First Things

[johnny]

selek

That's the Catholic claim; independent corroboration- indeed evidence of any kind- however, is lacking.

The following Ensign article describes Ignatius as between the apostles and the apostasy. The article says that scholars accept seven fairly long letters of Ignatius. The letters show him an intelligent person totally dedicated to the Christian cause". See link below,

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp

Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy

Ensign, Aug 1976

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

[selek]

selek

The following Ensign article describes Ignatius as between the apostles and the apostasy. The article says that scholars accept seven fairly long letters of Ignatius. The letters show him an intelligent person totally dedicated to the Christian cause". See link below,

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp

Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy

Ensign, Aug 1976

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

This is a lovely, lovely dodge, Johnny.

You got the lighting, the lipstick, the mascara just right.

The dress needs a little work, tho.

That the LDS Church recognizes the existence of Ignatious- and that they accept a handful of letters from - in no way legitimizes your claims.

Even the most intelligent person can make mistakes- and even the most dedicated Apostle (which BTW, Ignatius was not) can err in doctrine.

And for the record, "between the Apostles and the Apostacy" is a time span of upwards of four hundred years.

You need to understand: my quibble isn't with Ignatius- it's with those who attempt to conflate his work with Hellenistic heresies and extrabiblical creeds in order to further their own ambitions and agendas.

Despite the fact that we acknowledge these three bishops and good and dedicated servants of Christ, you have no evidence to back your claim that they were appointed by the Holy Ghost to lead the Church following the death of the Apostles.

You have a lot of after-the-fact rationalization, but no proof, and no independent corroboration.

Let's consider a hypothetical:

Assume for a moment, that the day after tomorrow, I walk into the offices of the Salt Lake Tribune with a last will and testament signed by Howard Hughes which leaves his vast fortune to me and to me alone.

No one saw Hughes sign the will.

No one saw me with Hughes at any point in time.

It is provable that I knew and did some minor secretarial work for the known, official arbitors of the Hughes estate before they died, and I claim that that is how I got the will- but none of their notes record the transaction and none of the other secretaries make any mention of it.

The documents in question are copies printed on a conventional Laserjet printer.

I claim that the documents are scans I made of the original will, which I lost.

Handwriting experts cannot corroborate that the signature is that of Hughes, nor of the official arbitors of the estate.

The only copies of the document (and the originals are not among them) to be found are found in my filing cabinets.

Now- given all of that- how likely do you think I am to get the money?

[johnny]

selek

This is a lovely, lovely dodge, Johnny.

You got the lighting, the lipstick, the mascara just right.

The dress needs a little work, tho.

Have a nice day ...

[Servant]

That the LDS Church recognizes the existence of Ignatious- and that they accept a handful of letters from - in no way legitimizes your claims.

Even the most intelligent person can make mistakes- and even the most dedicated Apostle (which BTW, Ignatius was not) can err in doctrine.

yes so true...however thank goodness for the promise of the Holy Spirit...see when teaching in Faith and Morals....it is error free.....sing the praises to God that He sent his Holy Spirit to his Apostles and passed it around...as promised....God never fails

[selek]

selek

Have a nice day ...

You too......

......but before you go, won't you at least consider my hypothetical?

The Catholic claim that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles as the legitimate leaders of the Church surfaced decades, if not centuries, after the death of the Apostles.

No statment from any of the Apostles states that they were to be succeeded by Bishops. The extant records indicate that Bishops were local leaders and shepherds.

None of the Bishops claiming their supremacy was directly associated with the last surviving Apostle- and acted in contravention of his position and authority.

Bishops were local leadership figures, not Church-wide. While they were ordained as Bishops, there is no evidence that they were called to any higher power or authority and none of the extant writings of the Apostles or other Bishops support such claims. All such rationalizations occured decades after the fact to shore up authority they had assumed (as in taken up).

None of the original letters survive- all the extant copies were hand transcribed by Catholic priests and monks.

None of the extant copies is directly attributable to the original Bishops and Apostles, and their provenance can only be confirmed back to early Catholic archives.

Sections of the Old and New Testaments have been discovered outside Vatican control which corroborate many of their histographical claims (the Dead Sea Scrolls are the most famous of these finds). The letters which purport to show the succession of the Bishops, however, have no such independent corroboration- they are found only in Catholic archives and collections.

Now- given all of that- how credible do you think these claims are to those outside the Catholic heirarchy?

[Servant]

selek are you going to address post #269

if not that is ok

[selek]

would you like to address this? if not that is ok...

Certainly.

In the cases of both the Circumscision and the Sacrament, we are commanded to do something- in the former, we're commanded to snip, in the latter to eat, in both to commemorate.

In both rites, we are dealing with physical objects- the foreskin in the former, and the bread and wine in the latter.

In circumscision, no standard reading can assume it's metaphorical (although people have and do make that argument).

At no point do the Scriptures say, here's bread: this is a foreskin.

In the Sacrament, a standard reading must assume it's metaphorical.

Stripped to essentials, the Last Supper is:

Here's bread; this is my flesh.

Here's wine; this is my blood.

Now don't forget why I did this.

Do you see the difference?

In a circumscion, you are dealing with a specific object as part of a specific rite.

In the Sacrament, you are dealing with specific objects, but you are likening them to another.

When you liken something to something else, the former becomes a symbol for the latter.

While you certainly can read the passages to mean a miraculous transubstantiation, there is no requirement that it must mean transubstationation.

An honest reading readily supports the idea that the bread and wine symbolize rather than become the sacrifice being commemorated.

The rationalizations that the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the latter are all ad hoc arguments constructed after the fact to justify the belief and the tradition.

This isn't meant to offend, but the Latter-day Saints fell for the same faulty methodology vis-a-vis the Priesthood Ban.

We knew we believed it, but not why- and came up with all kinds of ad hoc rationalizations after the fact- none of which could survive serious scrutiny.

[Flyonthewall]

Those humble fishermen became divine doctors (from the Latin for "teacher"). :-P The Holy Spirit works wonders & mysteries: guiding the unlettered in Truth.

Not from any school, or degree, but by revelatoin, the very rock on which the Lord's church would be founded.

[Servant]

In the cases of both the Circumscision and the Sacrament, we are commanded to do something- in the former, we're commanded to snip, in the latter to commemorate.

yep

In both rites, we are dealing with physical objects- the foreskin in the former, and the bread and wine in the latter.

physical...literal....all so real...

In circumscision, no standard reading can assume it's metaphorical (although people have and do make that argument).

no it is not a metaphor at all...

At no point do the Scriptures say, here's bread: this is a foreskin.

uhm...no but one is the old covenant and one is the new....

In the Sacrament, a standard reading must assume it's metaphorical.

if it was a symbol it wouldnt be a sacrament....the Old covenant was literal as you admitted....so is the new covenant...why would one be real and the other not? that doesnt make any sense...but ok...let's move on..

Stripped to essentials, the Last Supper is:

Here's bread; this is my flesh.

Here's wine; this is my blood.

Do you see the difference?

well when you put it that way but one problem....he actually says eat this is my body....eat this is my blood...he doesnt say look at this bread and just think it is my body...he says very direct eat this is my body...

In a circumscion, you are dealing with a specific object as part of a specific rite.

yes and so with the Eucharist...

In the Sacrament, you are dealing with specific objects, but you are likening them to another.

When you liken something to something else, the former becomes a symbol for the latter.

one is literal and one is symbol when dealing with a covenant/sacrament? na....as i said earlier if it was just a symbol it wouldnt be a sacrament and if it was a symbol then all are just symbols...the circumcision, baptism, confirmation the whole nine yards...sacraments are not meaningless...symbol is a symbol cant pick and choose what is a symbol and what is not in dealing with sacraments...if one is symbol then all is...

While you certainly can read the passages to mean a miraculous transubstantiation, an honest reading also readily supports the idea that the bread and wine symbolize rather than become the sacrifice being commemorated.

after reading the bible as a whole like it is meant to be read...you will know that the Eucharist is not symbolic...

The rationalizations that it is miraculously transformed into the latter are all ad hoc arguments constructed after the fact to justify the belief and the tradition.

Jesus changed the water into wine....this reminds me of the story when Jesus apostles have been with Jesus seen all his miracles but when they saw Jesus walking on water...the were so in awe...they couldnt believe it was him they thought it was a ghost...and then when Jesus had peter to walk on the water...what did peter do? he couldnt believe he doubted...they realized more after Jesus came to them after his resurrection.

This isn't meant to offend, but the Latter-day Saints fell for the same faulty methodology vis-a-vis the Priesthood Ban.

im not offended....but here is the thing....it isnt a myth because it has always been for 2000 years...that is up to you...you are not offending anybody here but just denying that Christ could do such a miracle....after all he cured the blind, the sick and brought others to life from the dead....this Eucharist is impossible compared to that?.....

We knew we believed it, but not why- and came up with all kinds of ad hoc rationalizations after the fact- none of which could survive serious scrutiny.

that is up to you and your leaders....

we believe in the Real Presence....

you believe in symbolic....

if i die and find out that I was wrong...then I was wrong...what would I lose? nothing

if I believed it to be symbolic and die and find out I was wrong..........what would I lose? eternal life in me......."whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life in them"

I choose to believe...in the Real Presence...

[selek]

yep

physical...literal....all so real...

no it is not a metaphor at all...

We agree on these points.

uhm...no but one is the old covenant and one is the new....

This makes no difference.

if it was a symbol it wouldnt be a sacrament....

Actually, this is a nonsequitor. It does not necessarily follow.

Christ also said that we must be reborn- does that mean (as Nicodemus asked) that we must literally crawl back into the womb and be born again? Or was that a metaphor?

If you think it's literal, I'll send my Mom to have a talk with you- she's got three big, strapping sons all over two hundred pounds- the logisitics alone would be a nightmare.

Christ said that to inherit the kingdom we must become as little children. Does that mean we must all begin aging backwards and forget our potty-training? Or was that a metaphor?

Christ said that we must be circumcised of heart. There isn't a heart on the planet fitted with a foreskin. Does Christ's warning mean that we must all go out and get elective heart surgery? Or was that a metaphor?

Christ said that we must cast off the carnal man- why are you still running around with skin and bones? Or is that a metaphor?

well when you put it that way but one problem....he actually says eat this is my body....eat this is my blood...he doesnt say look at this bread and just think it is my body...he says very direct eat this is my body...

And he could have just as readily held up the bread and said, "This is a cement mixer." It doesn't make it literally so. Christ was doing what he always did: using simple, everyday objects to explain greater concepts. He was engaged in metaphor.

na....as i said earlier if it was just a symbol it wouldnt be a sacrament

And as I said before, that doesn't logically follow.

Christ said to take up your cross and follow him: where is your lumber?

and if it was a symbol then all are just symbols...the circumcision, baptism, confirmation the whole nine yards...

This is an unecessarily literalist and binary mindset.

And yes, baptism is a symbol- it symbolizes the death and rebirth of the spirit.

sacraments are not meaningless...

I never said that they were. No one here has argued that sacraments are meaningless. No one.

after reading the bible as a whole like it is meant to be read...you will know that the Eucharist is not symbolic...

Yet many, many, many millions have read the Bible as a whole, and as it is meant to be read, and reached precisely the opposite conclusion.

im not offended....but here is the thing....it isnt a myth because it has always been for 2000 years...

Fifteen hundred years of beleiving that the Earth was flat didn't make it so, Servant.

Nor did twelve hudnred years of believing that the Sun orbited the Earth make that one a fact either.

but just denying that Christ could do such a miracle....after all he cured the blind, the sick and brought others to life from the dead....this Eucharist is impossible compared to that?.....

I'm not denying that transubstantiation is possible- I'm saying that a fair and open-minded reading of the Scripture does not require it.

that is up to you and your leaders....

we believe in the Real Presence....

And I respect your belief even though I do not subscribe to it.

you believe in symbolic....

if i die and find out that I was wrong...then I was wrong...what would I lose? nothing

If you are following Christ to the best of your knowledge and ability, it will be well for you- no question.

if I believed it to be symbolic and die and find out I was wrong..........what would I lose? eternal life in me......."whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life in them"

Wrong. Again, you lose nothing- So long as your heart and desire were for Christ, then he cannot and will not penalize you- that's what the baptism of desire is supposed to be about, right?

I choose to believe...in the Real Presence...

And that is your choice.

You do not, however, have the right to claim that I am not a Christian because we disagree.

And that's how we got onto this particular tangent.

[johnny]

selek

No statment from any of the Apostles states that they were to be succeeded by Bishops. The extant records indicate that Bishops were local leaders and shepherds.

The apostle appointed and ordained bishops while they were alive. After the apostles died these ordained bishops succeeded them. While the apostles were alive they were local leaders. After Peter died, the bishop of Rome succeed him. Clement writes,

• Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4â??5, 44:1â??3 [A.D. 80]) - "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry"
  

None of the Bishops claiming their supremacy was directly associated with the last surviving Apostle- and acted in contravention of his position and authority.

The Bishop Irenaeus writes,

• Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]) - The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus
  

Bishops were local leadership figures, not Church-wide. While they were ordained as Bishops, there is no evidence that they were called to any higher power or authority and none of the extant writings of the Apostles or other Bishops support such claims. All such rationalizations occured decades after the fact to shore up authority they had assumed (as in taken up).

While the apostles were alive the were local leadership figures. After the apostle Peter, the Bishop or Rome was more than a local leadership figure, see below.

• Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58â??59, 63 [A.D. 80]). "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy"
  

Now- given all of that- how credible do you think these claims are to those outside the Catholic heirarchy?

I would consider them credible because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Tim 3:15). According to scriptures the apostles committed to faithful men and they in turn taught others (2Tim 2:2). Bishops were proven men who were made overseers over the church of God by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). Bishops were stewards of God who held fast to the word the apostles taught (Titus 1:9). Bishop care for the church of God and continue in what they learned from the apostles (2Tim 3:14). Bishops were nourished up good doctrine (1Tim 4:6). Christians are to stand and hold the apostolic tradition taught by word and by epistle (2Thes 2:15). Christians continued in the apostle's doctrine (Acts 2:42).

[Flyonthewall]

selek

The following Ensign article describes Ignatius as between the apostles and the apostasy. The article says that scholars accept seven fairly long letters of Ignatius. The letters show him an intelligent person totally dedicated to the Christian cause". See link below,

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp

Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy

Ensign, Aug 1976

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

This article also says this:

The answer can be found in the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, Christian authors writing soon after the apostles. 1 The writings of three bishopsâ??Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrnaâ??are particularly informative of dangerous administrative and doctrinal deviations that occurred twenty to forty years after the Church lost Peter and Paul. Their letters date from the time of Johnâ??s Revelation and a little beyondâ??critical years when nonapostolic church government was first fashioned and, oddly, the most poorly documented years in Christian history. Anyone arguing for Christian continuity has little evidence from the decades after the second century began, even though by the end of that century (as the accompanying chart suggests) a rich literature pours from Christian apologists, administrators, scholars, and historians. Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 crystallized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyranny. The pre-Nicene church visibly shows the shock of losing apostolic leadership; the earlier the writing, the deeper that shock.

To Latter-day Saints, with their understanding of an early Christian apostasy, the Apostolic Fathers have a special interest. Their writings illuminate the front of â??a very ill-lit tunnel [that] extends from the later apostolic age to the great apologists of the middle and later 2nd century.â? 2 Commentators recognize that these three bishops â??present a unified world of ideas,â? 3 even though they wrote in different sections of the Roman Empire. In all three, we see the same pessimism about the church that marks the close of the New Testament: They battle problems that threaten the church, but they do not voice confidence that it will survive.

So if you are going to quote an article, it would be a good idea to get the gist of the article straight.

Tell me, what does the article say the letters were accepted as? That they were written by him? I can accept that the letters as written by him.

Here's another excerpt from the article in the following paragraph that states scholars accept his letters:

Obedience to the priesthood is the last hope of the faithful, according to Ignatius, but he stresses that he is only giving advice. The Trallians are told: â??I did not think myself competent, as a convice, to give you orders like an apostle.â? (Trallians 3:3) And he repeats the point to the Romans: â??I do not order you as did Peter and Paul; they were apostles, I am a convict.â? (Romans 4:3.) He asks the churches to send delegates to his own church in Antioch, left bishopless without him. The churches on his way also send their delegates to visit him. There is no central direction, only grass-roots cooperation. It seems an interim organization, a temporary adjustment. Ignatiusâ?? trademark in every letter is the repetitive cry, â??Do nothing without the bishop.â? He fears that instability of the church will increase if private meetings and private doctrines are allowed.

So I don't believe the article is doing what you think it is doing.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

So I don't believe the article is doing what you think it is doing.

It is doing exactly what I wanted to show... it shows the some in the Mormon Church write that "scholars accept seven fairly long letters of Ignatius" and that this Mormon author wrote that Ignatius was before the apostasy.

[selek]

selek

The apostle appointed and ordained bishops while they were alive.

Yes- they were ordained as BISHOPS. They were ordained as local officials, not as "princes of the Church".

After the apostles died these ordained bishops succeeded them.

That's the claim. There is no evidence that they had any authority to do so.

While the apostles were alive they were local leaders.

Thank you for the admission.

After Peter died, the bishop of Rome succeed him.

That's what you need to demonstrate.

The Bishop Irenaeus writes,

• Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]) - The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus
  

Not the time frame- nearly two hundred years after the death of Christ and better than a hundred years after the death of the last apostle. This statement is an attempt to justify the power structure then in place. This is identical in practice to certain Egyptian rulers inventing blood and family ties to certain Pharoahs in order to legitimize thier reign.

It's identical in practice to certain European families inventing ties to Charlemagne and to Christ in order to legitimize their power.

There's no independent corroboration of the Catholic claims.

While the apostles were alive the were local leadership figures. After the apostle Peter, the Bishop or Rome was more than a local leadership figure, see below.

That's the Catholic claim- but you'll need to prove it.

• Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58â??59, 63 [A.D. 80]). "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy"
  

This is a delightful exercise in begging the question. You are using the fact that he interfered in the affairs of another branch to bolster the idea he had the authority to interfere in the affairs of another branch of the Church.

Upon what basis? It has never been demonstrated that he had any such authority.

That's like me robbing your house and claiming I had the authority to do so because I robbed your house.

It's circular logic, at best.

Clement's authority has been assumed: it's argued- but never been demonstrated.

I would consider them credible because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Tim 3:15). According to scriptures the apostles committed to faithful men and they in turn taught others (2Tim 2:2).

They ordained faithful men as Bishops, and the Bishops in turn taught the Gospel to others.

There is no statement explicitly conferring apostolic authority nor any independent verification of such claims.

Bishops were proven men who were made overseers over the church of God by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28).

Local overseers, as you've admitted repeatedly.

Bishops were stewards of God who held fast to the word the apostles taught (Titus 1:9). Bishop care for the church of God and continue in what they learned from the apostles (2Tim 3:14). Bishops were nourished up good doctrine (1Tim 4:6).

Yes- they do all of these things locally. They have no demonstrated authority over the Church as a whole, and there is no evidence that one Bishop was annointed over any of the others.

Christians are to stand and hold the apostolic tradition taught by word and by epistle (2Thes 2:15). Christians continued in the apostle's doctrine (Acts 2:42).

I agree- so where are your APOSTLES?

[selek]

Flyonthewall

It is doing exactly what I wanted to show... it shows the some in the Mormon Church write that "scholars accept seven fairly long letters of Ignatius" and that this Mormon author wrote that Ignatius was before the apostasy.

Actually, Johnny- it shows that Ignatius was CONCURRENT to the Apostacy.

That idea is far more troubling to your claims than to mine.

[johnny]

selek

Yes- they were ordained as BISHOPS. They were ordained as local officials, not as "princes of the Church".

They were ordained as bishops, bishops succeeded apostles. While the apostles were alive they were local officials.

That's the claim. There is no evidence that they had any authority to do so.

History shows that other churches thought the bishop of Rome had authority and held the presidency, see below:

• Ignatius of Antioch : Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110] "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father"
  

That's what you need to demonstrate

.

It is demonstrated through the writings of the early Christians.

Not the time frame- nearly two hundred years after the death of Christ and better than a hundred years after the death of the last apostle.

Note what scripture says,

• 2Tim.2 ([2] And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.)
  

That's the Catholic claim- but you'll need to prove it.

Prove the Mormon's claim ...

Upon what basis? It has never been demonstrated that he had any such authority.

The Corinthians thought the church of Rome had authority and acted accordingly.

It's circular logic, at best.

If a person is ignorant of church history I could see how it could appear circular to some.

I agree- so where are your APOSTLES?

In the church, see below

• The Martyrdom of Polycarp "Polycarp was . . . bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna, and a teacher in our own day who combined both apostle and prophet in his own person. For indeed, every word that ever fell from his lips either has had or will have its fulfillment" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 5, 16 [A.D. 155]).
  

[johnny]

selek

Actually, Johnny- it shows that Ignatius was CONCURRENT to the Apostacy.

The title of the article says - Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy

[selek]

selek

They were ordained as bishops, bishops succeeded apostles.

Asserted, not proven.

While I don't dispute that historically they did so- I most adamantly question whether they had the authority to do so.

That's what you need to demonstrate.

Just because they took over doesn't mean they were entitled to.

While the apostles were alive they were local officials.

And there is no evidence that they were entitled to be anything else.

History shows that other churches thought the bishop of Rome had authority and held the presidency,

No- history only shows that the bishop of Rome CLAIMED the authority. History passes no judgement on whether that claim was valid.

see below:

• Ignatius of Antioch : Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110] "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father"
  

Again, an attempt more than a hundred years after the death of Christ to justify the emerging power structure. It's still a circular argument. Your citation shows that Rome claimed the authority- not that it merited or was entitled to it.

It is demonstrated through the writings of the early Christians.

Note what scripture says,

• 2Tim.2 ([2] And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.)
  

This Scripture confirms only that the Gospel is to be taught to other faithful men, who can then spread the word.

It says absolutely nothing about claims of succession .

Your argument is no more valid than arguing that you once discussed politics with President Bush, you are entitled to succeed him as President.

It doesn't pass the snicker test.

Prove the Mormon's claim ...

I don't need to- it's your assertions that are under fire here.

The Corinthians thought the church of Rome had authority and acted accordingly.

They also thought the world was flat and acted accordingly. This proves nothing.

How many letters were sent to the Corinthians to deal with their apostacies?

Given how many times they had to be counseled for corrupting the true teachings of Christ, how do you know their acceptance of the supremacy of Rome was any different?

The letter proves only that Rome CLAIMED and ASSUMED that authority. There is no record showing that they were entitled to it or that Christ desired them to have it.

If a person is ignorant of church history I could see how it could appear circular to some.

Yet that same church history was "written by the victor", was it not?

In the church, see below

• The Martyrdom of Polycarp "Polycarp was . . . bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna, and a teacher in our own day who combined both apostle and prophet in his own person. For indeed, every word that ever fell from his lips either has had or will have its fulfillment" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 5, 16 [A.D. 155]).
  

Wow. A Catholic history that support Catholic supremacy.

Be still my beating heart.

Again- this was written almost a century after the death of the last Apostle, by people with a vested interest in upholding the claims of the emergent Catholic church.

That represents a serious and fatally flawed conflict of interest.

There is no independent corroboration of the claim and no explicit conveying of the authority held by the Apostles.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

It is doing exactly what I wanted to show... it shows the some in the Mormon Church write that "scholars accept seven fairly long letters of Ignatius" and that this Mormon author wrote that Ignatius was before the apostasy.

Not quite. Let me bring to light something else the article stated:

That willingness shows in an earlier letter to the Roman saints pleading with them not to obstruct his execution: â??I will long for the beasts that are prepared for me; â?¦ I will even entice them to devour me promptly.â? (Romans 5:2.) Scholars accept seven fairly long letters of Ignatius, which otherwise show him an intelligent person totally dedicated to the Christian cause. Why, then, was he so for martyrdom? Although many have seen only madness in his martyrâ??s zeal, his position is logical if he truly accepted the apostlesâ?? prophecy that false teachers would succeed them. Johnâ??s Revelation had been given to the same churches that Iganatius wrote to, and its early chapters give only two choices: faithful martyrdom or unfaithful apostasy. He does not even discuss the possibility that the faithful saints will perpetuate the church on earth. If that had been a real option, then Ignatius should have hoped for continued life to extend Christianity further. Instead, he thought that his best choice was death for Christ, which exactly fits the apostolic prophecies.

I suggest you re-read the article because it shows that the apostacy was alredy underway at the death of the apostles.

Here is the last paragraph of the article:

Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp present a united picture of three great bishops dedicated to morality, seasoned in love, and vigorously alert against factions. But they all notably lack the quality that enabled the apostles to establish the church and teach the world by the vitality of their writings. This dynamic quality is revelation, manifesting itself in the dramatic new programs that swept Christianity through the ancient world. These are quoters of apostles, not apostles and prophets themselves. Therefore, reading the Apostolic Fathers without assuming that they knew of the predictions of apostasy would be like reading Acts and the epistles without assuming that the apostles knew of Christâ??s ministry. All communication has a context in which it is expressed, and the closing books of the New Testament disclose conditions and concepts that dominated the apostolic bishops. Johnâ??s letters are roughly contemporary with those of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the apostle refers to the coming of the anti-Christ (not the coming of Christ) by saying that it is â??the last timeâ? (literally, â??the last hourâ?) because there are so many anti-Christs who â??went out from us.â? (1 Jn. 2:18â??19.) Johnâ??s Revelation is also roughly contemporary with the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, and it speaks of the coming power of Satan and his agents â??to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.â? (Rev. 13:7.) Obviously John had been imprisoned or was otherwise unavailable when these bishops struggled against factions in the cities of Greece and Asia, but they could not be unaware of his plain teachings. In fact, he was only the last of many prophets who foresaw total apostasy, and the writings of the earliest Christian bishops reveal events that brought about fulfillment of that prophecy.

[selek]

selek

The title of the article says - Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy

So it does. But the article then goes on to say that they were part of the process of Apostasy:

The writings of three bishopsâ??Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrnaâ??are particularly informative of dangerous administrative and doctrinal deviations that occurred twenty to forty years after the Church lost Peter and Paul. Their letters date from the time of Johnâ??s Revelation and a little beyondâ??critical years when nonapostolic church government was first fashioned and, oddly, the most poorly documented years in Christian history. Anyone arguing for Christian continuity has little evidence from the decades after the second century began, even though by the end of that century (as the accompanying chart suggests) a rich literature pours from Christian apologists, administrators, scholars, and historians. Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 crystallized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyranny. The pre-Nicene church visibly shows the shock of losing apostolic leadership; the earlier the writing, the deeper that shock.

The three Bishops were part of the process- therefore were concurrent to the Apostacy- precisely as I claimed.

[johnny]

selek

Asserted, not proven.

Sounds similiar to the Mormon church ... Mormon's cannot prove their authority.

[Servant]

Hello selek (btw what does your name mean?)

This makes no difference.

how so? it actually does...if the New covenant is only symbolic then the Old covenant must be symbolic too...there IS a difference...

Christ also said that we must be reborn- does that mean (as Nicodemus asked) that we must literally crawl back into the womb and be born again? Or was that a metaphor?

If you think it's literal, I'll send my Mom to have a talk with you- she's got three big, strapping sons all over two hundred pounds- the logisitics alone would be a nightmare.

Christ said that to inherit the kingdom we must become as little children. Does that mean we must all begin aging backwards and forget our potty-training? Or was that a metaphor?

Christ said that we must be circumcised of heart. There isn't a heart on the planet fitted with a foreskin. Does Christ's warning mean that we must all go out and get elective heart surgery? Or was that a metaphor?

Christ said that we must cast off the carnal man- why are you still running around with skin and bones? Or is that a metaphor?

yes however here is a big catch....Jesus cleared it up...he explained what he meant...baptism...and baptism is not a metaphor....

see if the Eucharist was just a metaphor he would of cleared it up just like he did with Nicodemus....so thank you for that...this is what I explained before...if it is symbolic he would of cleared it up...especially when his other disciples left in John 6...he would of cleared what he means...

so again thank you for bringing that example up...even though that was not what you intended to do....but when he was talking to Nicodemus and he thought that he had to be reborn from the womb...Jesus made it clear what he means by baptism...

And he could have just as readily held up the bread and said, "This is a cement mixer." It doesn't make it literally so. Christ was doing what he always did: using simple, everyday objects to explain greater concepts. He was engaged in metaphor.

lets not add to what he could of said or did...he could of said this be baptized in piss but he didnt...but yet baptism isnt a metaphor...see it is better to read what he said instead of imagine what he could of said...

And as I said before, that doesn't logically follow.

Christ said to take up your cross and follow him: where is your lumber?

he still made it clear what he means by that....he explained it...just like he explained by being born again....but he doesnt explain the Eucharist...see the difference?

when he is speaking metaphor he explains what he means.....when it is literal....it is literal...

This is an unecessarily literalist and binary mindset.

And yes, baptism is a symbol- it symbolizes the death and rebirth of the spirit.

oh so you dont think it is required to enter heaven? Jn 3;5 and Mk 16;16 clearly states that baptism is required to enter Heaven...

what exactly is your point to do baptism for the dead if it is just.....symbolic?

I never said that they were. No one here has argued that sacraments are meaningless. No one.

i never said you or anybody said that...i think you misunderstood....if it was symbolic the other scriptures like what Paul says and stuff would be meaningless...is what i was trying to come accorss sorry i did it poorly...

Yet many, many, many millions have read the Bible as a whole, and as it is meant to be read, and reached precisely the opposite conclusion.

actually alot choose to change meanings of the scriptures to fit their ideals...

let me give you a good example...

some people believe that they are saved by faith alone...they use one scripture to support their belief....but they ignore alot of scripture that says otherwise....

they dont read the bible as it is meant to...

so you have these people who believe they are saved alone and ignore the scriptures that says "faith without works is dead"...."if you love me keep my commandments"....

but if you read it as a whole like it is meant to....you have one that says saved by faith alone....and the other says faith without works is dead...

what it is saying is you must have faith AND works to be saved...

see what im getting at?

people what the bible to fit their ideal to justifiy their belief...that is why we have so many different churches and with different interpretation....

so...moving on...

Fifteen hundred years of beleiving that the Earth was flat didn't make it so, Servant.

Nor did twelve hudnred years of believing that the Sun orbited the Earth make that one a fact either.

uhm....this has nothing to do with faith and morals....it has to do with science...and thank goodness science is wonderful....

sorry....

I'm not denying that transubstantiation is possible- I'm saying that a fair and open-minded reading of the Scripture does not require it.

of course it is possible...Jesus proved that it is by turning the water into wine....the same thing what he did at the Eucharist...thank you...

"fair and open-minded"....reflect on that...will ya?

And I respect your belief even though I do not subscribe to it.

so does this mean you are sort of apologizing when you made that statement about the Roman Pagans being right????

I too respect your belief.. the good thing that did come out of all this is........a better understanding of the different belief...that is not a bad thing, right?

If you are following Christ to the best of your knowledge and ability, it will be well for you- no question.

ok i can accept that......

Wrong. Again, you lose nothing- So long as your heart and desire were for Christ, then he cannot and will not penalize you- that's what the baptism of desire is supposed to be about, right?

well maybe..........but since I read the bible and I would even if I thought it was symbolic....I wouldnt want Christ saying "you read what I said 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life in them' why did you ignore it?"

but yeah I see what you are saying...

And that is your choice.

and yours too....thank goodness for the gift of free will/ free agent

You do not, however, have the right to claim that I am not a Christian because we disagree.

what? could you point out where I said you were NOT a Christian because we disagreed?

And that's how we got onto this particular tangent.

no actually you told me that I wasnt being "christian" and then you said an anti catholic remark about the Catholic Eucharist Sacrament...

I then said that "you were not being a good christian" because you were or I was taken your comments as insults...

but nowhere will you ever find me saying you are not christian...no where...

[selek]

selek

Sounds similiar to the Mormon church ... Mormon's cannot prove their authority.

True- but they again, we're not the one's trying to deny that others are Christian, now are we?

That's the ultimate point: no one now on the Earth has the authority or the right to deny that we are Christian.

Any such appeal to authority ultimate devolves into a he said/she said that proves nothing.

Thank you for playing.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

I suggest you re-read the article because it shows that the apostacy was alredy underway at the death of the apostles.

The key word is "underway " ...

[Servant]

apostacy....

i know it is proven that there has been an apostacy...even jesus warned us "some will break away"....and even some of his disciples left....

but these are only partial....there has never been or will be a total apostacy because Jesus' promise to the Church "I will always remain with you and send you the Holy Spirit and hell will not prevail"....