Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[simba86 1,541]

that moment you read ezekiel 23:20

LOL

[Sunwalker 981]

Got a bit of discussion for you guys.

 

What translation of the Bible do you prefer? Personally, I love the NIV. Its wording appeals to me. Not really a fan of the classic King James Version

 

Great to see you back,

 

I am not really familiar with English Bible translations. The Bible sites I visit usually default to either the New King James Version or the New International version. Both of them look fine for me, but I am unable to discuss the nuances between them.

 

I live in Brazil, and my primary language is Portuguese. The first Portuguese Translation I came across, ad a kid, was the "Bíblia Ave Maria" one, which can be freely translated as "Hail Mary Bible". This is an old translation, published back in 1959, I remember it was a difficult read for me, perhaps of the old Portuguese and the formal style, however I hear this translation getting praises. It has been some time since I last read this one, though, so I don't really remember it well plus I didn't know as much about the faith back then. This translation was made from a French one, which in turn was made from the originals in Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

A translation I have head more recently was "Bíblia Edição Pastoral" ("Pastoral Edition Bible"). At first it looked great for me, which a language that was easy and accessible, with helpful notes. However I saw theologians pointing out that this translation has a Marxist bias, and that it distorts the biblical message.

 

The translation I currently use is the one of CNBB, which is the conference of catholic bishops of Brazil (our equivalent of the America's USCCCB). This is a more recent translation, made from the originals, and is used in the Mass and liturgical texts. It is a good read for me, I have been liking it. This version is good for prayers and meditations.

 

But from what I hear, the best Portuguese translation for studies is our version of The Jerusalem Bible. Its notes and organization favors an exegetical study. This translation is perhaps the closest one to the originals.

 

---

 

that moment you read ezekiel 23:20

LOL

 

[Guest90210 3,568]

Great to see you back,

 

Thanks! It's great to be back and to see ya too 

 

 

I am not really familiar with English Bible translations. The Bible sites I visit usually default to either the New King James Version or the New International version. Both of them look fine for me, but I am unable to discuss the nuances between them.

 

The only main difference really is small accuracy differences, and different styles of wording. Pretty much any english translation of the Bible should be good enough to read for personal study. A few "translations" though, such as "The Message", should be avoided as they are not real translations, but rather paraphrases of Biblical scripture.

 

 

I live in Brazil, and my primary language is Portuguese. The first Portuguese Translation I came across, ad a kid, was the "Bíblia Ave Maria" one, which can be freely translated as "Hail Mary Bible". This is an old translation, published back in 1959, I remember it was a difficult read for me, perhaps of the old Portuguese and the formal style, however I hear this translation getting praises. It has been some time since I last read this one, though, so I don't really remember it well plus I didn't know as much about the faith back then. This translation was made from a French one, which in turn was made from the originals in Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

A translation I have head more recently was "Bíblia Edição Pastoral" ("Pastoral Edition Bible"). At first it looked great for me, which a language that was easy and accessible, with helpful notes. However I saw theologians pointing out that this translation has a Marxist bias, and that it distorts the biblical message.

 

Interesting! I know what you mean by there being bias in certain translations. the New World Translation (used by Jehovah's Witnesses), for example, has a tendency to mis-translate or skew the meaning of verses to fit their doctrine.

 

The translation I currently use is the one of CNBB, which is the conference of catholic bishops of Brazil (our equivalent of the America's USCCCB). This is a more recent translation, made from the originals, and is used in the Mass and liturgical texts. It is a good read for me, I have been liking it. This version is good for prayers and meditations.

 

I'm glad you mentioned the USCCB, because that reminds me, I really like their preferred translation (the New American Bible), both for its wording and for its inclusion of "apocrypha" such as the Book of Wisdom.

[Mario3D13 167]

that moment you read ezekiel 23:20

LOL

 

How do you... I can't even...

 

 

What has been seen, cannot be unseen.jpg

 

Same here

Thanks! It's great to be back and to see ya too 

 

 

 

The only main difference really is small accuracy differences, and different styles of wording. Pretty much any english translation of the Bible should be good enough to read for personal study. A few "translations" though, such as "The Message", should be avoided as they are not real translations, but rather paraphrases of Biblical scripture.

 

 

 

Interesting! I know what you mean by there being bias in certain translations. the New World Translation (used by Jehovah's Witnesses), for example, has a tendency to mis-translate or skew the meaning of verses to fit their doctrine.

 

 

I'm glad you mentioned the USCCB, because that reminds me, I really like their preferred translation (the New American Bible), both for its wording and for its inclusion of "apocrypha" such as the Book of Wisdom.

 

Might I add that Catholics refer to the Apocrypha as Deuterocanonical (meaning "of the second canon"), because their canonical status was established later than the rest of the current Hebrew Bible (used by Jews).

 

My fave translation is the Revised Standard Version, 2nd. Catholic Edition. It's more formal than the New American Bible, but not as formal as the King James (Why do some Protestants claim the the KJV is the only legit bible?). For me, it fits the bill.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Mario3D13

[Guest90210 3,568]

Might I add that Catholics refer to the Apocrypha as Deuterocanonical (meaning "of the second canon"), because their canonical status was established later than the rest of the current Hebrew Bible (used by Jews).

 

True, thanks for clearing that up. I mainly referred to it as apocrypha as that's what I'm used to it being called as I went to a Lutheran school growing up. I do believe those books are a legitimate part of the Bible, so I appreciate their inclusion.

 

 

My fave translation is the Revised Standard Version, 2nd. Catholic Edition. It's more formal than the New American Bible, but not as formal as the King James (Why do some Protestants claim the the KJV is the only legit bible?). For me, it fits the bill.

 

Hmm, I don't think I've ever read any of the Catholic Edition of the RSV. Gonna check that out.

 

And yeah, I agree that its silly to see people still cling to the KJV as the only "legitimate Bible". There are plenty of solid Bible translations out there.

[Mario3D13 167]

True, thanks for clearing that up. I mainly referred to it as apocrypha as that's what I'm used to it being called as I went to a Lutheran school growing up. I do believe those books are a legitimate part of the Bible, so I appreciate their inclusion.

 

 

 

Hmm, I don't think I've ever read any of the Catholic Edition of the RSV. Gonna check that out.

 

And yeah, I agree that its silly to see people still cling to the KJV as the only "legitimate Bible". There are plenty of solid Bible translations out there.

 

The only advantage of the KJV is the red lettering which highlights when Our Lord speaks. But I don't see it as "the only Bible you can use". It just ain't true.

 

I highly recommend the RSV-CE 2nd. It's real nice.

[Sunwalker 981]

The only main difference really is small accuracy differences, and different styles of wording. Pretty much any english translation of the Bible should be good enough to read for personal study. A few "translations" though, such as "The Message", should be avoided as they are not real translations, but rather paraphrases of Biblical scripture.

 

Hmmm, I see. Thank you for the explanation!

 

 

I'm glad you mentioned the USCCB, because that reminds me, I really like their preferred translation (the New American Bible), both for its wording and for its inclusion of "apocrypha" such as the Book of Wisdom.

Thanks, I should have a look on the New American Bible too.

 

When you said "apocrypha", at first I thought you were talking about those books that were left out of the Bible when the New Testament canon was established back in the 4th century. I was thinking in Portuguese, and at first I didn't associate the name "Book of Wisdom" with the name we use here, "Livro da Sabedoria", which is just a literal translation of the name and I should have associated it in first place .

 

Anyways, @Mario3D13's explanation has cleared things up. This book is considered apocrypha for some Protestant Bibles (I just say "some" here to be in the safe side, because I am not sure whether it is all the Protestants that consider it apocrypha or not). But in the Catholic Bible it is one of deuterocanonical books.

[simba86 1,541]

I like the king james version myself

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

I am not really familiar with English Bible translations. The Bible sites I visit usually default to either the New King James Version or the New International version. Both of them look fine for me, but I am unable to discuss the nuances between them.

 

The one I've had most fun with is Exodus 20:13, shown here on a bible comparison site (at the top of which is a compare the market advert, which I find amusing.) Note that the translations differ over whether it reads that you should not kill (KJV), or that you should not murder (NIV, NKJV) which is a really significant distinction about which the reader must make up their own mind.

 

 

 

What translation of the Bible do you prefer? Personally, I love the NIV. Its wording appeals to me. Not really a fan of the classic King James Version

 

As such, my best advice would be if you are making a serious study of a particular passage (or the bible as a whole) then reading several translations that are significantly different will give you the best array of 'options' with which to make up your own mind.

 

 

 

A few "translations" though, such as "The Message", should be avoided as they are not real translations, but rather paraphrases of Biblical scripture.

 

 

Even if one isn't a fan of 'The Message', as is the case for both of us, when used alongside other translations it can offer insights into certain viewpoints or ways of thinking. I also wouldn't be too reactionary against it, as I do recall there were some who were against translating the bible into English as it would ruin the translation.

 

If you're not making such a serious study, then most of the major bibles will be fine - and if something seems off, there are plenty of websites that do bible verse comparisons.

[Whirlwind 1,055]

What is your favorite book in the Bible?

Mine is Proverbs

[Sunwalker 981]

What is your favorite book in the Bible?

Mine is Proverbs

Mine is the Psalms. I like meditating or praying a Psalm in order to calm down or just chill out. There is always something new to learn

[Guest90210 3,568]

What is your favorite book in the Bible?

 

Ecclesiastes, most definitely. It's poetically and spiritually powerful. The vibe it gives off is like that of a teacher preaching a cold hard fact of life that makes you look at everything differently.

[Reading Heart 167]

Personally, I read several different versions these days;  My preference is for the NIV and the NKJV..  to get both the meaning and the literal translations as much as possible.  but I have several other bible translations, as well as a topical bible and strong's exhaustive concordance, but that's me.  

 

As to the verses in Ezekiel 23, God uses some harsh language about what he considers spiritual harlotry and immorality, as in unfaithfulness to Him.  Of course, if your interested studying God's view of sexuality, try Song of Songs, though it's also an excellent allegory for God's love for his people.

[Zach TheDane 234]

I really love the English Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible for reading and studying. They're stellar as far as accuracy goes, and they're clear and readable. The ESV also has some amazing resources and a great study bible.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Zach TheDane

[Reading Heart 167]

What is your favorite book in the Bible?

Mine is Proverbs

 

Hmm, this is a hard one, I read proverbs the most, as it's easy to set to a monthly schedule, since it is separated into 31 chapters... but is it my favorite?  I have plenty of books of scripture that I love... so I'm going to separate them into the general categories

New Testament

• Favorite Gospel: John
• Favorite Letter: Romans
• Revelation is also a favorite of mine, but it fits more into prophetical then either of the above categories, so that makes it a unique book in the new testament, though it compares to certain old testament prophetical books.

Old Testament

• Favorite Historical Book: Genesis
• Favorite Prophetical Book: Isaiah 
• Favorite Poetical Book: Proverbs

[ChB 18,550]

What is your favorite book in the Bible?

Mine is Proverbs

My favorite is the book of John, because it contains sayings from Jesus that are so deep, it really touched my soul when I first became a Christian:

 

“Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Got a bit of discussion for you guys.

 

What translation of the Bible do you prefer? Personally, I love the NIV. Its wording appeals to me. Not really a fan of the classic King James Version

For devotional reading, I like the ESV. For deep study, I like the NASB. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by ChB

[BlinkZ 1,151]

I'm back atlhoug only posted once.  Saskactwan Canad for the win.  I realy could use some help cuase I just can't handle certian things very well. Cetain things that could easly offend those who pratiice said things. Sure you cna't stop them from doing that thing but stil really hard.

 

i'm mention lesbian and same gender anything really. just cause of this fandom in general I was tossed head first into being nearly smothered in it bu fanfictions and the like. Yet every time i opn my mouth i'm no doubt looking 'close minded' or not bein tolerate. i'm sorry but  being tolerate and letting people walk all over you are two different things.

Edited March 11, 2016 by BlinkZ

[Sunwalker 981]

I'm back atlhoug only posted once.  Saskactwan Canad for the win.  I realy could use some help cuase I just can't handle certian things very well. Cetain things that could easly offend those who pratiice said things. Sure you cna't stop them from doing that thing but stil really hard.

 

i'm mention lesbian and same gender anything really. just cause of this fandom in general I was tossed head first into being nearly smothered in it bu fanfictions and the like. Yet every time i opn my mouth i'm no doubt looking 'close minded' or not bein tolerate. i'm sorry but  being tolerate and letting people walk all over you are two different things.

 

Welcome back

 

I can say that I do understand what you say. I went through the same thing on a different forum, which I used to be part of until it closed down recently. I tried to be courteous and diplomatic, but most of those who replied me did so with vitriol. Even the admin of the forum got involved in the discussion, but at least he was one of the only ones that keep courteous in the discussion, which I am grateful for. I didn't get any sort of punishment there, but the reaction of other people still left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

I imagine that you were nervous while typing your post, I say that because of the pattern of typos in your post. I also end up doing that when I am nervous, so I understand. I think it is important to have someone who you can open up about it, and just vent out. It can helps you to feel a little better. So I am open if you want to discuss it up in private

 

Just remember that unfortunately some people will end up treating you badly no matter how nice you are about it, Christ warned us that we would be prosecuted if we stood by his side. But he also said that the gates of hell will never triumph and that he would be by our side until the end.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Sunwalker

[TheRedHoodedWraith 52]

I just realised that Paul (formerly Saul) is to the Disciples as Sunset Shimmer is to the Mane Six.

[Tanos 179]

Anyways, Mario3D13's explanation has cleared things up. This book is considered apocrypha for some Protestant Bibles (I just say "some" here to be in the safe side, because I am not sure whether it is all the Protestants that consider it apocrypha or not). But in the Catholic Bible it is one of deuterocanonical books.

 

 

Hey man,  I've been curious about something for a while. Why is it that the apocrypha is considered divinely inspired? I'm not asking to be hostile or accuse people, I've just always grown up in protestant church(s) where the apocrypha is not recognized as being directly inspired by God like the rest of the canon and I want to know why the catholic church and several protestant churches consider it when it was written way after the apostles died.

 

Edit: Open question, if anyone wants to chime in go for it

Edited March 15, 2016 by Tanos

[AlbaTross 1,586]

A discussion about translations? My old Catholic Church used KJV whereas my current Four Square church uses NIV and NLT. KJV is more consistent as translations seem to vary even between two NLT or two NIV bibles, but at least the latter are readable, and in plain English that people can understand, as opposed to some Shakespearean dialect that no one speaks anymore, so it's pretty clear what I prefer. I know there are way more translations out there that I'm unfamiliar with, and I find using an app that allows for quick switching between translations is cool as even slight differences in semantics can affect how much a verse resonates with me, and my church does encourage that. However, I'm old fashioned in the sense that I prefer my physical bible, and I'm usually too lazy to hop on my app afterwards to compare translations while doing my normal devotional reading.

 

I just realised that Paul (formerly Saul) is to the Disciples as Sunset Shimmer is to the Mane Six.

Impressive. Who knew that Sunset Shimmer's biblical cohort was under our noses all along? Saul/Paul is easily the biggest figure in the New Testament next to Jesus himself. I did happen to find Rarity's cohort though, also in the book of Acts:

 

 

Acts 9

 

36In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor. 37 About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. 38 Lydda was near Joppa; so when the disciples heard that Peter was in Lydda, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Please come at once!”

 

39 Peter went with them, and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them.

 

40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. 41 He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called for the believers, especially the widows, and presented her to them alive. 42 This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.

 

Rarity makes clothing (well, dresses are a form of clothing), and she would totally give to the poor as she's the element of generosity, especially if it would make others fabulous, like her. Moreover, this person in the bible is called Tabitha in some translations, and Rarity's voice actress is Tabitha St. Germain. Yeah, that last bit is a coincidence, but it still made me pause to contemplate it. I at least prefer Tabitha to Dorcas as the latter sounds too much like Dorkus.

[BlinkZ 1,151]

Welcome back

 

snip

actually the typos were cause I didn't proof read before pressing enter. But yeah i've never gotten hate message for stating my views, but I'm also not very good a keeping a calm head when stating them either. I'm not very good at debating confrintation topics that if you mention religion can blow up in your face pretty quite.  Hell my one relative is athiest. our family just think of his as different..but still family you know.

 

You probably know which topics I mean, the ones that pop up on the forums like every week or so over and over.

On a side note: What your take on the fact even christanity is split into various teaching of the word. Some chruchs even preach a phylsphy completely negating Christ.  I"m refering to that branch (which escapes me the name) that says that God and Christ were the same person which yah isn't rght, Christ/God/ The holy spirit is what i was taught.

[P1nkiedank 125]

Catholic here! I've been baptized, and gone to communion almost every mass since my first communion. 

[Sunwalker 981]

Catholic here! I've been baptized, and gone to communion almost every mass since my first communion.

Welcome to the thread!

 

I am Catholic too, however not long after my First Communion I had stopped going to Mass. I have returned around 8 years ago, though, and I since then I have not missed the Mass for more than a week .

 

 

Hey man,  I've been curious about something for a while. Why is it that the apocrypha is considered divinely inspired? I'm not asking to be hostile or accuse people, I've just always grown up in protestant church(s) where the apocrypha is not recognized as being directly inspired by God like the rest of the canon and I want to know why the catholic church and several protestant churches consider it when it was written way after the apostles died.

 

Hello!

 

The name "Deuterocanonical" means "second canon". We have inherited the Old Testament of the Jewish communities, so the Old Testament canon is actually Jewish. The Jews had at least two different canons. The best known one was established in the city of Jamnia, and the Jews of that time have based it on 3 criteria:

• A book inspired by God should have been written in Hebrew;
• it should have been written in the region of Israel;
• it should have been written up until the time of Ezra (458-428 BC).

Notice that this canon used nationalist criteria, rather than theological ones, especially considering that there were Jews spread throughout the known world at that time, not only in Israel. This canon excluded the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, plus portions of Esther and Daniel, because they did not comply with one or more of these three criteria. This canon was not accepted by all Jews, though, so a more flexible canon was established in Alexandria at Egypt, where the Diaspora Jews used the Bible translated into Greek. This version is known as Septuagint, and it includes both the books in Hebrew and also aforementioned books.

 

Since most of the Christians of Jewish origins were Diaspora Jews, or where other converted people who did not speak Hebrew, the Bible used by them was the Greek version, the Septuagint, even if the Alexandrian canon had not yet been established officially. This is the version where the the Deuterocanonicals were already present. To end certain theological discussions and answer questions that have lasted for centuries, The Catholic church in 382 decreed biblical canon. The Catholic Church accepted those books because they were in the Septuagint, which was used by the Apostles to evangelize the world back in their time.

 

Luther, however, had a hard time accepting these books as canonical, especially Maccabees, due to theological reasons. However, when he translated the Bible to German back in the 16th century, he included the translated Deuterocanonicals, placing them in an appendix at the end of the volume. In other words, Luther considered the Deuterocanonical of lower value, though he didn't fully removed them from the Bible.

 

In the 17th century, in a Calvinist synod at the Netherlands, some people asked that those books were removed from the Bible, but the Calvinists of that time did not accept the withdrawal, however they accepted that the books would be printed with smaller letters on their bibles.

 

On the 19th century, the English Bible Society decided that the Deuterocanonicals should be removed from the Protestant Bible, and began the printing process without such books, assuming the Jewish canon of Jamnia and calling the Deuterocanonicals as apocrypha.

 

 

But yeah i've never gotten hate message for stating my views, but I'm also not very good a keeping a calm head when stating them either. I'm not very good at debating confrintation topics that if you mention religion can blow up in your face pretty quite.  Hell my one relative is athiest. our family just think of his as different..but still family you know.

 

You probably know which topics I mean, the ones that pop up on the forums like every week or so over and over.

Yeah, I know the feeling... Anyways, I am happy you never got hate because of that . If you are unable to get calm, then it is wiser to just avoid discussion. More people were brought to God by kindness, than by words. You can still help other people when they fall, and pick them up .

 

 

On a side note: What your take on the fact even christanity is split into various teaching of the word. Some chruchs even preach a phylsphy completely negating Christ.  I"m refering to that branch (which escapes me the name) that says that God and Christ were the same person which yah isn't rght, Christ/God/ The holy spirit is what i was taught.

 

I generally avoid arguments between different Christian denominations, as well arguments between other religions. The reason is that I think that the attacks from the outside towards Christianity, or towards religion in general, are in the present moment more urgent than the internal differences.

 

It is no secret that I am Catholic, and that I fully subscribe to all the doctrines and morals of the Church. However, when I am talking with other Christians, I generally prefer to stay within the common ground between us. I know about the theological differences between Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox; so I generally avoid steeping into them. If I do need to talk about them, I try to do so in a neutral way, by just giving an objective description of the Catholic Church's position, and I avoid as much as possible to actually debate it.

 

All of this being considered, now about my take on the division among Christians. As a Catholic I do think that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus Christ when he said "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), and I also think that the authority Catholic Church can be traced until the Apostles themselves (what is called the Apostolic Succession).

 

In the way I see it, the divisions in the Church started when people questioned the divine Authority of the Church, and thus branched away with their own theological interpretations on their own church, and those interpretations may or may not be in accordance with what God actually said. I think that the Christ's promise about "the gates of Hell not prevailing over his church" applies only to the church that he founded himself, so other churches are not covered by it. This way, other Christian denominations are subject to being divided by the Devil. He is the one who instills division between people, remember that the Devil is so cunning that he is capable of deceiving even the elect. This, in my opinion, is why there is an extensive division in certain parts of Christianity.

 

That being said, I think that as long one has a genuine interest in pursuing the truth, the Holy Spirit will eventually guide them to it, even if little by little. And, who knows, it is me who could be wrong, I already changed my mind a few times during my faith's journey. Anyways, I am open to wherever the Holy Spirit takes me

 

I recommend reading the book Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. He also threads on the common ground between Christians, and it is very useful if you are confused by so many different Christian doctrines. The book is already in public domain, so it is legal to just get it from the Internet:

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/Mere-Christianity.pdf

[Reading Heart 167]

I considered very carefully if I was going to respond to this at all, as I respect Sunwalker, but don't agree with him above.  But I have a more a more ecumenical stance then Sunwalker above, I am non-denominational myself, and view the living stones of the church as the people who believe in and acknowledge Jesus as Lord and in his resurrection.  I have no problem working with any christian of any denomination, despite any general disagreements we might have.

 

This includes, in my view, all of the various denominations of which I see catholic and greek orthodox as part of, but like Sunwalker, I prefer to look for common ground between the various groups rather then differences.  I also recommend the book Mere Christianity, it's good book, and well worth reading.  But regarding differences between people who believe in Jesus is the son of God, rose from the dead and have chosen to make him Lord, I tend to look to the following verse.

 

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.  1 Peter 4:8

 

If your going to cover the catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, I must point out that both the eastern orthodox also claims and can support this point, I also feel that one should cover the general protestant response to it.

 

 

The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

 

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

 

Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).

 

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture.

 

Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.

 

 

All of that said, why are there so many different denomination groups in existence today?  In my view, the same reason there are so many languages, because if the splits were the result of the devil's work, they would fail.

 

And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”  Acts 5:38-39 [NKJV]

 

I view it as a work of God to push his people into spreading out beyond their own traditions, because if it had not been of God the protestant reformation would have come to nothing, as was indicated in the scriptures with regards to the apostles long ago.  I generally think that God was displeased with general the state of the church at the time of the protestant reformation and used it to alter the direction of the church.. mind you, that's the general protestant view of the matter, but many of them think that they are right or some other group is right.  I disagree with them, I believe that God used it to incorporate differences, to highlight various different truths of his word, as each of the various denominations have focused on one aspect or another, and to spread out to the rest of the world. God loves diversity, any look at the multitude of fruits, vegetables and horde of animals in the world should prove this.  For that matter, all of the different planets and star systems we have been discovering in the universe should further prove it.  

 

The sad part to me, is not that there are so many groups out there, but that they are so divided today, generally I believe that the Lord is now shifting things the other way more toward unity, and the devil is fighting it, which is why there have been so many church splits over ridiculous things.