’s apparent if one desires the truth, and if not,--well, then my words are disdained. Either way I’m still doing what I, annie, am supposed to be doing.
The servant is not greater than the lord—and if God sends some, he will send them all. No need to preserve some sort of holy prince of apostle succession in the name of some defensible fragile truth---truth is not fragile—truth is as Atlas—truth holds the world upon its shoulders, perpetually.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. (John 13:16)

Christianity worships Christ, not God—elevating Him to the same heights as God in their estimation. But Christ is not God the Most High—He is indeed forever honored as His right hand and as such, is our LORD God and we are to obey the words He spoke and follow His example. But we are to worship God only, and give all Glory to the Father. The Father, then, glorifies the Son.

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. (Acts 3:26)

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Romans 10:14-16)

Also read 1st John 4 and Revelation 1:1-2, 5:6, and 22:6.

Why is there still misery and suffering in this world if the church is not an imposter? Why is there more atheism than there is hope and faith? Why so much endless strife and debate about heresies and so much scorn for those who despise the so-called gospel as preached by the Christian ministers? Why is there division or selective salvation? Why do men esteem lettered theologian’s teachings higher than they do
what the bible says?

Why do they even look for an antichrist if they should be looking out for Christ?

[edit on 7/8/2006 by queenannie38]

Okay, queenie, I haven't had time to read all of your posts but one thing needs to be cleared up.

In the quote I put in my post on the other thread there was mention made of this:

THE ANTICHRIST by Larry D Harper, New Matter Copyright @ 1992 by the Elijah Project "because the apostolic tradition is divinely revealed to the Apostles"

I don't believe the "apostolic tradition" spoken of is referring to the Catholic assumption that the Pope is a descendant of Peter the Apostle.

Since Irenaeus' day was before the time of the Catholic church and it's mucking with the traditions, I believe he was speaking of the Gospel as reported to the followers by the Apostles. Ireneaus called it "tradition", the Bible calls it "doctrine" as in Acts 2:42 where it reads:

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

and in Rom 6:17 where it is written

But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

The apostles doctrine was what Jesus taught and was not the same as the Jewish doctrines, as in Matt 16:12

Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Also, the source by Mr. Harper quoted above says this on page 3:

The writings of Irenaeus...disclose (he) clearly believed (his) obligation was first to master the Apostolic Teaching and then to transmit it unchanged to subsequent generations

By the way, I fully agree that not all apostles were the 12, but whoever is sent, ie missionaries, or those sent strictly by God, such as John the Baptist and others not in the Bible.

More later.

Originally posted by curiousity
I don't believe the "apostolic tradition" spoken of is referring to the Catholic assumption that the Pope is a descendant of Peter the Apostle.

I didn't think you did--however it is from the Catholic assumption naming christianity as the authorized faith of Jesus Christ that all christianity comes from.

Since Irenaeus' day was before the time of the Catholic church and it's mucking with the traditions, I believe he was speaking of the Gospel as reported to the followers by the Apostles. Ireneaus called it "tradition", the Bible calls it "doctrine" as in Acts 2:42 where it reads:

Yes, but traditions and doctrines are two different things. Christ taught an astonishing doctrine--and even the learned religious men of that time couldn't catch him up in his words. They were the masters at that!
Christ also condemned their doctrines and their traditions--the ones that went against the law of Moses. The law of Moses came from God. Christ's teachings came from God. All the rest come from men and are extolled by men.

Modern Judaism isn't at all the same thing as the faith of Israel--it is a religion, too--but what Moses gave the Israelites was the law--the laws of Aaron are fulfilled, but the 10 commandments will stand as long as the world is here. And the 'abridged' version Christ expounded as Love God and Love Your Neighbor--these do not make more commandments from the 10, but rather economize them into 2. And yet those 2, when followed, will not cause infractions of the law of Moses.
On the other hand, how many rules--and more rules and even a few more--are given and argued over; causing divisions, hatred, and strife, in the name of the LORD?

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

and in Rom 6:17 where it is written

But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

The apostles doctrine was what Jesus taught and was not the same as the Jewish doctrines, as in Matt 16:12

That's true--but when Jesus referred to the Pharisees and Sadducees, he was not referring to the teachings of Moses, either--he extolled and upheld what Moses gave as instruction, and even said that Moses would accuse those ones in the last days.

And when I speak of Israel, I am not speaking of the Jews we know today. I'm speaking of Israel. Israel follows the laws of Moses having them written upon their hearts since the Pentecost following the Passover on which Christ was crucified.

I know of not one religion that does this, as a group.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
(Matthew 23:1-4)

Mark chapter 7 addresses this same idea.

The 'leaven' of the Pharisees is the puffing up of the 'bread.' The bread being law and knowledge, and leaven being something that falsely elevates that law--and makes that loaf appear much larger than the sum of it's ingredients.

Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

By the time Yehoshua came to Jerusalem, the Jewish body of law (the Babylonian Talmud) was so added to and full of leaven that the simple words from Moses were obscured and convoluted. Even today it is bigger than that--there is the Mishna and other writings--not dissimilar to the body of written works attributed to the Papacy as well as protestant christianity.

Also, the source by Mr. Harper quoted above says this on page 3:

The writings of Irenaeus...disclose (he) clearly believed (his) obligation was first to master the Apostolic Teaching and then to transmit it unchanged to subsequent generations

By the way, I fully agree that not all apostles were the 12, but whoever is sent, ie missionaries, or those sent strictly by God, such as John the Baptist and others not in the Bible.

I'm sure Mr. Harper's assessment is accurate--and I don't doubt that Iranaeus sought to do what he could to fulfill his obligation. But that doesn't mean it happened that way--I found some of Irenaeus's writings on-line.
Here is the text of 'Against Heresies' It starts off like so:

1. INASMUCH(1) as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,(2) "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.

Now, isn't that the very thing that christianity--and Irenaeus, for that matter--does? Minister questions instead of godly edifying(building up)? Irenaeus wrote 31 chapters in Book 1 of Against Heresies! He spent so much time saying that this or that was wrong--not any different than the Pharisees of Jerusalem and the Popes and various flavors of evangelists and ministers in our present time.

The truth stands and needs no defense. It is far more edifying to teach the truth than to search out and condemn the falsehoods. After all, Christ said that He was the true vine and only His vine would give fruit. The rest, we can understand from various parables and teachings, will either be hewn down, thrown in the fire, or will be immediately recognizable as 'rotten' or 'naughty' fruits.

I skimmed over a couple of chapters Irenaeous wrote concerning various heresies--his condemnation conflicts what Yehoshua, himself, in many places. I'm not condemning him, in turn, but just pointing out that obviously he had not mastered those precious instructions at the time he felt called upon to teach them. Same thing goes on today, and took place in the time of Christ, as well.

Nothing new under the sun--as it is written in Ecclesiastes--and what does that book close with?

The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:11-14)

in queenannies external:
how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

from JC it's said !
Right-on, sis

LOLove n Mazel..............Infinity
ave maria !

Originally posted by curiousity
the Catholic assumption that the Pope is a descendant of Peter the Apostle.

Catholics do not believe that the pope is a descendant of Peter the Apostle.
Apostolic Succession doesn't have anything to do with biology. It's scripture
and sacred tradition.

Everything you need to know about the Catholic belief in Apostolic Succession
can be found here - www.catholic.com...
Bible quotes ... early church fathers ... catechism ... everything.



[edit on 7/12/2006 by FlyersFan]

As I recall there is nothing to indicate that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. The only time I recall his presence in romebeing mentioned was at his execution.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

from this document Peter as Pope

perhaps the feminine is another allusion to Marys position of Apostel to the Apostels,
that She is the one on whom the church will be built.

"You are Kepha"

again as I recall this can also be translated as " Thick Headed", Stuborn, etc. not unlikely as the reading of many of the passage relating to peter clearly indicate,
"he wasnt the sharpest hoe in the field."

It was under Constantine that the Bishop of Rome took on Papal qualities, it was also at this time that the bishop of rome/pope stated that salvation rested wiht Constantine not Jesus.

From that time on the papacy ( IMO) has been the whore of what ever ruler was in power. Perhaps that is why the papacy attempted to paint Mary as a whore, to try
and comceal their own whoredom.

It is clear from the forbidden Gospels that Peter never led the Church @ Jerusalem.
In one passage Jesus specifically tells his followers to go to James if there are problems, in another he passes the teachings to Mary, and another to both Mary and James.

The only thing I can find that Peter might have led (after the split) was Paul's ass.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by stalkingwolf]