Who was irenaeus Videos

+Post-Apostolic Church    ; )

+jesusstudentbrett Thanks for commenting. so far in my research into the early Christian writings, I agree with everything you said. :)

I have read Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Epistle of Barnabas, and Irenaeus many times in the last five years and they DID NOT teach Catholicism. The Koine Greek word Katholikos is conveniently transliterated in Ignatius' and Eusebius' statements etc to make it seem so. Taking Irenaeus out of context would make it seem he supports infant baptism but this is either shall owing reading with poor comprehension or just dishonest. Augustine diverged big time from the 2nd century Fathers. That former Manichean Gnostic shipwrecked orthodoxy.

+Post-Apostolic Church Thank you for your kind words at the end. When you have time, go back and look over my comments. Check them out for yourself. I still would like to know what denomination you belong to. Who is your Pastor, or Minister? 

+approvedofGod I'm sorry you were offended. I will remain true to the historical evidence, to the teachings of the Scriptures, and to the beliefs of early Christianity. Thanks for visiting my channel.

+Post-Apostolic Church Why are you changing my words? I believe in being sincere. Paul said that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. You know that I was not referring to Irenaeus and his stance on issues of certain errors and holiness..You admitted that Irenaeus was wrong about the Church of Rome being established by Peter and Paul. Do I have to quote you? If you do not want to face the truth of these men, that is your thing. Please do not say things that are partially true and partially error. Your presentation on the Fathers is in need of revamping. If you do not fix it, I will know that you are not sincere.

+approvedofGod No, not lied. Irenaeus attacked spiritual error and praised spiritual holiness. If that is a lie to you, then I don't know what to say.

+Post-Apostolic Church So in your own admission, Irenaeus lied. I agree. Probably all of the Ante-Nicene Fathers lied at one point or another.  

+approvedofGod Thanks for the good thoughts. On on hand, Irenaeous gave appropriate honor to the church in Rome. On the other hand, he did criticize the church in Rome whenever it was wrong. In fact, on one of his visits there, he had to correct some heresies that were rising among the church in Rome's leadership.Did Peter and Paul organize the Church in Rome? They certainly didn't establish the church. It was already in existence when Paul and Peter were there.

+Post-Apostolic Church The word Monarchian means "One Monarch" or "One Ruler" for God. Scholars identify "Modalistic Monarchians" for God modally existing (in three manifestations or modes of existence) as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while they identify "dynamic monarchians" as those who believe that Jesus was not God such as Paul of Samosota and the early Jewish Ebionites. The early Modalistic Monarchians often claimed that they "hold the Monarchy" of God while accusing Tertullian and Hippolytus of abandon that Monarchy for "di-theism" or "tri-theism." See Tertullian in Against Praxeus chapter one.   Since Modalistic Monarchianism was once the prevalent doctrine in the early church (see Origen's Commentary of the Gospel of John, book 1, chapter 23) and dynamic Monarchianism was very rare, I often use the word Monarchian for the Oneness believers rather than including the word Modalist with it.

+Global Impact Ministries Tertullian wrote against Praxeus who was a Monarchian. What is the difference between Monarchianism and Modalism?

yes Sarah but not the modern sense of a bishop. The Greek word Episkopon is composed of EPI= over...and Skopos = look ...or the verb Skopeo = I look at.As Paul the apostle describes in 1 Timothy and Titus we see job descriptions of "Episkopon" and Elders and even Deacons. We see these as mature Christians that have become so by practicing Jesus' teachings and become mature...hence the Episkopon is one God wants up in front to be looked upon as the example of mature fruit if we obey the gospel teachings.by the way you can see where English gets teleSkope...or micro Slope...something you LOOK THRU.

+Sara K When defining the word, yes. When it comes to how various Christian groups put this office into practice, it depends on who you ask. If you would like me to explain more about these differences, both from Scripture and from today's various uses, I will do that. Eventually, I plan to make a video on what the early Christians believed about church government. But it may be a few years before I get there.

+Michael Guy What do you mean by believing in a priesthood?No, Irenaeus did not believe in transubstantiation. Actually, no Pre-Nicene writer did.Irenaeus has one of the very best quotes regarding the Lord's Supper. He wrote, "We offer to Him His Own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit. For the bread which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist [Thanksgiving], consisting of two realities: earthly and heavenly." (ANF, vol 1, page 486) Transubstantiation is the belief that the Lord's Supper is Jesus's body and blood in a purely earthly sense.Well said: the Pre-Nicene Christians do give us the best prototype!

+Jonathon Harper Jonathon, thanks for commenting. I apologize that I do not have enough time to read everything in that link you shared. Do you mind summarizing the main point? Also, I'm curious to know what your biggest complaint about the Bible is.

+Jonathon Harper Anyone who says that contradictions exist in the Bible is intellectually lazy. All you need to do is google and you will find the harmonization of any supposed contradiction. The article you linked is too absurd to even comment on. Utter rubbish. You need to upgrade what you read.

+egwpisteuw nowhere near as bizarre as the bible itself with its many contradictions. You guys might be missing the point that Irenaeus seems to have had an influence in what got into the bible and what did not. The scholarship here seems rather poor to me. Check this out //www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Literally, in the very last video the guy in this series went over several possible definitions of catholic and what Ignatius meant. He does not need to go into detail in this video as he already did in the previous lecture. I will not comment on any other part of your comment, but yes he does say catholic and did define in the previous video ( about an hour in and the video was on Ignatius). Also I find it funny that you accuse this guy of being a transliterate, but then in a different comment below you say "they had no priests but just an EPISKPON and PRESBYTERS.. translate those to English as you choose...". Then you indicate that these are "leaders and shepherds of God's people" which is what any Catholic would believe a priest is (and priest is the english for PRESBYTER so...?). You dance around the word priest, yet get mad when this guy say catholic. That makes you sound a lot like a hypocrite. Just don't be so harsh, bro.

+jesusstudentbrett EKKLESIA = CALLED OUT OF...yes, I agree. But how can you be so sure that it doesn't refer to an organization? Are you objective enough and have taken into consideration other's scholarly take on this? Otherwise, it can only be an opinion...and you can not blame anybody to have a healthy doubt to an opinion. As for my opininion, I can not help but picture yourself to be an anti-religion spreading your own gospel.

+Mark Marquito   ; )    The Christ was prophesied to come and usher in the kingdom of God. He spoke of an EKKLESIA (meaning CALLED OUT OF is the meaning in Greek).  It is not an organization with a name like Catholic or Luthern or any other name... it is people who come out of the ways of this world, purify themselves obeying Christ and what he taught. May God help you.

+jesusstudentbrett I'm sorry to tell you sir...although you seem to be very passionate on your comments in this video...personally, these never made me sway me to be anti-catholic. Instead, your comments are making me more Catholic. If your purpose is to let me see your view point, I'm sorry to tell you, you miserably failed.

+SpiritualJones  Having not grown up Catholic, but protestant, I see the purity of Christianity, the love they have for each other, the devotion to honoring God with their lives and laying it down for others, the pursuit of virtue, not the stepping into a wooden box of confession with a priest, for they had no priests but just an EPISKPON and PRESBYTERS.. translate those to English as you choose... it is just words, leaders and shepherds of God's people, having become mature in the teachings of Jesus and then held up as a light on a hill for the others to imitate and see what it looks like to mature in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. There was no Pope or hierarchy, the 2nd century were independent assemblies scattered that loved the others, and would lay their lives down for the others, but no hierarchical legislation. Doing street open air preaching and evangelism, most former religious people I meet that are now Atheists are former Catholics. The outward is there sometimes at least, but the inner life is dead in most cases. Most Catholics have no desire to study and know scripture, which is to know God and Christ. It is so sad to me. Similarly, most protestants with their Faith alone nonsense is just a sinner wanting fire insurance to live carnally and have a get out of jail free card. So many are deceived and missing the kingdom of God that the Old Testament foretold was coming in Christ, the seed of David and Abraham, and begotten of Yahweh evident in Psalms 2. The king, priest for us, Prophet, Judge coming soon of us all based on our actions, and ruler of mankind coming to establish the Kingdom on the new earth. Justin Martyr's 1st and 2nd apologies do a great job a describing what it looked like. Second Clement does a great job too. If you look through the passages, can you pull out some common elements so that one could, if they ignored the spirit of early Christianity say "ah ha! here are these elements or components that are what we believe"?  absolutely... you can do that.  Many people could take a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and find some pieces that seem to fit together and form a little picture and then talk people into believing that that is what the puzzle is about... with tons of remaining pieces. This is what modern Christianity has done.  The biggest problem I think with modern Catholicism is, because they sometimes are more benevolent than most protestants, one of Jesus' goals, is the IDOLATRY. I am going to post a link that I invite you to listen from a early church historian, that you may already be familiar with:  David Bercot. Listen, if you will, to the early church quotes that show the icons and veneration to Saints as opposed to whom the NT teaches who is Christ, is not what they practiced.  God bless my friend.

+jesusstudentbrett I would respectfully disagree. When I was an evangelical Protestant I first encountered the Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, after reading them I knew that Protestantism was out but I wanted nothing to do with Catholicism, I was passionately anti-Catholic but I found that the teachings (Sacraments, Liturgy, early Mariology, Apostolic Succession, the Bishop of Rome etc.) were all there. I was definitely biased, in the opposite way, but their writing played a huge part in my conversion and my coming into communion with the Catholic Church. I'm curious, since I just finished reading St. Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians: What is found therein that would cause one to look away from Catholicism, or that isn't Catholic?

+SpiritualJones   no I hear you on the allegory versus literal. I agree. As for the the passage "Allow the little children to come to me for such is those in the kingdom of heaven"... yes, I do take it literally but I think we see differently what that means... strangely... It does not explicitly say anything about conversion nor baptism... just that children come to him. So what is he talking about? Teaching the teachings of Christ like his sayings in the Sermon on the Mount and other places in the gospels, teaching them about righteous living, not out of compulsion but out of love for God and gratitude to Him. I meet catholics all of the time that know so little about what Jesus taught, or they are now atheists angry that we are out on the streets preaching for people to turn from the coming wrath of God on those that don't turn from sin, living to please God, embrace the teachings of Jesus our coming King, etc.Now let me address your comment about the early Church Fathers speaking about "paedobaptism" or child baptism, to that I say the 2nd century did not teach that... at all.  The closest someone can get to that is like what you did in Acts 2:38 trying to make that word meaning descendant as "child" or an explanation from Irenaeus, not about child baptism, but just mentioning how Jesus had to go through all of the stages of life, so that in some way we don't understand, all righteousness could be fulfilled etc.Justin Martyr in First Apology could not be more clear saying that:1. a person must agree to living according to the teachings of Christ2. wish by CHOICE and KNOWLEDGE to be born again in the waters of baptismThis does not meet the description of children, but of sinful... repentant from their sin, adults.  This is what we see in the book of Acts. We don't see them going around baptizing children.Jesus said GO AND MAKE STUDENTS OF ALL NATIONS and BAPTIZE THEM.  Matthew 28:18Error crept in little by little, and by doing so, undetectably over the many generations until you have historical record of paedobaptism etc.peace brother

+jesusstudentbrett While it is true that the Scriptures are full of allegories and metaphors, it is likewise true that there are many statements that are meant to be taken at face value and are speaking a direct truth, while the allegorical and symbolic meanings take a backseat, so to speak, to the literal message being conveyed.  Allegory run amok has led some to insist, for instance, that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was only an allegory or a symbol meant to convey that His good message and good teaching lived on in the hearts of his disciples and this problem extends to other passages of Scripture and leads many into grievous error.  More to the point: While you can insist that Our Lord's command to "suffer the little children..." can be taken allegorically, I would counter by stating that there is nothing in the surrounding text, nor in the whole of the Gospels that would demand that this passage be read allegorically.  Proper exegesis insists that we must always consider, in instances where this is prudent, the literal connotation firstly.  In light of this passage and others and in light of the quotations of certain Church Fathers in favor of paedobaptism, the ongoing tradition of the Church in baptizing infants and the lack of concerted teaching against infant baptism until the time of certain heretical groups in Europe and the rise of Anabaptist sects, that the burden of proof lies squarely upon the opponents of infant baptism in proving or, at the very least, raising a hearty argument against this doctrine and practice, none of which I find in your assertions and rebuttals.To the last point (and I'll refrain from using caps), The Word took flesh from the Blessed Virgin, lived, preached, taught, performed miracles, cast out demons, raised the dead, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried and rose again on the third day in order to redeem the fallen world, to offer the free gift of salvation to those that would believe, repent and be baptized and live according to the exquisite Law of the Gospel and to bring mankind into intimate communion with the Heavenly Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit...but in that process He did will that a Church (both visible and invisible) be formed.  That same Church was governed and shepherded by the Apostles, with Peter as the Chief among them, and that same Church--which Our Lord promised upon His own power that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it--was and is shepherded by Bishops (the successors of the Apostles).  At no time and in no place was the office of Bishop done away and the Apostolic and early Church Fathers and those Saints of God through the Ages have spoken at length of the necessity of obeying the Bishop and living in communion with the Bishop etc. etc.  So, dear brother in Christ by merit of holy baptism and the ineffable love of God, I ask again:  Who is your Bishop?  

+SpiritualJones  as for children comment by Jesus, yes admittedly that could be taken the way you said if someone misses and ignores the truths stated in the comment above from the scriptures and others like them, but let's consider what Jesus was saying. Jesus declared to all of the world the character description of all of those who will inherit His kingdom in Matthew 5 and Luke 6 in the so-called beatitudes:  Blessed are the MEEK (humble) for theirs in the Kingdom.  1 Peter 5 and James 4 say these are the people that get His grace.  Then Jesus promised the pure in heart would see God. This is a kin to Children and like Jesus said "unless you become like these little children, you will certainly not enter the kingdom". The child and rebirth are allegories, just as circumcision of the flesh is for circumcision of the heart. God's word is full of allegorical parallels that are like metaphors and those who understand the explicit texts and take them serious, can recognizes the allegories because there is one consistent message:Jesus came to call sinners to TURN (not babies) and retreat like the prodigal son to God, escaping the egyptian like slavery of the demons who hold men in slavery by their fleshly desires, and so the King calls all men everywhere to become learners (disciples) taking up their crosses denying those desires circumcising those fleshly desires from their hearts, and become NEW! and Holy... and like Daniel 7 says that the Ancient of Days gave the Son of Man the kingdom and further down He shares it with the HOLY PEOPLE... and Isaiah prophesied those that would call evil good (holy) and good evil (persecuting those preaching righteousness and for people to repent).  Isaiah said "woe!! to those who call evil good and good evil!".  They will be among those who suffer the wrath of God.Jesus did not die to make church goers, which is what Protestant and Catholic churches are filled with... but for RADICALLY GRATEFUL PEOPLE HEARING THE MESSAGE TO TURN FROM SELFISH AND IMPURE LIVING AND COME OUT FROM THE WORLD AND GLORIFY GOD BY LIVING DAILY TO IMITATE CHRIST. (caps for emphasis dear brother)

+SpiritualJones yes sir, good move brother, peace be with you as well... and God bless you. I have been learning Koine Greek of the LXX, NT and ANF flavor this past year. I would characterize the sentences I am able to read and write comparable to a 3rd grader. I am enjoying it. Yes, the word in Acts 2:38 is descendent without age information inherently, therefore, albeit contextually it could be child, again by context, the word itself has no implication or support at all for child baptism... neither the other passage in Acts about the Philippian jailer who baptized his family. The contingency is as the NT says and Justin Martyr in First Apology, the person must agree to live by Christ's commands and teachings (Sermon on the mount etc) and to commit to turning from sin in repentance, confession, belief that Jesus is who the OT says He is, and then be immerse (baptized) in water...making a "pledge of a good conscience before God" as Peter preached in 1 Peter 3:20-21.  Then being born a new by the allegory by faith of it rising out of the water to the resurrection to life as 1 Peter 3:21 illudes to... we live a self-sacrificing life to Christ and God as a disciple of Jesus for the remainder of our days, perfecting holiness in the love of God by loving through faith others.

+jesusstudentbrett Firstly, peace be with you. Secondly, the reference to Acts is not a prooftext, just a Scripture passage given for evidence. According to the Greek of that text, and I know very little Greek, but the word may be translated either as "descendant" or as "child, son or offspring", either way it is not proof positive affirmation, only evidence. Moving along: Our Lord taught plainly, as recorded by the Evangelists in the Gospel: "suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not: for such is the kingdom of God". There is also the matter of entire households being baptized and there exists no example in Scripture or in the writings of the Fathers wherein an infant or a child was forbidden baptism. There is also the witness of Irenaeus, Origen and others concerning infant baptism. There is the case of Polycarp who stated that he had served Christ for "eighty six years"= his entire lifetime. There also exists, in the Gospels, an account of Our Lord forgiving the sins of a person based on the faith of another party (or in the very least the group as a whole: Mark 2:5), the saving action which Jesus performed in the flesh is the same saving action which is performed in baptism. "ἐβαπτίσθη" does not always mean "immerse", such is the case in Luke 11:38 and in Mark 7:4 there is another occurrence of the word in a different form referring to "washing" but this can hardly be taken as washing by immersion. More to the point, where does the Church exist that does not practice infant baptism, where are the Bishops that forbid this, where is the argument against infant baptism? If you're view of Christianity (which still sounds very Protestant) is the correct one, where does it exist to this day...or are the vast majority of the world's Christians engaged in heresy, and as such, are lost? Where is the true Church, the true Bishops, the true Eucharist? Tell us so that we may seek this Church out.

+SpiritualJones  As for Colossians 2:11-12 using circumcision as an illustration, Justin Martyr in the Dialogue with Trypho make it clear what Paul was a bit curt about, and that is the Major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah spoke about God's intent for Israel's hearts to be circumcised. The reason it was on Day 8 of infants is as Epistle of Barnabas says, Peter's quote "a day is like 1000 years" means this age will end in 7000 years after creation. The millennial sabbath will begin when Christ returns at 6000 years, and then the 8th day of all of the righteous RESURRECTED will begin the next eternal age. That is why the first covenant was on the 8th day, nothing to suggest that the 2nd, real covenant through Christ would happen to infants. Jesus commanded to make disciples (students) in Matthew 28:18 and to baptize THEM... and then to teach them to OBSERVE ALL of His commandments.  This is not for children, but for those REPENTANT (changed mind). 1 Peter 3:20-21 says baptism is a PLEDGE OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE.  Now how can a baby do that?  King Jesus is going to bring wrath on those who reject the truth, and follow their own inventions as Justin Martyr explains.Romans 2:8 but wrath and anger for all who reject the truth...

+SpiritualJones  Baptizo is the word that means IMMERSE.  Yes, the other greek word is used in their that means sprinkle. But they are different words. It has an order of procession, it does not say you can do it however you want to fast forward to sprinkling.  Please read it again and notice it says "if you have cold water"... and if not cold, then warm, and if not enough water for immersion, then sprinkle three times... but nothing about infants.  In fact the Didache says that THE PERSON MUST AGREE TO THE FORM OF TEACHING that the Didache presents.  That eliminates a baby or child that can't do that.The Bible does not teach original sin.  Romans 5:12 says we die because we all sin.Sin is transgression of the law said Paul, and he also says that without this knowledge there is no sinning... hence babies not having this knowledge have no sin.  No 2nd century writings take Davids 51st psalm to speak of original sin... that was the gnostic Augustine that introduced this new teaching which is heresy by definition.

+SpiritualJones my friend, first thing, I hear you... but the Koine Greek word in Acts 2:38 means "descendent" without any age implication at all. In other words, it does not mean child, but your descendant or one that comes after you through your own body. The person could be an adult and the promise is to them too, not just the parent. It could have used the word TEKNON but it does not.As for Justin Martyr introducing the comprehensive view for how a person is converted, the fact that he clearly is speaking of an adult...only... should give you pause.  Secondly, there is no mention of ORIGINAL SIN in the Second century... none at all.  That came through the ex-gnostic Augustine, who brought "new doctrines" into the church, ignoring what the 2nd century writings say for his own demon inspired ideas as Paul foretold would happen. He brought Gnosticism into the church, and Martin Luther being a Augustine Monk, solidified that in Protestanism, and that fact that Catholics focus on Augustine too, instead of going back to the original faith, continues the heresy and lies to the people. Sorry to be so blunt. I have gone over the 2nd century writings, 10-12 of them, most anyone, 5-10 or more... a few only a couple times.  Listening close to what they say, illuminate the understanding of the NT... but the alternative approach is reading them looking for confirmation of what YOU ALREADY BELIEVE. The person that does that, will never hear the true kingdom gospel.

+jesusstudentbrett Firstly, St. Justin, in the quote you referenced, is clearly speaking of an adult who has made a decision to become a Christian: this is not a teaching meant to prohibit infant baptism, as he references one who was raised in wickedness.  Furthermore, Peter states in Acts (2:38,39) that the promise belongs to his audience and their children, i.e. entire households (as we find demonstrated elsewhere in the New Testament).  Add to this the comparison made between circumcision and baptism in the Sacred Scriptures and the assent of St. Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus etc. and you can clearly see that infant baptism was a definite practice of the Church from the outset.  It is interesting to note, as well, that St. Polycarp states (Martyrdom of Polycarp) that he has faithfully served his King 86 years...This means his entire life= he was a Christian all 86 years of his life.St. Augustine introduced no heresy...if you're referring to the doctrine of original sin, this is nothing new to the time of Augustine, there is much scriptural evidence available to support the doctrine of original sin.  I can go on about that if you wish but I don't want to make this post too long.A few other things:  You seem to imply that baptism is by immersion and immersion only, it is clearly demonstrated in the Didache that baptism by the pouring of water was a practice of the nascent Church.  Immersion can be said to be preferable but in some places and at certain times it just isn't feasible.To the main point: I asked into what Church were you baptized, meaning that there is a definite distinct People of God, a Body of Christ physically present in the world, over which Bishops preside with authority.  The Apostles and their successors and disciples did not speak of a vague assembly, without hierarchy.  St. Ignatius speaks of a Catholic Church, Bishops (it is necessary for a Christian to be in harmony with his bishop (Epistle to the Magnesians)).  Our Lord is clear in Matt. 18:17, there is a definite, visible, definable, orthodox Church?  Again:  What Church were you baptized into?  Or. The question might better be stated as:  Who is your Bishop?

+SpiritualJones You asked into what Church I was baptized?  Well looking at the inspired Greek for those words, EKKLESIA means CALLED OUT OF.  EK = OUT OF   and KLESIA = CALLED.  So as the NT teaches, the disciples (students/learners of the teacher) are CALLED OUT OF the world, as we see frequent warnings in the epistles to not go back to being a part of the world and its idolatries as we once lived, those who no longer live to please our fleshly desires but live to please the Spirit of God received at baptism when as Justin Martyr says in First Apology (150 AD) happens when a person by choice and knowledge (babies can't do this) they promise to live by the wonderful teachings of Jesus and repentant can escape their sins, they fast for one or two days, and then are brought to the water for remission of former sins (not sins you were born into as Augustine introduced that heresy). Baptizo means I IMMERSE... i go down and come up... dipping... So what Church (CALLED OUT OF) was I baptized into?  I don't see the NT say we get baptized into the CALLED OUT OF the world assembly.... i see it say we are baptized into Christ.   1 Peter 3:20-21 says WATER is the antitype of baptism, which as Acts 2 says Christ went DOWN and then back UP from Hades for three days, which Luke 16 says was FIRE and suffering, the waters is the antitype, and we share in that burial, death (go down) and resurrection (back up) by faith with Jesus (Romans 6:1-6) and then live a life dead to ourselves, having come out of the world, and now it says in Romans 6 are by choice a slave to God, serving Him and others doing righteousness and becoming Holy (Romans 6:22) offers the promise of Eternal Life.Let's back up to see this confirmed in Paul's description of the coming Judgment that He is warning the Christians about in Rome:Romans 2:5-10  He says those who persevere... persevere in doing good works who seek honor, glory and immortality, God will give eternal life. This is what Romans 6:22 is saying. But to those who are self-seeking (don't repent) and reject the truth but follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. I was baptized according to my Lord's command in Matthew 28:18-20  Make students of all nations (gotta be one first) and then immerse them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then obey all that Jesus commanded.

+SpiritualJones Apostolic Succession, a word you won't find stated in this way in the early writings nor the NT, but contextually, its meaning is speaking of passing and protecting the Faith once for all passed to the Holy People (Jude 1). It is not talking about people. They protected the faith and truths they had been taught. We study by studying the 2nd century thoroughly and then move out on the time line that change begins in the 4th century and really takes off with lots of new teachings (definition of heresy) in the 5th century AD via Augustine of Hippo.

+confused353 Without addressing each objection that you raise, I will point out that the line of Apostolic Succession was and remains unbroken, there is no logical basis for concluding that the Church fell into error following the Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, it would be necessary to demonstrate how any of the things you listed (merit of Mary and the Saints, the bodily Assumption of Mary etc.) violate or contradict Apostolic Teaching, whether found in Sacred Scripture, or in the preaching and teaching of the Apostolic Fathers. In short, by merit of Apostolic succession these things are the "teachings of the Apostles". Where does Scripture state, or where do the Apostolic Fathers state that all matters of Sacred Tradition are revealed in Scripture or within the Apostolic Fathers? Besides all the Marian doctrines and devotions that you rail against are completely logical, reasonable and beautiful, in light of Mary's intimacy with Christ and with the Most Holy Trinity as a whole. In the spirit of fair discourse, I would ask you: Into which Church were you baptized, if not the Holy Catholic Church and who is your Bishop?

He speaks the truth here. Wake up folks. Read these guys without a commentary.