Provide your explanation for why Paul would lay hands on a Gentile (Titus) to oversee/pastor a Church diocese? And then instruct him on laying hands on other men, to ordain/consecrate them as bishops?
LOL. There's a story behind this mistake. I was sitting in my recliner, enjoying a little time on TOL, when my wife came in in a bit of a huff, asking if I was ready to go to bed. She feels like she's a TOL widow sometimes. I wanted to finish the post, and I'd written "Ezekiel" hurriedly, thinking "Is that the right 'Z' prophet? I'd better check before posting." Then I forgot to check when she came in the second time. But I'd rather you catch me in a mistake than the other consequence.
Why Paul at all?
So no answer then.
Not to that question. I'm not going to jump all over the place until you can address what is already on the table. Homey don't play dat!
I guess I don't see it as too hard when God knows their hearts. And don't forget to read the whole chapter. David had just saved the people of Keilah from the Philistines, who were robbing their threshing floors.
I don't think torture and betrayal are mutually exclusive concepts. Even the threat of torture might do it if he were weak.
Why is that a solace for you? Are you more in favor of the creation account than you are of Darwinism?
Because you have no answer.
Address what? It doesn't matter if you reject the papacy, you still have no answer for why you reject the Orthodox bishops, as they also trace their lineage all the way back to Paul and Titus.
Oh wonderful, another mind-reader.
Paul was NOT one of the twelve and was given a unique ministry that you do not understand.
He ordained bishops. He wasn't unique in that regard, and that's the explanation that you do not have. Why did he ordain/consecrate bishops, like Timothy and the 100% Gentile Titus?
Yes there is. Paul himself started some of what are today Orthodox churches.
Paul "ordained" Timothy due to PROPHECY.
You don't have the authority to make that judgment. Romans 14:4 (KJV)
Well, that's one idea.
Actually, of all the Apostles.
In that verse, all the Apostles' names are missing. We have no reason to believe that Paul isn't numbered among the Twelve in this verse.
No, that is actually what the scripture says.Why do you have a problem with what scripture says?
According to your "papacy", it was given to PETER and "continuously" handed down from there.
That's an amazing cop-out on your part. The NAMES of the twelve are documented in scripture (a book that you seem to know almost nothing about).
This is it? Your whole reason for why you don't include Paul as one of the Twelve, is this?
You're a weird one Nihilo. Facts just fly right past you.
College of bishops.... LOL. That's pure indoctrination in falsehood there. Scripture please.
It's not enough for me because Paul wrote half the New Testament and this Matthias we never hear from again, and Paul is also said to be an Apostle, over and over again, so Paul is one of the Twelve, and there is no such thing as "Twelve plus one." That's a Dispensational delusion.
Are ministers and pastors responsible to teach reliable and trustworthy doctrine, on matters of faith and morals?
I do know. One of the most important things is teaching faith and morals. Also, administration or dispensation of their diocese. And celebrating the sacraments themselves and praying the mass, personally, in their home parish, the cathedral. Cathedral comes from the same root as the word for chair, and that's a bishop's see, is where his seat or chair is, and that's how "ex cathedra" fits together with all this bishop talk and pope talk. The chair is a metonym for the authority of the bishop in the diocese, and Peter's chair is the supreme authority in the Church universal.
Yes. A bishop doesn't have to lay his hand upon you, for you to become an "average" believer. But he certainly is involved when you want to become a bishop. You need a bishop, in order to become a bishop. If every bishop were to suddenly retire from all their duties all at once, and they wouldn't ordain any new bishops, then and only then would we say that Apostolic succession is dead, and not a moment before. So long as there are bishops ordaining/consecrating new bishops, Apostolic succession as a process continues.
Bishops in the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox churches pastor their own parish personally (the cathedral), and all the other parishes in their diocese through the assistance of their parish priests, who are not elders, overseers, and bishops, so priests cannot ordain anybody unless they are first consecrated a bishop, by another bishop. Martin Luther, for example, was not a bishop. Titus was, as was Timothy, and as were the Apostles. There is an unbroken chain of hands going all the way back to the Lord Himself, Who ordained the Apostles the first bishops of His Church, whom He built upon Peter. And there's only one Christian tradition that even claims to be built upon Peter, as the Scripture most plainly suggests the Lord said that she would, and that's the Catholic Church with all her precious popes, the successors of Peter the bishop, the first bishop of the Church in Rome, the diocese to whom Paul the Apostle wrote Romans.
Talk about the delusional one.
Indeed, that disqualified anyone like you.
You do realize that both of those man-made organizations disagree on sound doctrine with BOTH rejecting sound Pauline doctrine.
Ah, the great myths of Catholicism believed by a billion.
Wow.... "precious popes".... you need a lesson in TRUE history about some of these "precious pope".