OLAADEGBU:


Apostolic succession is unbiblical. It is nowhere found in the Scriptures. You can find out what it means in the suggested link below:

https://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html

Answer: 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.

Well put!

- However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”
- Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot...
- 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.
- 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.

@blue colored; this is the most ludicrous and heretic interpretation yet! Point of correction for both you and gotquestions.org ministries. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church is not the New Testament, rather it's the apostles and prophets that are the foundation (ref. Rev 21:14).

The Church
We the Gentiles who are now fellow citizens with the holy ones (Israelites, God's special people [Deut 7:6, Deut 14:2, Rom 9:4])
and members of the household of God (angels [Hebrews 12:22-23])
are the different members of the Body of Christ - the Church [Col 1:24, 1 Cor 12:27-28, Rom 12:4-5];
the Apostles and the prophets are the foundation (Rev 21:14);
Christ is the Head, or Cornerstone (or foundation stone or keystone) [Isaiah 28:16].

Key Points
(Ephesians 23-32) The church is Christ's bride.
(Ephesians 4:15) "Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head (of the church), Christ, from whom the whole body (the church), joined and held together by every supporting ligament (different gifts and functions), with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s (church's) growth and builds itself up in love.

@green colored; False! The church does not need any record or preservation of any record. Just so you understand it easier, the church already existed before the New Testament, not the other way round. The church through the apostles produced the NT scripture as part of her role in evangelization. The protestant mantra is to take the product of the church (NT) while disregarding and discrediting the church whose product they use. If the church as the author rightly acknowledege is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), how then can someone or group of people exist outside the church and still claim to teach the truth? How absurd!

I counted at least 6 times where the author mentioned "Supreme" as the authority of Peter. This is just one example out of many where anti Catholics create straw man inorder to help their own argument.

1. "Supremacy" and "primacy" are not the same.

2. Christ assigned a like power to all the apostles, but he founded a single chair (cathedra), and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. So, the others were also what Peter was (apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So in essence, all the apostles are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord.

Apostolic succession is not about Peter's role, position among his fellow apostles, it is about the role and position of the Church (which the apostles are part of) in the propagation of faith, teaching of the Word of God and formulation of doctrines in line with the Word of God (scripture + oral teachings of the apostles).

I'm waiting for your reply to make the case of how apostolic succession contradicts the bible. Your article only says something about it not being mentioned in the bible or needed for further propagation of faith.

Your article essentially argues that as long as the last book of the bible is written, the role of the apostles and the church as a whole ends! We are then supposed to pick up the bible which the successors of the apostles collected, sorted and canonized; and run with it without considering the successors of the apostles who collected, sorted and canonized it. Tell me, how then can you claim a more accurate knowledge of than bible those successors of the apostles?

Have you heard about Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who was a student of Polycarp? And Polycarp himself who was made bishop of Smyrna by Apostle John? Have you heard anything they taught or wrote? Do you know any of the early christians apart from the apostles, and what they believed, taught or wrote? Have you studied the church history from the time of Christ as recorded in the bible to present day? Or did you just pick the bible without giving a good thought where it came from and how it came to you? These are the questions you should answer to yourself; don't look to me or your pastor or the pope to give you the answer. You are an adult, don't be afraid to challenge your belief with these vital questions. You have nothing to lose by researching them, but everything to gain in terms of knowledge that could even help you convert more catholics easily. Right?

OLAADEGBU:


Did you read the excerpt you quoted at all? This is a sentence in what you selectively quoted from the suggested link: "The ultimate basis of that truth is Christ, not the proclamations or infallibility of members of that body."

Did you see who the author said was the ultimate basis of the truth?

Again, that's a straw man argument. The Catholic church does not say the basis of truth is the proclamations or infallibility of members of that body. What the Catholic says is that Christ himself is the truth, and that Christ being the foundation stone (cornerstone, keystone) of the church (Ephesians 2:20), that makes the church the foundation of truth (1 Tim 1:15). It essentially means you can't find truth in it's fullness outside the church. Now, do you still wonder why there are over 33,000 denominations who are struggling with truth. Can you unabashedly say Christ recognizes these 33,000 churches? Can you say they are all one church, one Body with Christ as the Head? Think!

Again, the foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone (foundation stone).

The cornerstone (or foundation stone or setting stone) is the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure - Wikipedia.


John 6:61 - "Does this shock you": https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-pillar-of-truth

9inches:


I'm waiting for your reply to make the case of how apostolic succession contradicts the bible. Your article only says something about it not being mentioned in the bible or needed for further propagation of faith.

Your article essentially argues that as long as the last book of the bible is written, the role of the apostles and the church as a whole ends! We are then supposed to pick up the bible which the successors of the apostles collected, sorted and canonized; and run with it without considering the successors of the apostles who collected, sorted and canonized it. Tell me, how then can you claim a more accurate knowledge of that bible those the successors of the apostles?

Have you heard about Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who was a student of Polycarp? And Polycarp himself who was made bishop of Smyrna by Apostle John? Have you heard anything they taught or wrote? Do you know any of the early christians apart from the apostles, and what they believed, taught or wrote? Have you studied the church history from the time of Christ as recorded in the bible to present day? Or did you just pick the bible without giving a good thought where it came from and how it came to you? These are the questions you should answer to yourself; don't look to me or your pastor or the pope to give you the answer. You are an adult, don't be afraid to challenge your believe with these vital questions. You have nothing to lose by researching them, but everything to gain in terms of knowledge that can even help you convert more catholics easily. Right?

The question you should be asking yourself is that - "Are Roman Catholics really Christians?"

9inches:


Again, that's a straw man argument. The Catholic church does not say the basis of truth is the proclamations or infallibility of members of that body. What the Catholic says is that Christ himself is the truth, and that Christ being the foundation stone (cornerstone, keystone) of the church (Ephesians 2:20), that makes the church the foundation of truth (1 Tim 1:15). It essentially means you can't find truth outside the church. Now, do you still wonder why there are over 33,000 denominations who are struggling with truth. Can you unabashedly say Christ recognizes these 33,000 churches? Can you say they are all one church, one Body with Christ as the Head? Think!

Again, the foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone (foundation stone).

The cornerstone (or foundation stone or setting stone) is the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure - Wikipedia.


John 6:61 - "Does this shock you": https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/print-edition/the-pillar-of-truth

Is there a slight chance that the Roman Catholic church is not even Christian? There will be dire consequences if this is true.

OLAADEGBU:


Is there a slight chance that the Roman Catholic church is not even Christian? There will be dire consequences if this is true.

another consequence of the Roman Catholic Church not being Christian is that the Bible which you uphold very proudly would not be from God as it is a product of the 'non Christian' Roman Catholic Church.

Gggg102:


another consequence of the Roman Catholic Church not being Christian is that the Bible which you uphold very proudly would not be from God as it is a product of the 'non Christian' Roman Catholic Church.

Tell am

Gggg102:


another consequence of the Roman Catholic Church not being Christian is that the Bible which you uphold very proudly would not be from God as it is a product of the 'non Christian' Roman Catholic Church.

If that is the case how come the Bible 'produced' by the Roman Catholic Church contradicts the teaching of those who 'produced' it?

Ubenedictus:


Tell am

Please tell us how the Roman Catholic teaching is so different from the Bible you claim to produce?

9inches:

Well put!


@blue colored; this is the most ludicrous and heretic interpretation yet! Point of correction for both you and gotquestions.org ministries. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church is not the New Testament, rather it's the apostles and prophets that are the foundation (ref. Rev 21:14).

The Church
We the Gentiles who are now fellow citizens with the holy ones (Israelites, God's special people [Deut 7:6, Deut 14:2, Rom 9:4])
and members of the household of God (angels [Hebrews 12:22-23])
are the different members of the Body of Christ - the Church [Col 1:24, 1 Cor 12:27-28, Rom 12:4-5];
the Apostles and the prophets are the foundation (Rev 21:14);
Christ is the Head, or Cornerstone (or foundation stone or keystone) [Isaiah 28:16].

Key Points
(Ephesians 23-32) The church is Christ's bride.
(Ephesians 4:15) "Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head (of the church), Christ, from whom the whole body (the church), joined and held together by every supporting ligament (different gifts and functions), with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s (church's) growth and builds itself up in love.

@green colored; False! The church does not need any record or preservation of any record. Just so you understand it easier, the church already existed before the New Testament, not the other way round. The church through the apostles produced the NT scripture as part of her role in evangelization. The protestant mantra is to take the product of the church (NT) while disregarding and discrediting the church whose product they use. If the church as the author rightly acknowledege is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), how then can someone or group of people exist outside the church and still claim to teach the truth? How absurd!

I counted at least 6 times where the author mentioned "Supreme" as the authority of Peter. This is just one example out of many where anti Catholics create straw man inorder to help their own argument.

1. "Supremacy" and "primacy" are not the same.

2. Christ assigned a like power to all the apostles, but he founded a single chair (cathedra), and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. So, the others were also what Peter was (apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So in essence, all the apostles are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord.

Apostolic succession is not about Peter's role, position among his fellow apostles, it is about the role and position of the Church (which the apostles are part of) in the propagation of faith, teaching of the Word of God and formulation of doctrines in line with the Word of God (scripture + oral teachings of the apostles).

The earlier you knew what constitutes a Church the better you will get to unravelling the conundrum.

OLAADEGBU:


The earlier you knew what constitutes a Church the better you will get to unravelling the conundrum.

Truth does not change even if you disagree with it. You're supposed to be a bible-only christian. You are falling short of convincing people here you even believe in the bible with your weak counter argument. Copy and paste won't save you because you do not know the authenticity of what you are copying. I already discredited one of your go-to place, gotquestions.org here:

9inches:
click ^ here

9inches:


Truth does not change even if you disagree with it. You're supposed to be a bible-only christian. You are falling short of convincing people here you even believe in the bible with your weak counter argument. Copy and paste won't save you because you do not know the authenticity of what you are copying. I already discredited one of your go-to place, gotquestions.org here:

Are Roman Catholic Christians?

Who does the Bible instruct believers to go to when they sin?

OLAADEGBU:


Please tell us how the Roman Catholic teaching is so different from the Bible you claim to produce?

as usual your cartoons are lying.


no Catholic lives according to the laws of the Vatican state unless you are a citizen of the Vatican and you live there, the Pope is not your president unless you live in the Vatican state, that you are a Catholic doesn't make you a Vatican citizen.


a Catholic is first a Christian and will follow the laws of Christ and his church, Vatican state laws don't bind Catholics.

OLAADEGBU:


Are Roman Catholic Christians?

Who does the Bible instruct believers to go to when they sin?

You diverting from the point of discuss here.

OLAADEGBU:
Apostolic succession is unbiblical. It is nowhere found in the Scriptures. You can find out what it means in the suggested link below:

https://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html

Answer: 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.

Well put!

- However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”
- Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot...
- 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.
- 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.

9inches:
^

@blue colored; this is the most ludicrous and heretic interpretation yet! Point of correction for both you and gotquestions.org ministries. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church is not the New Testament, rather it's the apostles and prophets that are the foundation (ref. Rev 21:14).

The Church
We the Gentiles who are now fellow citizens with the holy ones (Israelites, God's special people [Deut 7:6, Deut 14:2, Rom 9:4])
and members of the household of God (angels [Hebrews 12:22-23])
are the different members of the Body of Christ - the Church [Col 1:24, 1 Cor 12:27-28, Rom 12:4-5];
the Apostles and the prophets are the foundation (Rev 21:14);
Christ is the Head, or Cornerstone (or foundation stone or keystone) [Isaiah 28:16].

Key Points
(Ephesians 23-32) The church is Christ's bride.
(Ephesians 4:15) "Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head (of the church), Christ, from whom the whole body (the church), joined and held together by every supporting ligament (different gifts and functions), with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s (church's) growth and builds itself up in love.

@green colored; False! The church does not need any record or preservation of any record. Just so you understand it easier, the church already existed before the New Testament, not the other way round. The church through the apostles produced the NT scripture as part of her role in evangelization. The protestant mantra is to take the product of the church (NT) while disregarding and discrediting the church whose product they use. If the church as the author rightly acknowledege is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), how then can someone or group of people exist outside the church and still claim to teach the truth? How absurd!

I counted at least 6 times where the author mentioned "Supreme" as the authority of Peter. This is just one example out of many where anti Catholics create straw man inorder to help their own argument.

1. "Supremacy" and "primacy" are not the same.

2. Christ assigned a like power to all the apostles, but he founded a single chair (cathedra), and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. So, the others were also what Peter was (apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So in essence, all the apostles are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord.

Apostolic succession is not about Peter's role, position among his fellow apostles, it is about the role and position of the Church (which the apostles are part of) in the propagation of faith, teaching of the Word of God and formulation of doctrines in line with the Word of God (scripture + oral teachings of the apostles).

9inches:

You diverting from the point of discuss here.


Well put!



@blue colored; this is the most ludicrous and heretic interpretation yet! Point of correction for both you and gotquestions.org ministries. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church is not the New Testament, rather it's the apostles and prophets that are the foundation (ref. Rev 21:14).

The Church
We the Gentiles who are now fellow citizens with the holy ones (Israelites, God's special people [Deut 7:6, Deut 14:2, Rom 9:4])
and members of the household of God (angels [Hebrews 12:22-23])
are the different members of the Body of Christ - the Church [Col 1:24, 1 Cor 12:27-28, Rom 12:4-5];
the Apostles and the prophets are the foundation (Rev 21:14);
Christ is the Head, or Cornerstone (or foundation stone or keystone) [Isaiah 28:16].

Key Points
(Ephesians 23-32) The church is Christ's bride.
(Ephesians 4:15) "Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head (of the church), Christ, from whom the whole body (the church), joined and held together by every supporting ligament (different gifts and functions), with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s (church's) growth and builds itself up in love.

@green colored; False! The church does not need any record or preservation of any record. Just so you understand it easier, the church already existed before the New Testament, not the other way round. The church through the apostles produced the NT scripture as part of her role in evangelization. The protestant mantra is to take the product of the church (NT) while disregarding and discrediting the church whose product they use. If the church as the author rightly acknowledege is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), how then can someone or group of people exist outside the church and still claim to teach the truth? How absurd!

I counted at least 6 times where the author mentioned "Supreme" as the authority of Peter. This is just one example out of many where anti Catholics create straw man inorder to help their own argument.

1. "Supremacy" and "primacy" are not the same.

2. Christ assigned a like power to all the apostles, but he founded a single chair (cathedra), and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. So, the others were also what Peter was (apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So in essence, all the apostles are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord.

Apostolic succession is not about Peter's role, position among his fellow apostles, it is about the role and position of the Church (which the apostles are part of) in the propagation of faith, teaching of the Word of God and formulation of doctrines in line with the Word of God (scripture + oral teachings of the apostles).

Are Roman Catholic Christians? The Confessional is not found in the word of God (the Bible) it is one of the works of man.

OLAADEGBU:


Are Roman Catholic Christians? The Confessional is not found in the word of God (the Bible) it is one of the works of man.

Your argument has no basis because you don't believe in the bible. You adopt a man-made doctrine of martin luther which against the teaching of the bible You need to wake up and see the lies you've been sold to from luther down to your pastors.

9inches:


Your argument has no basis because you don't believe in the bible. You adopt a man-made doctrine of martin luther which against the teaching of the bible You need to wake up and see the lies you've been sold to from luther down to your pastors.

Are you saying that the confessional has any basis in the Bible that you 'produced?'

Ubenedictus:


as usual your cartoons are lying.


no Catholic lives according to the laws of the Vatican state unless you are a citizen of the Vatican and you live there, the Pope is not your president unless you live in the Vatican state, that you are a Catholic doesn't make you a Vatican citizen.


a Catholic is first a Christian and will follow the laws of Christ and his church, Vatican state laws don't bind Catholics.

I hear you.

Where does the Bible mention popes, nuns, monks and priests in the running of the church especially in the NT?

OLAADEGBU:


Are you saying that the confessional has any basis in the Bible that you 'produced?'

I'm saying you don't believe in the bible, so no need arguing what the bible says with you. Until I see good evidence that you are a member of the Body of Christ, which is the Church (Col 1:18), I have no reason to make sense out of your comments. Now I ask you, are you a part of the the Church according to Corinthians 12:27 or are you independent (outside) of the Church like Martin Luther?

OLAADEGBU:


I hear you.

Where does the Bible mention popes, nuns, monks and priests in the running of the church especially in the NT?

Where does the bible ask us to use the word "trinity?" Is the word "trinity" unbiblical?

9inches:


I'm saying you don't believe in the bible, so no need arguing what the bible says with you. Until I see good evidence that you are a member of the Body of Christ, which is the Church (Col 1:18), I have no reason to make sense out of your comments. Now I ask you, are you a part of the the Church according to Corinthians 12:27 or are you independent (outside) of the Church like Martin Luther?

You should know by now that I am not a member of the RCC neither do I understand your catechism unless you are telling me that they are one and the same as the body of Christ and the God-breathed Word of God respectively.

9inches:


Where does the bible ask us to use the word "trinity?" Is the word "trinity" unbiblical?

I can show you where the Bible mentions the word 'Godhead' which is the same as the Trinity.

I can't blame you because you only believe in your pastor who didn't understand the Bible

OLAADEGBU:


You should know by now that I am not a member of the RCC neither do I understand your catechism unless you are telling me that they are one and the same as the body of Christ and the God-breathed Word of God respectively.

I didn't quote the catechism for you. You could see bible references. Why don't you accept you don't understand the Christianity you claim to profess? Throw me your own argument. Don't being afraid.

OLAADEGBU:


I can show you where the Bible mentions the word 'Godhead' which is the same as the Trinity.

Why can't you show me the word Trinity? Did the bible ask us to use that word?

9inches:


Why can't you show me the word Trinity? Did the bible ask us to use that word?

Do you have the word 'Godhead' in your Bible, if yes, what does it mean?

niyellow:


I can't blame you because you only believe in your pastor who didn't understand the Bible

Can you explain this?

9inches:


I didn't quote the catechism for you. You could see bible references. Why don't you accept you don't understand the Christianity you claim to profess? Throw me your own argument. Don't being afraid.

What are the Bible references for these practices?

OLAADEGBU:


Apostle John was the last apostle who God used to pen down the Scriptures and that ended the Canon. Any other apostle(s) claiming to have continued to pen down God breathed words is another christ, false apostle or a false prophet.

As for the answer to point number 3, sit back and read the truth as depicted in the 'cartoons' posted

https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0047/0047_01.asp

Pls OLA answer those questions 9INCHES and stop jumping like frog cos I've been following to see ur answers to those questions but I keep seeing cartoons.Pls am here to learn answer those three questions from 9INCHES

1. What do you understand by Apostolic succession and how does it contradict the bible?
2. Explain to me how you could have gotten the bible without the Apostolic succession.
3. Do you believe in the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth?

9inches pls don't allow him to run away from this questions.

doyinbaby:
It takes the grace of God for a catholic to give his life to Christ ,.....those Catholics and their church doctrines and traditions hen.....
.with God all things are possible

I don't understand u.
So Catholics are not christains.

Before u talk about religion or denomination.
Read about it.
Cos u are just plain stupid for.making such comments.
In fact u lack wisdom.
U know nothing and u come online to write trash.
Mead about the reformation.
Read about Martin Luther read about the Catholic church.

sniperr007:


I don't understand u.
So Catholics are not christains.

Before u talk about religion or denomination.
Read about it.
Cos u are just plain stupid for.making such comments.
In fact u lack wisdom.
U know nothing and u come online to write trash.
Mead about the reformation.
Read about Martin Luther read about the Catholic church.

If you want us to read then here are a few facts about how the following pagan practices differ from what we find in the Bible.

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honour of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2042.cfm

How come Peter forgot to include all this in the Bible?

nnatom:


Pls OLA answer those questions 9INCHES and stop jumping like frog cos I've been following to see ur answers to those questions but I keep seeing cartoons.Pls am here to learn answer those three questions from 9INCHES

1. What do you understand by Apostolic succession and how does it contradict the bible?
2. Explain to me how you could have gotten the bible without the Apostolic succession.
3. Do you believe in the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth?

9inches pls don't allow him to run away from this questions.

What was my response to the above questions?