Apostolic Succession in the Bible?!? w/ Suan Sonna

This clip was taken from a recent livestream with Suan Sonna. Watch the full interview here: • From Baptist Leftist t...
In this clip, Suan talks about how he found evidence for Apostolic Succession in the Gospels and even further back into Jewish culture. It wasn't a Roman Catholic invention!
===
📚 My new book: www.amazon.com/How-Be-Happy-T...
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquinas.com/understa...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Exodus 90: Exoduslent.com/Matt
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquinas.com/support/
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas

[@jacobotajuelo9297]

This could not be found so concisely and clearly explained in a whole book! Thank you, Matt.

[@veredictum4503]

Now I am convinced enough to plough thru the full 2.5 hour interview!!

[@robertdelrosario139]

This proof and explanation, along with your work, Matt, are good

[@Littlemermaid17]

This was one of the most rewarding episodes. Will love to see him come back or release a book.

[@hglundahl]

One would like to thank Suan Sonna for the _extra_ research. I was willing to start with ordination in John 20 (receive ye the Holy Ghost), replacement of an Apostle in Acts 1, ordination of Sts Paul and Barnabas by people ordained by apostles, and then St. Paul telling Sts Timothy and Titus whom he had ordained to go on ordaining even more according to certain criteria + Romans 10 "quomodo credent nis audient ..." which was _the_ kick for my confirmation godfather's confirmation godfather to convert from Lutheranism. I did not know this!

[@mazikode]

Love it..thank you Matt!

[@optimisteprime8261]

Well done Brother and God bless you everytime !!!

[@robertoriosorozco9205]

How can I not like this video after that compelling ending clip?

[@jamesmonahan9408]

fabulous!!! just fabulous!

[@nickmedley4749]

This makes perfect sense! It also adds a new depth to the dynamic between the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and the early Church. The religious authorities clearly saw that their monopoly was being threatened by the rise of the Christian ecclesial structure. What they incorrectly perceived was that they were being supplanted, when actually Jesus was as you said redeeming the Sanhedrin.

[@BornAgainCatholic]

Mind blowing.

[@user-uc1yb7hy2n]

Inevitably and most grievously, once someone mentions Irenaeus, still another will claim he wrote that Jesus was 50. That person usually has not read Pirkei Avot. If they have it goes unmentioned. Specifically chapter 5 of Pikei Avot. Irenaeus was making a cultural argument that was understood at that time. They aged men by decades. 30 strength, 40 wisdom(Σοφία ) 50 counsel. If you were a master, you were not merely 30 years old. This was devastating to Gnostic theology. Most importantly this accusation of the “50 year old Jesus” leaves out that Irenaeus already has used the Passover’s since Jesus’ baptism to reckon his age. He points out that scripture indicates three Passover’s are observed after Our Lords baptism. Irenaeus expects we can keep up and count so he does not call out 33. Also He does not say “the elders testify” (tradition). What Irenaeus said was “even as the Gospel and all the elders testify…”. (Scripture and Tradition). The Gospel and elders both show that Jesus still fulfilled the office of Teacher. If you were a teacher you could not be merely 30 years old. Cultural expectations would assume 40 or 50. The whole point is that Jesus was past the “first stage of early life (that) embraces thirty years.” So to the Gnostics dismay, Jesus’ age does not correspond with the 30 aeons and he did not suffer 12 months after his baptism in correspondence to 12 aeons. So bottom line, this Bishop guided by the Holy Spirit defeated a very persuasive heresy. Please read all of Against Heresies. Please attempt to understand what Irenaeus was truly up against. And please read Pirkei Avot. You just might find out that God knew what he was doing when he guided Irenaeus in defending the faith. Ο θεός να ευλογεί

[@danieljoyce6199]

Good comment. God bless you!

[@Tactical_potato1]

That was awesome

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

I love this but can't find any sources other than the authors he mentions to convince my Protestant brother. Does anyone know the parts of the Old Testament he is referencing?

[@collegesuccess]

03:55 min. mark A good thesis statement to this discussion is right here. Thanks for the interesting and informative insights vis-à-vis Reformation-era takes on this truly ancient apostolic succession and its origins.

[@randycarson9812]

In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul instructs Timothy to entrust what he has learned from Paul to trustworthy men who will, in turn, be able to teach others. One of the key teachings from Paul to Timothy is this very process of entrusting reliable individuals with Paul’s message. If this sounds like an infinite loop, it is intentionally so; the principle of apostolic succession was designed to be an ongoing, continuous process.

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

Suan is a rock star. Jeez, I wish he would debate James White, but only after studying up on JW's less than fair debate tactics.

[@albieinangelus921]

This podcast is a testimony to the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church because the guest is obviously Asian, he speaks English with no accent, he is well versed in our faith, and he is engaging in his discourse. To God be the glory for the beauty of this Catholic man!!!

[@gu3r1tar]

“No accent”. Erm, you mean an American accent. Everyone has an accent. This comment is such an ‘American moment’.

[@elitisthavoc3949]

Amen!

[@Howsoonisnow2009]

Brilliant

[@pennsyltuckyreb9800]

What bothers me about going back to the OT prophecy of the rebuilding of the Courts and 3rd Temple is that certain parts of Isaiah get glossed over like: "17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord." ~ Isaiah 66:17 "And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord. For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." ~ Isaiah 66:21-23 So if we are to take this literally, God still hates us eating pig. So the food/kosher laws are still in play. And there will be new Levites as well as continual worship on the 7th Saturday Sabbath AFTER the New Heaven's and New Earth....

[@sunnyjohnson992]

What Isaiah 66:17 is saying were Jews engaging in pagan purification rites in special gardens made for idol worship. Thereafter, they greedily devour the flesh of the pig and other creatures considered unclean under the Mosaic Law.

[@pennsyltuckyreb9800]

@sunnyjohnson992 I understand that. I mean it seems as if the "Mosaic" food laws are still continuing and applicable...

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

​@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 I think you are forgetting Colossians 2, sir. The aspects of the Mosaic law that pertained to nutrition (kosher /dietary), some of it which regulated liturgical worship (liurgical), and which dealt with the governmental administration of the kingdom (civil) were fulfilled, and yet, set aside. And yet the Decalogue / the Ten Commamdments, while fulfilled, are still the backbone of the moral law in the Church.

[@luxordfaith8506]

​@pennsyltuckyreb9800 in Galatians Paul goes over in more detail about which old testament law is and isn't applicable.

[@GopnikVlad]

we Orthodox have lists of all bishops since Pentacost

[@adambruce5082]

I have several issues with this line of argument. First, the title of the video says "In the Bible" but most of your arguments come from Alfred Edersheim, Lois Jacobs, and Michael Goulder. Second, how could Second Temple judges trace their ordination back to Joshua/Moses when the line of succession was clearly broken by the Babylonian Exile? Could they really have memorized 1,000 years of ancestors? Obviously this was a false doctrine. Third, the idea that laying on of hands is equivalent to this (clearly erroneous) Second Temple belief about succession is far-fetched, to put it kindly. But the biggest complaint by far is your lack of understanding of the difference between Rabbinic Judaism and Mosaic Judaism. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! The rabbis of Jesus' time did not just follow the tradition of Moses. We know this from their teachings compiled in the Talmud. They believed in the so-called "Oral Law" and claimed it to be EQUAL TO THE TORAH, and sometimes to even SUPERSEDE it! In other words, they taught that THEIR TEACHINGS WERE EQUAL TO THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. I don't know what you would call that other than rank blasphemy. Jesus very much is the New Moses; the rabbis, however, were the ones worshiping the golden calf while Moses went about God's work. You talk about "the rabbinic power to discipline the communities," but the rabbinic power was not Biblical. The statement "Christ passed on the teachings of the legal structures of his time" is COMPLETELY un-Biblical. Jesus Christ condemned the Pharisees and their system OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. And what more proof of their apostasy could you need than the fact that they rejected the Messiah? Please read Rabbinic Judaism Debunked by Eitan Bar & Golan Brosh and re-think this entire argument.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

the Talmud has been written down five centuries after Jesus, and it is not surprising that it reflects the ideas of later, rabbinic judaism... moreover, Jesus forcefully asserted the teaching authority of the rabbinical magisterium of his time (btw you should know your Bible better)

[@adambruce5082]

​@@silveriorebelo2920 The Mishnah, or Oral Torah, was compiled c. 200. The rabbis claimed that it preserved unchanged the teachings passed down orally since the time of Moses. This was the basis of its authority. So which is it? Is it the teachings of later times or the ancient Oral Law that rabbis claim is equal to the written Torah? In what passage did Jesus assert the "teaching authority of the rabbinical magisterium of his time"? The Pharisees of Jesus' time were the fathers of the rabbinical tradition. What did he say about them?

[@chrisd653]

​@@adambruce5082you are 💯 correct. There are so many issues with the talmud and it's supposed ties to other old testament figures. It shouldn't be taken seriously.

[@sonnenberg3895]

Mind blown.... ❤

[@ev1193]

And Jesus so clearly affirms the traditions and Sanhedrin.

[@HeavenismyHometown]

I have a question: If the old testament Sanhedrin had infallible authority to teach, why did Jesus criticize them for their traditions? Shouldn't He have elevated their traditions?

[@isaacosahon4352]

It is a good question and the answer is Jesus only criticized their traditions when they contradicted the Word of God. For example, the Qorban tradition of giving your proceedings to the temple instead of honoring your parents. He was also against the idea of hypocrisy with the Sanhendrin teachings. They binded the people with heavy burdens but would not lift a finger to carry them. But He also supports the fact that they have teaching authority because they seat on the Chair of Moses. Which is why he advised to do what they teach but not what they do.

[@summersloth2899]

@@isaacosahon4352 Hello.How can qurbon tradition be wrong ?It is the very same sacrifice God commanded in book of deuteronomy. It is also the hebrew name from which name for mass(qurbona) originated in our syriac apostolic tradition. We still have a tradition of giving first crops / fruits from farming to church

[@isaacosahon4352]

@@summersloth2899 I didn't say Qurbon is wrong. But when you use Qurbon as an excuse not to take care of your parents, then it is wrong. I didn't say this, Jesus did. If you have enough for Qurbon and taling care of your parents, then you should do both.

[@summersloth2899]

@@isaacosahon4352 ohk.gotcha!

[@HeavenismyHometown]

@@isaacosahon4352 That's an interesting perspective I'll have to consider, because He did still tell the apostles to obey the Jewish authorities and their teachings anyway. I do believe there would have been times where Christ would have been certainly furious with the Catholic church as well, but that doesn't mean it wasn't still His body or the authority which He established.

[@soteriology400]

Binding and loosing has nothing to do with authority to interpret scripture. It had to do with dealing with sin, and entering into the new kingdom. Matthew 18 says nothing about authority to interpret.

[@igor.michael]

2 Peter 1 19 h Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 * Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,

[@soteriology400]

@@igor.michael Yes, as the apostles were receiving inspired prophecy and visions, they did not privately interpret them. So we can count of what they wrote to be inspired by the HS. “knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” ‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭1‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭KJV‬‬ As they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[@igor.michael]

@@soteriology400 The Authority of the Apostels to interpret scripture was passed on trough apostolic sucession until today and continues. We Catholics have the Magisterium. Taken from Catholic Answers: The Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is illustrated in various places in the New Testament. All of the apostles have the power to bind and loose (Matt. 15:15-18), but only St. Peter-the first Pope-had “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” illustrating his primacy re: teaching and governing in leading the Church (Matthew 16:18-19). We also see the teaching authority of Peter and the apostles affirmed in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) and in Acts 2:42.

[@soteriology400]

@@igor.michael Binding and loosing had to do with adding and subtracting to and from the kingdom. It has nothing to do with authority to teach. Hebrews 5:12, people were encouraged to teach. Cults come up with the idea of authority to teach.

[@soteriology400]

So if they shook hands while being ordained, does this mean shaking hands equal being ordained. 😂

[@luke9747]

2 questions: what was the drink at the end? And what was the music that started playing?

[@hunterstrauss6591]

The drink is Liquid Death. Not sure what the song is called though

[@henrysharpe9976]

(to be clear, "Liquid Death" is actually a brand of canned water, just before you become worried that Matt is promoting an energy drink or alcohol or something)

[@irishandscottish1829]

Let’s now wait for the Protestants to come and claim how they ignore the Old Testament and ignore how Jesus came fulfilling Jewish law/expanded on Jewish law regarding these things just so they can try to justify their denial of Jesus starting apostolic succession with Peter Yet funnily enough when it comes to the Protestant bible for them to ‘justify’ removing the books they have to turn to the Jewish council of Javneh where “the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.” Imagine following a bible that only allows the books of the Old Testament the Jews determined to be inspired by God which was only decided on so to directly condemn Christian’s!!! Add to that the Protestants then have to do a complete u-turn and go to the Catholic Ecumenical councils so to prove the Gospels are inspired by God because the Jewish council of Javneh that they use to justify the books they have in the Old Testament forbids the Gospels as the inspired word of God!!! So they basically pick and choose what parts of what councils from the Jews and Catholics they want to follow so to make a manmade denomination

[@caleb.lindsay]

Speaking as a Protestant, I would simply assert with all charity that there seems to be no need for succession because Jesus is the King and High Priest and the Lord of lords. He doesn’t need “successors” because He’s not dead but alive (I’m sure we all agree, and given Catholic theology of the saints, even more fervently than Protestants in that regard). Then to use 2nd Temple Jewish theology and their expectations (which were virtually unanimously wrong to begin with in all aspects to the point of murdering their Messiah) for the 3rd temple seems rather bizarre to want to build a case off of. Especially since it’s the primary focus in the end times as being the final stand where the Jews are faced with their last bout of blindness in the face of the anti-Christ. I think it seems relatively clear that the Sanhedrin and priesthood are foreshadowing the passing of the torch to the True King and High Priest that isn’t “…prevented by death from continuing…” Hebrews 7. Not that there can’t be succession, but this combination of evidence feels weak, and more primarily, dangerous to build upon. (From the outside perspective)

[@irishandscottish1829]

@@caleb.lindsay 1 of 2 The thing is that the Early Church Fathers support Apostolic Succession. So how can you reconcile the fact the the very first Christian’s acknowledged and accepted Apostolic Succession? You’re not seriously going to try and claim the first Christian’s and the early Church Fathers were wrong now are you?! Side note - the Bible as we know today did not exist in the early days, it is widely accepted that what we called the New Testament was not completed until all the books were written by the end of the first century A.D. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. The Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century after the Council of Nicea AD 325 and the First Council of Constantinople AD 381 had met to discuss all the disputes around what was and wasn’t the inspired word of God. I won’t go further into the compiling of the Bible as that isn’t the point I am trying to make. My point is that the Early Church Father believed and agreed with Apostolic Succession! POPE CLEMENT I “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” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). HEGESIPPUS “When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

[@caleb.lindsay]

@@irishandscottish1829 this is a recycling of the most basic RCC affirmative arguments that possibly exist. If it was as simple as simply positing the most base-level positions conceivable, do you really think there would be debate amongst charitable people, who love Christ, and who are thoughtful and intelligent? This ends up being an argument from authority, which is fine I suppose, but arguments from authority that simply presuppose Christ seems to fail its own litmus test when applied to itself. If authority is granted to the group who interprets, canonizes, and preserves scripture, then Jesus’ interpretation of the OT seems blatantly incorrect and He basically must be a heretic. The reason Jesus’ interpretation is valid is because the framework isn’t about earthly authority (never was or is), and he demonstrates His authority, validating both His interpretation and authority over all. This argument always baffles me with its inconsistencies. Jesus wasn’t a heretic because the Sanhedrin was wrong and the authority belonged to Christ NOT simply because what Jesus said was true even if it contradicted Scripture. He fulfilled it, not overruled it. This is a massively important point often clearly missed in this presuppositional, “midstream spring board” argument attempt. It fails its own standard. The rest is obvious. No one contends bishops don’t exist. There’s nothing even to rebut. Early church fathers debated and contended Roman rule. Does the presence of debate make it all false? No, but you can’t just say, “someone said bishop therefore Magisterium and RCC is valid.” That’s a farce. Be more charitable and more thoughtful.

[@niconiconiick6979]

@@caleb.lindsay Chiming in about the Sanhedrin, in the video Suan Sonna refers to a "redeemed Sanhedrin" as the structure for the new church. As you have said, bishops and the like - being patriarchal figures - are not in dispute. As this regards to the Papacy, having a single authority presiding over the larger Christian constituencies is not outlandish, and as our friend IrishandScottish has said, the many writings from members of the early church affirm Apostolic Succession. I agree that as all things do, the role of a "Head Bishop" (being the Roman Pontiff) has developed over the last two millennia - and is likely divergent from its original function. Whilst there are many dogmas attached to this leadership position, certainly so in its present state, the role still fulfils its original purpose of presiding over the other Bishops. Perhaps then a revised and fundamentalist Papal system would be more suitable? Food for thought, certainly. Thank you for remaining polite in your discussion of this, it truly is a grace. For reference, I am not Roman Catholic, so I am not in submission to the Pope. You can't call me a Papist :)

[@caleb.lindsay]

@@niconiconiick6979 scratch that. Was trying to do a reply as I read thing on the phone lol caught the bottom part too late. Reply to anything applicable. this is a great reply and very thoughtful with a surprising amount of concession. You would not be in the majority on your position certainly, right? I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of these concessions before. In another post (Brian Holdsworth on “Anti-Pope” things), I discussed how I can’t fathom, especially given the concession of divergence combined with dogmas you mentioned, how it’s even possible for the “head bishop” (in the RCC’s sense) to be valid. Once that falls, I truly see nothing uniting the RCC, which could be wholly ignorant, that the Protestant (base tradition, not a particular “flavor” of it) doesn’t wholly enable and accommodate. Would love your thoughts on that, actually, especially given your concession. Apostolic succession, so far as I understand from at least *some* of the fathers, requires right and proper doctrine, denomination being greatly secondary.

[@jamesdatsi602]

Act 26:14-15 Act 26:14 “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me, saying in the "Hebrew" language (not greek], 'Sha'ul, Sha’ul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.' Act 26:15 “And I said, 'Who are You, Adonai?' And He said, 'I am יהושע [YAHUSHA] whom you persecute. NO OTHER NAME ONLY A HEBREW NAME Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

[@mitchellc4]

Hello I think the problem is not people going around saying “I don’t want to follow apostolic tradition!” Nobody does that The problem people have is that they don’t think Catholic tradition lines up with apostolic tradition Obviously a lot of people didn’t or you wouldn’t have hundreds of years of ecumenical councils For example, there’s no evidence of asking the dead for intercession until 300AD, so people are going to question that and disagree with the practice Claiming unbroken succession doesn’t mean there’s no hesitation of teachings See the Pharisees, who might claim unbroken succession to Moses, yet we know Jesus rebuked their false traditions

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

HOGWASH. In the NT, I believe it is in the Petrine corpus, mention is made of people being "baptized for the dead".

[@mitchellc4]

@@QuisutDeusmpc I think you’re referring to 1 Cor 15 Paul is saying there will be a resurrection of the dead If there is no resurrection, why would people be doing this on behalf of the dead-as in it wouldn’t matter because they are gone He’s not even advocating explicitly for baptizing on behalf of the dead He’s saying the practice itself shows that there will be a resurrection of the dead Resurrection is the topic

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

@@mitchellc4 Haha! It is hilarious watching you jump through hoops to avoid the elephant in the room. Of course, the resurrection from the dead is the main topic, but you know what I mean, don't you? Here is the apostle KNOWN for calling out those who are engaged in either heterodoxy (teaching false doctrine) or heteropraxy (engaged in false practice), and he DOESN'T have ANYTHING to say about a practice going on in the Church IN LIGHT OF the reality of the "resurrection from the dead". According to YOUR original post, praying for the souls of those who had passed on was an innovation of the 4th century A. D., AND YET here it is in a document dated between 35 - 55 AD which is INCLUDED in the canon of the sacred Scriptures and therefore is divinely revealed, and the Apostle known as a staunch defender of the faith gives a pass, and therefore tacit approval, to a practice that YOU FALSELY CLAIM was invented by the Catholic Church, when in reality it was divinely revealed by almighty God and His only begotten son Jesus Christ (cf Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:27) - because Abraham, though dead (physically), yet lives (in the presence of the Lord).

[@goyonman9655]

​@@QuisutDeusmpc You've not refuted his point at all

[@enderwiggen3638]

@@QuisutDeusmpcthe NT itself says the Holy Spirit intercedes for the prayer of the saints. In fact it also says the incense in heaven are the prayers of the saints. If saints are those who exemplify faith in Christ … that would imply they pray for others. And since saints who have faith in Christ never die but have everlasting life in the kingdom it would stand that they are even more holy and obedient in heaven than they ever were on earth. Meaning they would never stop praying for people.

[@lutherseye5356]

Convert

[@Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture]

At about 2:00 he made an error, Jews did not convert to Christianity. They were not two different religions. There was the Old Testament church (body of believers) and the New Testament church (body of believers). Jews entered in through faith and Gentiles grafted in through that same faith. But bravo on the succession.

[@johnpaulhelms4515]

👏👏

[@tonyornelas9374]

No need for a temple made by human hands.

[@adam7402]

I always had the suspicion that Catholicism was just mix of rehashed Judiism and paganism. Is nice to hear the judiism part admitted.

[@CountMondego55]

Lol. I had the same thought. I was like, "great! You ARE modern day pharisees!"--An analogue I have noticed

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

The paradigm isn't, Jesus did everything therefore we do nothing. Rather, it is we do what Jesus did, in order to be after His own image and likeness. Jesus, humanly speaking, was an observant Jew. He fulfills yes, but He does NOT abbrogate everything. Many things are maintained, but tweaked. The best example of this is the liturgy of the Eucharist which Jesus initiates during the celebration of the Passover seder (the "Last Supper"), but is refashioned as the "new covenant in My blood". Fulfillment doesnt mean completely setting aside, even if that is what your Protestant fundamentalist tradition (of men) teaches.

[@KB-eb8dj]

So because old testament Jews had it, the new testament Church needs to have it too?

[@r.c4914]

This is why we need to read the bible . 🔎Deuteronomy 34,9 9 Now Joshua son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him. So the people of Israel obeyed him, doing just as the LORD had commanded Moses. 9 Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him.

[@SaintRegime]

Agreed. In the OT, we see the Holy Spirit come upon people and then back off or leave them. (Samson is a great example) However, Jesus says the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, will be with (you) always. We then see the Holy Spirit descend on Gentiles when Peter visits them, even before water baptism and before laying on of hands, just by hearing and believing. We never see the Holy Spirit leaving people in the accounts. Meaning that there seems to be some nuance here that Suan's argument fails to account for. The Holy Spirit no longer follows the rules of the Law, because people are no longer bound to it. It seems then that using the OT for Apostolic Succession is a poor argument for it, since it makes multiple assumptions. If we are to be using Levitical follow through, then there needs to be a Levitical priesthood. And that means we are all under the Law. NT is very clear we are not.

[@mrgeorge1888]

Yes of course the apostles was the magisterum. The question is after the apostles era was there a succesion? And what is the proof in that?

[@kadeshswanson3991]

You should look at the writings of Eusebius. He was a historian during the 4th century that later became a bishop. When he battles the gnostics that championed secret knowledge of the gospels and Jesus Eusebius would look to the lists of priests with their ordinations "laying of hands" that went back to the apostles. It was these records of ordination that became a key component in refuting gnostics

[@kadeshswanson3991]

In other words, yes there are records of succession.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

Also Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop during the second century that wrote letters to various churches on his way to martyrdom and in one of his letters he implores christians to follower there bishops even as Christ follows the Father. So even here within the second century which is 100ad-200ad the church had bishops..... How do you get bishops but by the laying of hands. Furthermore Ignatius was a student of the Bishop Polycarp that also happened to be a student of John the apostle, who also ordained Polycarp as Bishop.

[@mrgeorge1888]

@@kadeshswanson3991 let me make this clear, if you read John 15 : 20, John 17 : 20, Acts 2 : 42, II Tess 2 : 15, II Pet 3 : 15 and most important II Pet 3 : 2, you will see that the words and writings of the apostles have the same measure as Jesus's Word Himself. So the question is, do the words and writings of the successor of the apostles have the same measure too? And if they have, where is the proof of it in any writings in the apostles era?

[@tryingnottobeasmartass757]

@@mrgeorge1888, do I understand correctly that it is your understanding that the writings of the successors to the Apostles should be God-breathed in order to prove succession?

[@Reason-n-Rhyme]

The existence of a historical list of churches preacher doesn’t prove any or all of them held the office or powers of an apostle. Tertullian and Iraneaus never said the church leaders had the office of authority of apostle. If I could trace my genealogy back to President Abe Lincoln that wouldn’t prove I am a president; nor would it make me a president. If I claim there was a succession/transfer of the office of president down my genealogy, I better have good proof for it, and not merely that I am a distant ancestor of Abe. Don’t bother telling me there is a difference here. It is merely an analogy to demonstrate that lists of solid connections to a historical power figure doesn’t prove aspects of that super-person will transferred down through history. You need to prove it and not merely claim it. Tertullian and Iraneaus both said that anyone who claims to have another scripture of God must prove it by passing several tests. The first test is they must prove their writing came from an apostle by first producing a line of history going back to an apostle. The historical list must an unbroken line (succession) of church preachers going back to an apostle. A historical list also isn’t sufficient to prove scriptural authorship, but it is a necessary first step. Iraneaus gives a historical list of bishops/preachers of the church of Rome and mentioned other churches and their leaders.

[@georgepierson4920]

Deacons and Priests are ordained by their Bishop. Bishops are ordained by other bishops by the authority of the Pope. The Popes are elected by the College of Cardinals. The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and the Popes are the successors of the Apostle Peter through ordination which involves the laying on of hands.

[@norala-gx9ld]

Sounds like an argument for Anglicanism or Orthodoxy

[@j897xce]

70 elders plus Yeshua with two natures is 72. It's all good.

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. When you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met. Firstly, notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Secondly next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). The first example of Apostolic Succession. So two of the three requirements are met. The third requirement is that there must be a NASI (prince/temporal) and an AB (father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why? In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the Beit Din Gadol. Fast forward to Matt16, in this new Beit Din Gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter (the first AB/father/pope meaning papa) by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the NASI prince of the apostles and the AB/pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope as Peters documented unbroken apostolic successor is both ‘nasi’ and the ‘ab’ in Catholicism. Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24 and Matt16. Peter is First amongst equals. In the Davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history. Peter's successors (Popes) are first amongst equals ie bishops who make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The steward would wear the keys around his neck so the citizens of the davidic kingdoms knew who he was. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the Keys are the keys of the temple and government). Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return.

[@gu3r1tar]

Ive seen your comments before. They’re very valuable. Is there a place where you put all this info together. It would be an invaluable apologetics resource.

[@mlauntube]

You say that Jesus is clearly recreating a redeemed Sanhedrin, but we have the historic record of the acts of the Apostles, and they never act as a Sanhedrin. They only acted to advise the local congregations. They also at times acted as prophets, but you read Paul who writes some times as a prophet (the Lord and not I), and also as a Pastor (I and not the Lord). But, I can see how using the model of an assumed Sanhedrin, this is where the Church of the Roman Government that later became more powerful than the Roman government (just like the religious clerics have become more powerful over Saudi Arabia because they control the people), that Catholic Church used that model to justify killing and torturing any who would defy their power or their doctrines. I would recommend against using the traditions of the Sanhedrin because the Talmud teaches that it is OK to have sex with little boys and girls just barely over 2 years old. This the the group that Jesus called a perverse generation.

[@rbnmnt3341]

Apparently you haven't read the book of Acts. There are requirements for apostles. The most important of which is that the chosen apostle had to have seen the risen Christ. Oops for Catholics and their succession. Scripture also tells us that the last to seen the risen Christ was the Apostle Paul. The million dollar question is this. After Jesus ascended, how many of your so called popes saw the risen Christ. A good guess is that NOT ONE. so biblically speaking there can be no succession based on that requirement. But, as usual, scripture means nothing to the church. It's their agenda before God's.

[@BatWayne6]

Jesus spent much time exposing that the Jews made God’s word invalid due to their traditions. So what if it was a rabbinic teaching to lay hands? Jesus didn’t teach this nor is it found in the Torah. If the equation is: Jews along time ago did something, therefore Jesus must be cool with it, then there would have been no need for the consequences that befell God’s once chosen nation.

[@sunnyjohnson992]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate.” The Bible tells us that God purposed to have 12 apostles form the future “12 foundation stones” of New Jerusalem. (Revelation 21:14) Thus, there was no need to replace any FAITHFUL apostle who later finished his earthly course.

[@fantasia55]

So why was Judas replaced?

[@CountMondego55]

​@@fantasia55because their work was not done

[@fantasia55]

@CountMondego55 same for all the Apostles

[@MonerBilly]

Haha

[@HopeUnknown]

Is this a puzzle you just solved?!? Do the Catholic leaders know these things? Seems like it shouldnt be something we discover in 2024...

[@jimisoulman6021]

Hmm...can not say I am convinced. Tenuous at best and certainly does not provide support for papal supremacy or infallibility. Perhaps I am missing something. Please feel free to educate me.

[@judysantmire968]

I agree with you. I came into the Catholic Church 9 years ago. It was a long journey and there was a honeymoon period for sure. In the last few years, I have begun to see some things that I question. In my view, the ultra traditionalists seem to hold tight to matching the type of the religion of the Jews. Everything points to Jesus. The Gospel is Jesus. It is not form. It isn't even Mary. It is Jesus, Messiah, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. It is God incarnate in Jesus.

[@BornAgainRN]

Irenaeus also wrote that Jesus was 50 years old, which he based on “apostolic tradition.” In the old testament when priests would lay their hands on someone or something, it was a means of identification not a sacramental act of succession. For example, priests would lay their hands on an animal to identify their sins being transferred to that animal as an act of atonement. In the NT, when the apostles would lay their hands on Paul and Barnabas in the New Testament, they had already been in active ministry for years up to that point. Laying on of hands in the New Testament was also involved with receiving the Holy Spirit in the infant church. So, when the New Testament refers to the laying on of hands of other believers, it is simply a means of identification and affirmation of the apostles teaching, not a sacramental ritual of apostolic succession. This is why in the New Testament, there is a distinction in the church offices between apostles, prophets, evangelists, and Pastor-teachers. According to the later letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus, once the apostles and prophets began to die out, there were only two church offices in local churches: (pastors) elder/overseers and deacons. So the laying on of hands in the New Testament had nothing to do with apostolic succession. Suan is a very intelligent, educated, and well-read man, but he is making a bit of a stretch comparing the “succession” of the Sanhedrin to a “succession” of the apostles. For that to work, there would have to be apostles today, which are none. No offense, but I am afraid he is making a bit of a non sequitur argument here.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

Irenaus never stated Jesus was indeed 50 but in between 31-50 which in Jewish tradition qualifies you as an elder. And in Jewish tradition one had to be considered and elder in age in order to be a teacher.

[@JustinKonathuvila]

Suan has all the makings of next St Thomas Aquinas

[@redbird9000]

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14**** • Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope. ------------------ - Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. The Catholic National, a Catholic organ published this quote in July 1895. - Eamon Duffy was a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that *Matthew 16:18* alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the New Testament scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was proclaiming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation. - If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Paul went to see Ananias to receive his sight. - In ****Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism. - If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly. ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. ------------------ ****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church says that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope and the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the Papacy. ****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** The word of God says that Christ is the spiritual Rock. A Rock for the wise builder. ------------------ - I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome. Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ****1 Peter 2:4-8**** ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@dawitketema4150]

አንብሮተ-እድ

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Christianity is not Judaism. When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Hebrews 8:13

[@jocelynsmith4315]

yikes. he came to fulfill the law not abolish it 🤦🏼‍♀️

[@rolandovelasquez135]

@@jocelynsmith4315 when Jesus refers to "the Law" here he is speaking specifically of the Old Testament Torah, also known as the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. He is definitely not speaking of Rabbinical tradition. In fact Jesus always speaks negatively of the traditions that the Jews had developed after the completion of the Torah. By Jesus' time they had developed numerous traditions that had corrupted God's original commands. I'll just quote Jesus himself: And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" Matthew 15:3

[@jocelynsmith4315]

@@rolandovelasquez135 You need to read the next 3 lines of that verse… this is why protestants are deceived by the devil, he has twisted the word of God from the beginning. This verse is pointing out again that the pharisees are HYPOCRITES. but even still, he told his disciples to listen to them, and do EVERYTHING they told them to do. Matthew 23:1-3 because he recognized their authority in the seat of Moses. but not to do WHAT they do because they were hypocrites/ doing it for the wrong reasons.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

@@jocelynsmith4315 the "seat of Moses" refers, once again, to the Old Testament Torah, that is the five "books of Moses" - the Pentateuch. All of Suan's references post date the same and are exactly the type of traditions Jesus was referring to in our passage. In fact Suan is referring specifically to the Second Temple Period, i.e. between 516 B.C. and 70 A.D. Approximately 900 years after Moses. And we must remember that by 70 A.D. the apostasy of Israel was so great that that very second temple was completely and utterly destroyed. Not only that, but the Sanhedrin of which Suan speaks committed a sin so grievous, it doesn't even have a name. It can only be described. They murdered the Messiah! Christianity, Christ, is a "new covenant". Thank God. "“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. Jeremiah 31:31‭-‬32

[@juice2307]

No, the seat of Moses was a position of authority. You are spreading some bad history here.

[@Justas399]

Here is why apostolic succession is impossible: "21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us- 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us-one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts 1 Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).

[@mortensimonsen1645]

That verse means that the apostles of course chose one of those who has been with them the longest. It cannot be used to disprove apostolic succession, quite the contrary (it supports apostolic succession). And you did not address the Jewish roots for this practice. And besides, to not have apostolic succession makes no sense. It's like saying anyone can start their own church and interpret as best as they can.

[@mcchickenmuhchicken]

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. You have to keep reading, if it doesnt support apostolic succession...why on earth did they need to vote another one in? Justas you seem to be drawn to the catholic church, you are on so many channels

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

To the 2nd quote- The New Testament doesn't explicitly mention the line of succession going to Rome, yes, because that part had not happened yet. I don't think he's somehow discrediting Apostolic Succession itself there.

[@Justas399]

@@mortensimonsen1645 notice the qualification that Peter lays down that no one after the 1st can fulfill: Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us⁠- - Acts 1:21

[@Justas399]

@@mcchickenmuhchicken notice the qualification that no one after the 1st century cannot fulfill: Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us⁠- - Acts 1:21 Yes I am drawn to catholics to share the truth of the gospel with them.

[@adam7402]

I agree, the magestirium was not invented by the romans. It was invented by heretical Jewish converts to Christianity during the 1st several centuries AD. Galations 3:10 "For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse" And what was the Sanhedrin of not an emissary of the law? Yet, the Roman rite has chosen to revive the the sanhedrin through a type so called 'apostolic succession" known as the magestirium.

[@mistermkultra3114]

Pope Pio XII : I'm The successor Of Peter Jesuschrist : Excuse me , Who are You ???

[@Kanjiro.D]

K