anything after the deaths of the original apostles can be considered new, which is how I was looking at it,since it was thought to be factual during the time of clement.<quoted text>
True, Justin was born after. My mistake.
Ignatius was not. He was a student of John the Apostle.
Apostolic succession is not a new idea. Apostolic fathers and their writings are not new either.
Ignatius was a Catholic Bishop. Not an agnostic.
but according to the words that peter quoted from the OT author, Matthias was not given the title of an Apostle, was he?
the author called it the office of a Bishoprick, if I am not mistaken, and he was chosen to take part in their ministry, by the casting of lots. and tho your church does follow this example partially, diverting by your cardinals voting for the next pope, which the Apostles never did.so this to me would take away from any discussion of any pope being an Apostle, which they are not.
to be an Apostle, a man would first have to see the Lord, then he would have to be chosen By God. not necessarily in that particular Order.
being a Gnostic(knowledge leads to Salvation of the soul) is different that being an agnostic(who doesnt beleive in a deity)