We all know that Christ chose the Twelve. We also know that after Judas's betrayal and death the remaining eleven Apostles chose Matthias to replace him and to retain the original number of twelve Apostles. So my question is, How many Apostles were there? Was Matthias really an Apostle? Was Paul an Apostle?

We all know that Christ chose the Twelve. We also know that after Judas's betrayal and death the remaining eleven Apostles chose Matthias to replace him and to retain the original number of twelve Apostles. So my question is, How many Apostles were there? Was Matthias really an Apostle? Was Paul an Apostle?

Apostle means "sent out".

There were 12 original Apostles. One of thoese was Judas Iscariot.

Matthias was chosen by God to replace Judas. We know that Matthias selection was approved by God because the Apostles drew lots and the lot fell on Matthias. Since we don't believe in chance but that God decides everything, we know that Matthias selection was approved by God.

In a sense, Matthias was the first Bishop appointed by the Church. He filled an empty "bishoprick". All the Bishops are Apostles selected by Apostles in the line of the Apostles. They have the same task. To oversee the Church. But there is only one set of original Apostles.

St. Paul was selected by Jesus, Apostle to the Gentiles. He is not one of the Original 12 Apostles. Nor was he selected to replace "Judas". Matthias was selected to fill that slot. But St. Paul was sent out in addition to the 12 with a mandate which had an emphasis on Gentile converts.

That is the extent of the Apostles sent out directly by God.

The original 12, Matthias and St. Paul.

Bishops are Apostles of the Church. However, we are all sent out. We are all apostles sent out to carry the good news of Jesus Christ to the world.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I believe that the apostles were not filled with the holy spirit(pre-pentecost) when they took it upon themselves to select a replacement for Judas. It isn't unusual for believers to move ahead and "help God out" as Abraham did by having sex with his slave woman so that he would have an heir and fulfill God's purpose with his timing instead of Gods. You will notice that Matthias is mentioned this one time and then is never heard from again. You mentioned that God chose Matthias and Jesus chose Paul. What's the difference? One of the qualifications to being an apostle was being with Jesus. Paul claims he was chosen by God-not men- as Matthias was and that he spent 3 years with Jesus after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Matthias never did anything at all that we know of and to scholars knowledge never claimed to chosen for the apostles position by anyone other then the other men. Besides, in the book of revelation 21:14 it says the wall of the city had twelve foundations and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Judas' name won't be there and I have to really lean toward Paul's name being much more likely to be there than Matthias.

I believe that the apostles were not filled with the holy spirit(pre-pentecost) when they took it upon themselves to select a replacement for Judas. It isn't unusual for believers to move ahead and "help God out" as Abraham did by having sex with his slave woman so that he would have an heir and fulfill God's purpose with his timing instead of Gods. You will notice that Matthias is mentioned this one time and then is never heard from again. You mentioned that God chose Matthias and Jesus chose Paul. What's the difference? One of the qualifications to being an apostle was being with Jesus. Paul claims he was chosen by God-not men- as Matthias was and that he spent 3 years with Jesus after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Matthias never did anything at all that we know of and to scholars knowledge never claimed to chosen for the apostles position by anyone other then the other men. Besides, in the book of revelation 21:14 it says the wall of the city had twelve foundations and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Judas' name won't be there and I have to really lean toward Paul's name being much more likely to be there than Matthias.

At Acts 1.24, we are told that the eleven remaining Apostles prayed to God saying, "Show us which one of these two you have chosen". This seems to indicate pretty clearly that Matthias was chosen by God. While it is certainly true that Paul was an apostle, he nowhere claims to have been Judas's replacement. Acts 1, on the other hand, clearly tells us that Matthias was Judas's replacement. As for never doing anything that we know of: Isn't the same true of many of the Twelve?

If the Apostles were not filled with the Holy Spirit "pre-Pentecost", why at John 20.22 do we read, "When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'"?

What is your take on these?

When the apostles put two names in a hat (so to speak)and intend to pick out one, does it matter if they pray to God or devil? One name is going to come out no matter what. Instead of letting God choose Paul, headstrong and impetuos Peter decided he needed to "help God out" and talked the others into this "vote" Just like in America, you are sadly mistaken if you think a 3rd party has a chance of getting elected president. The president is going to be a republican or a democrat. Period.
As for John 20:22 you're right. They most likely had the Holy Spirit at that time. I had forgotten that passage. Thank you for pointing it out. I still believe that even with the Holy Spirit in them they may have taken things into their own hands thinking they were doing Gods will. All through history there have been true believers who thought they were doing Gods will but weren't. Another example of Peter misunderstanding is his early refusal to hang out with or share the gospel with Gentiles... Paul had to correct Peter.

When the apostles put two names in a hat (so to speak)and intend to pick out one, does it matter if they pray to God or devil? One name is gonna come out no matter what. Instead of letting God choose Paul, headstrong and impetuos Peter decided he needed to "help God out" and talked the others into this "vote" Just like in America, you are sadly mistaken if you think a 3rd party has a chance of getting elected president. The president is going to be a republican or a democrat. Period.
As for John 20:22 you're right. They most likely had the Holy Spirit at that time. I had forgotten that passage. Thank you for pointing it out. I still believe that even with the Holy Spirit in them they may have taken things into their own hands thinking they were doing Gods will. All through history there have been true believers who thought they were doing Gods will but weren't. Another example of Peter misunderstanding is his early refusal to hang out with or share the gospel with Gentiles... Paul had to correct Peter.

Right. Scripture is clear that there ever were only 12 Apostles, and just having the Holy Spirit (as all belivers do) does not guarantee that we are always right. Though the Holy Spirit guides us, we don't always listen clearly.

Right. Scripture is clear that there ever were only 12 Apostles, and just having the Holy Spirit (as all belivers do) does not guarantee that we are always right. Though the Holy Spirit guides us, we don't always listen clearly.

EXACTLY!! But tj3 what do you do with someone like Cozyk, who is looking for Christianity and she sees some SERIOUS flaws! It appears that MOST of us do disagree on things. WE both have serious issues with works added to salvation. Do you believe that you can be a Christian and add something to the finished work of Christ?

If a person has the spirit of God living in them, they are saved now and forever. If they don't have the spirit of God living in them, they are currently lost(which doesn't mean to say they won't someday have the living God inside them.)
It is not up to me or anyone else to decide if a person has the spirit of God in them. Their relationship with God is just that - their relationship with God.

"Sitting in a church will no more make you a Christian than sitting in a henhouse will make you a chicken."

EXACTLY!! But tj3 what do you do with someone like Cozyk, who is looking for Christianity and she sees some SERIOUS flaws! It appears that MOST of us do disagree on things.

Usually when people say that they see seriously flaws in Christianity, they mean that they see serious flaws in Christians (inconsistency, sin, disagreements, etc.). I say that I agree. That is because non of us have yet reached perfection, and we won't while we are in these bodies.

Scondly, there are disagreements between people who profess to be Christians sometimes because people who profess to be have not actually received Jesus as Saviour. Jesus said as much in Matthew 7. There cannot be haqrmony of Spirit with those who do not have the indwelling of the Spirit.

So Cozyk and others are right in that there are indeed inconsistencies and sin and other serious flaws in church organizations and with those who profess to be Christians. But that does not take away from the inerrancy of God's word and from the truth of who He is and what He has done and will do.

Scripture speaks about "love of truth". I believe that if a person has "love of truth", whether they are presently saved or not, God will lead them towards His truth. There is nothing wrong with questioning - indeed if a person is questioning with a open mind and is serious regarding their questions, that is great.

Can there be disagreements amongst Christians and yet those on both sides be saved? Yes, it really depends upon the issue. If a person denies that our salvation comes through the death of Jesus on the cross, then no, they cannot be saved. Harmony on the essentials of the Christian faith is critical.


WE both have serious issues with works added to salvation. Do you believe that you can be a Christian and add something to the finished work of Christ?

That is a loaded question! ;)

We cannot add anything to the finsihed work of Christ.

Is it possible that some maay be misled into believing that works are necessary and yet be saved? Yes, I believe that is possible. But I also believe that love of truth means that they will be willing to submit to sound Biblical teaching and will submit their own opinions to what God's word has to say, and will subsequently be drawn by God's work to accept the truth that it is ONLY by His sacrifice on the cross that we are saved.

I must agree with De Maria and Akoue because I read the bible to says what they have posted on this topic.
In the end there were 12 original apostles chosen by God (not Judas) and plus one (Paul) whom God the son chose after he had ascended.
The bible is clear on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

When the apostles put two names in a hat (so to speak)and intend to pick out one, does it matter if they pray to God or devil? One name is gonna come out no matter what. Instead of letting God choose Paul, headstrong and impetuos Peter decided he needed to "help God out" and talked the others into this "vote" Just like in America, you are sadly mistaken if you think a 3rd party has a chance of getting elected president. The president is going to be a republican or a democrat. Period.
Do you think Matthias, chosen by men, will be one of the twelve in the foundation wall of the new jerusalem in Revelation? Or Paul, chosen directly by Jesus. It can't be both.

(not that this really matters because we can't prove one way or the other.)

What about all those decisions made by men in the OT when the gift of the Holy Spirit was not yet given?Do you believe that only the supernatural things that happened were God's choise?And what about the sun that comes out every day, whose choise is that?I don't hear God's voice every day ordering the sun to come out, does this make it not God's will?Before our meals do we not pray to God and thank Him and doesn't this make our food clean?I do not see anything supernatural happening every time I thank God for my food, still I believe by faith that my food is clean and blessed.
No matter how glorious Paul's ministry was, he was not one of the twelve.Does this make him any less than the twelve?Do you think he would argue with Matthias about that?Do you think those two fight over a chair?
What about the prophets of the OT?Should Isaiah feel dissapointed because Jesus said that there is no greater prophet than John the baptist even though the Bible nowhere mentions that John did supernatural things like Elijah,Moses or others.There is not even a prophecy like the one made by other prophets of the OT that John did, still he is the greater.
Do not judge like men.Matthias is as much God's choice as Paul is too, as you and me are today also!
And if we think that Paul is something more than he is then we should think the following..
James 2:1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

6But ye have despised the poor.

Let us be more careful !

adam7gur,
Of course I agree with you. God is in control and everything is by his divine direction. I was simply pointing out that Paul was chosen directly by Jesus, Matthias was not.
This is one of the things that doesn't really matter what one believes on this question one way or the other.

If the Apostles were not filled with the Holy Spirit "pre-Pentecost", why at John 20.22 do we read, "When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'"?

What is your take on these?

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost

The following is from theholyspirit.com
In the Old Testament the Hebrew word (ruwach, pronounced roo'-akh) was used when talking about the Spirit. This word literally means WIND, even the wind associated with a BREATHE! In the New Testament the Greek word (pneuma, pronounced pnyoo'-mah) was used which means the BREATHE or a BREEZE! We can literally think of the Holy Spirit as the "Breathe of God!"
The following are my thoughts.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God(Breathe of God) moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life(God); and man became a living soul.
The Breathe of life,the Breathe of God,the Spirit,the Ruwach is what gives life to creation and to man.
Adam and Eve were alive not just biological but mostly by the chance to be in the likeness of God and that is LIFE!
But by sin death came and they and therfeore we, lost that privillege.
Christ overcame death and gave us this gift back, that's why after His resurrection and before Him leaving this world He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.
What He did at that moment is what He did when He created Adam in Genesis.
He gave us the right to be in His likeness and THAT IS LIFE ,the Breathe of Life, the Breathe of God, the Ruwach!Just like what was given to man in Genesis through the Breath of God,the Spirit of God,exactly the same was given to us again because we lost it!
This is something different from Pentecost and the anointing of the Holy Spirit that comes with the gifts of the Holy Spirit like speaking in tongues!

adam7gur,
Of course I agree with you. God is in control and everything is by his divine direction. I was simply pointing out that Paul was chosen directly by Jesus, Matthias was not.
This is one of the things that doesn't really matter what one believes on this question one way or the other.

But I say that Matthias was directly chosen by Jesus through His desciples just as the Bible is given to us directly by God through His people.
And I believe that this matters because we could say that something is not God's choise/will ,when it really is.
We have to see as He sees, and judge as He judges!
Thank you for your time Jeff!

Adam7gur,
By directly, I meant not through any other means.
By not mattering what we believe on this I meant that we have no definite proof one way or the other. God definitely made a choice and expressed his will. Just I see it one way and you see another. Both perspectives are valid with arguments from either side in favor of each position... This isn't like contending about whether one needs to be born again or not, which we know is quite clear.

Interesting discussion on this.
I like it.
Agree mostly with Adam so far.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

But I say that Matthias was directly chosen by Jesus through His desciples just as the Bible is given to us directly by God through His people.

Just because the disciples did it does not in and of itself mean that Jesus endorsed it. Indeed, all of the other Apostles were directly and personally chosen by Jesus. We see nothing which shows God's endorsement of Matthias as an Apostle. That is not to say that he was not a good Christian leader, but all indiactions are that he was man's choice, not God's choice.

I do believe that Jesus did indeed endorse the selection of Matthias for He told them that He was with them even to the ends of the earth.
Jesus was closer to them than anyone that came a long later.
Fred

Just because the disciples did it does not in and of itself mean that Jesus endorsed it. Indeed, all of the other Apostles were directly and personally chosen by Jesus. We see nothing which shows God's endorsement of Matthias as an Apostle. That is not to say that he was not a good Christian leader, but all indiactions are that he was man's choice, not God's choice.

So you say that all those chosen directly by Jesus apostles sinned because they did not wait for so many years to substitude Judas?Do you mean it was a mistake, a false decision?If so , then why don't we see Jesus correcting them?
He was God's choice through God's desciples,as much the miracles performed by God's desciples are not theirs but God's miracles.

Acts 1:20 Peter quotes a verse taken out of context, "may another take his place of leadership" David is talking about the men that oppose him and falsely accuse him and what he would like to see happen to them. In verse 20 David ends by saying, "may this be the Lord's payment to my accusers, (plural)to those that speak evil of me."
In Acts 1:23 the Bible clearly says, "So they (the apostles) proposed two men... " and then asked God to show them which of the two that they the apostles had selected was to be the one by casting lots. Why did they cast lots if this was directly from God?
In Acts chapter 13:2-3, it is shown how God selects.
Paul, through inspiration of God, opens almost everyone of his letters by stating that he is an apostle called by God. Paul spent 3 years in Arabia during which time he says he received direct revelation from Jesus. Maybe one on one with Jesus counts more than Matthias being nearby but still an outsider from the twelve and certainly an outsider to the inner three, Peter, James, and John.

I do believe that Jesus did indeed endorse the selection of Matthias for He told them that He was with them even to the ends of the earth.
Jesus was closer to them than anyone that came a long later.
Fred

So you don't believe that Jesus meant that He would be with us until the ends of the earth?
What about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the promises that God made to believers about guiding us?

Do you believe that the Apostles were infallible?

So you say that all those chosen directly by Jesus apostles sinned because they did not wait for so many years to substitude Judas?

I think that often men of God make mistakes by choosing to try to help out God when they ought to wait upon Him and His timing.


If so , then why don't we see Jesus correcting them?

We cannot establish doctrine based upon silence of scripture. We don't know if He did or Did not. What we do know is that Jesus chose another Apostle and that we are told in God's word that there are only 12. So, we have 12 Apostles chosen directly and personally by God, and one who was not. And a total of 12. The math seems easy to me. ;)

adam7gur,
Right on, brother.
Fred

Joshua 14:2 By lot was their inheritance, as the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half tribe.

Numbers 36:2 And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters.

Leviticus 16: 7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

9And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

A lot is God's will. He instructed His people to do so , that's why Peter and the rest of the apostles drew lots to see who God wants to replace Judas.
It was not a mistake , it was not men's choise.
Therefore we see not Jesus correcting them for replacing so Judas with Matthias.
Do not judge like men!

Joshua 14:2 By lot was their inheritance, as the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half tribe.

Numbers 36:2 And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters.

Leviticus 16: 7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

9And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

A lot is God's will. He instructed His people to do so , that's why Peter and the rest of the apostles drew lots to see who God wants to replace Judas.
It was not a mistake , it was not men's choise.
Therefore we see not Jesus correcting them for replacing so Judas with Matthias.
Do not judge like men!

Just because something was done once or even 2 or three times for specific instances does not mean that every time that you do it, that it is of the Lord. For example:

Isa 20:2-5
2 at the same time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet." And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. 3 Then the LORD said, "Just as My servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder against Egypt and Ethiopia, 4 so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
NKJV

Would you think that this is the right thing for every Christian to do?

Now if you can find me where in scripture God instructed the Apostles to choose lots, I'll believe you.

adam7gur,
Well done.
It demonstrates that there are times when casting lots are for God to make the choice.
And of course in the case of God's CHOSEN apostles casting lots to select a replacement for Judas it makes sense that God would help make the choice.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just because something was done once or even 2 or three times for specific instances does not mean that everytime that you do it, that it is of the Lord. For example:

Isa 20:2-5
2 at the same time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet." And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. 3 Then the LORD said, "Just as My servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder against Egypt and Ethiopia, 4 so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
NKJV

Would you think that this is the right thing for every Christian to do?

Now if you can find me where in scripture God instructed the Apostles to choose lots, I'll believe you.

Your example is a prophecy for a sign and not the law. I offered scriptures from the law! The law is not something that happenes once or twice , it is the law and it is the way things should be done.The apostles did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at that time and they did what the law tought them to do.The law from the beginning to the end of it is Jesus Christ,so doing something by law is doing it by Jesus Christ!
Matthias was chosen directly by the law, so he was chosen directly by Jesus Christ!

It demonstrates that there are times when casting lots are for God to make the choice.
And of course in the case of God's CHOSEN apostles casting lots to select a replacement for Judas it makes sense that God would help make the choice.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Exactly!

I guess I must repeat myself. The Bible clearly says that THEY(the apostles) chose 2 men. Then cast lots to see which of the two would be selected. Adam7gur mentioned selecting of two goats one for the offering, one for the scapegoat. First THE PEOPLE selected the two goats, then asked the lot to choose between the two. Goats aren't people. This was a totally different scenario with both selected goats put before the Lord to serve a different purpose.
If I prayed to the Lord and said, "Lord, I'm gonna get drunk. I wrote the seven days of the week on seven pieces of paper and put those papers in a jar. I'm going to pick out one piece of paper. Please let me know which day of the week of the seven that you want me to get drunk."
If I'm able to pull a day of the week out of the jar, does that mean that day is God's will? (Don't get any ideas here you sinners... hehehe)
Praying to God beforehand, being an apostle, has nothing to do with it. The Bible says the APOSTLES chose the two men to put before the Lord.

Let me see!
You put in the same sack, a man willing to sin and even putting the blame on God for it, with the directly by God chosen apostles! Can you see how misleading this is?
I wish Peter could say something about this and I would very much like to see if you had the courage to say this in his face just as you say this in his absence and in the absence of the rest apostles.But in their defence there is today as in their time, the Holy Spirit!
Yes the people selected the goats according to God's will.Those goats should be perfect goats,healthy in every way,even not two coloured.Yes , people chose but not any kind of goat.So, yes the apostles did choose ,but those they chose were not just two guys,but those two were with Jesus for the whole time while He was here on earth.And there were no others among the rest. Paul at that moment, was Christ's enemy.He persecuted the Church,even agreed on Stephen's murder.
The selection of those two was under the instruction of the law and that makes the whole thing legal.
Those goats Jeff, were selected as a sin offering.Those goats were Christ preincarnated ,if you see what I mean and that makes them definetely not ,just two goats.Yes goats aren't people but those goats were sacrificed for people's sin and that should make us see the importance of that ritual!

All I'm saying is that the Bible says the apostles chose the two names and one name was going to come out no matter what. Peter wasn't flawless, Paul had to correct him.
I'm not saying I'm right and anyone that disagrees is wrong. I see two valid possibilities here and I choose to believe Paul was God's choice.

I see two valid possibilities here and I choose to believe Paul was God's choice.

This is what amazes me.How can you see two possibilities when the one you claim is totally unsriptural, therefore only human ,while the other one is under God's law?
All you do to support your claim is guessing while scripture is clear that your claim is without proof!
Let me ask you this and I HONESTLY just want to help you if you just let me!

I can see how Paul's ministry could be more glorious than the ministry of Matthias.Now , let's examine the coin from the flip side...
Whose sins were heavier?
I don't see Matthias killing anyone , while Paul, supported the murder of Stephen and also persecuted many members of the Church,and by pesecuting I don't think that Scripture means ,just throwing them out of their homes.Surely it was more and worse than that!
Everything matters!

Your example is a prophecy for a sign and not the law.

And yours have nothing to do with a general application of using casting of lots as a means of knowing God's will. They are very specific. Otherwise, if lots were a way of knowing God's will perfectly, then we could all just make infallible decisions by casting lots on every decision.

All I'm saying is that the Bible says the apostles chose the two names and one name was gonna come out no matter what. Peter wasn't flawless, Paul had to correct him.
I'm not saying I'm right and anyone that disagrees is wrong. I see two valid possibilities here and I choose to believe Paul was God's choice.

Your points are very well taken. Not only is the usage of lots questionable, but by limiting the number of choices, we make it impossible for "God" to choose any option that we did not already agree with. It is kind of like an election in a communist country. You may have two choices, but they are both chosen by the communist party.

We therefore have told God what His options are before the choice is made. And like you said, this is not the same as choosing between two goats.

Adam7gur,
Since the shed blood of Christ covers all our sins, does it matter who sinned more? For that matter, Moses was a murderer and David (a man after God's own heart)was an adulterer and a murderer.

This is what amazes me.How can you see two possibilities when the one you claim is totally unsriptural, therefore only human ,while the other one is under God's law?

First, casting of lots has only be used for very specific and well defined purposes in scripture. To expand it beyond what God say is unscriptural (remember that it says not to go beyond what is written?). Also keep in mind that those who are in Christ are not under the law, so I am not sure what the law has to do with this in any case.


All you do to support your claim is guessing while scripture is clear that your claim is without proof!

You claim is without proof.

- What we do know is that scripture is specific that there are 12 Apostles.
- We know that 12 were directly and personally chosen by Christ - the only exception being Mattias.
- We have nothing in scripture to say that Matthias was chosen by God.
- We do have scripture saying that Paul was chosen by God.

I don't know know how you cram a 13th Apostle into that equation.


Let me ask you this and I HONESTLY just want to help you if you just let me!

I can see how Paul's ministry could be more glorious than the ministry of Matthias.Now , let's examine the coin from the flip side...
Whose sins were heavier?
I don't see Matthias killing anyone , while Paul, supported the murder of Stephen and also persecuted many members of the Church,and by pesecuting I don't think that Scripture means ,just throwing them out of their homes.Surely it was more and worse than that!
Everything matters!

I would suggest that you are no in a position to judge that. You are making your judgment based upon what we do know about Paul, and what we don't know about Mathhias. Further, as Homsesell quite rightly showed, whose sins are heavier does not matter for those that are in Christ.

Yes the apostles chose two men to put before the Lord and cast lots to have the Lord select WHICH ONE would be an apostle and the other NOT one.
Your drunk example does not work with that. There was no sure thing about it other than the Lord would make the selection from the lot cast.
Your jar of slips was riiged for you knew bfore have that the selected slip would show up.
The apostles nid NOT know which man would be selected.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And yours have nothing to do with a general application of using casting of lots as a means of knowing God's will.

My example is straight from the law.
I am sorry but God's commandments are something more than you describe them to be.
It was God who instructed people to do so.

Adam7gur,
since the shed blood of Christ covers all our sins, does it matter who sinned more? For that matter, Moses was a murderer and David (a man after God's own heart)was an adulterer and a murderer.

Exactly my brother!
I just wanted to show you how our judgement has nothing to do with the Lord's.
We as humans are influenced by the phenomenon, but the Lord can reach the very depths of our hearts.

My example is straight from the law.
I am sorry but God's commandments are something more than you describe them to be.
It was God who instructed people to do so.

Taking something out of context and then trying to apply it to something that God never said to do is unscriptural.

Like I said before using your approach would mean that all Christians should walk around naked for three years like Isaiah did.

Or we could simply make every decision infallibly, including decision whether we are right on understanding passages of scripture simply by drawing lots.

Or as Homesell suggested, we could give God two options that we want and ask Him to tell us which is His choice.

Taking something out of context does not mean that it has God's endorsement.

Tj3,
I fully understand the point that Adam is trying to make and I agree.
Fred

Tom
Casting of lots is instructed by God and not just something mentioned in Scripture. I do remember not to go beyond Scripture but you seem to ignore Scripture 'cause Scripture is crystal clear about it.Even the goat that was a sin offering was chosen by lots.
You ask what the law has to do with it?Do you remember that we are talking here about Jews?You can not separate a Jew from the law, everything they do has to be based on the law,and please remember that the law from the beginning to the end of it is Christ!
If you are in the law you are in Christ,that does not mean the letter of the law but the spirit of the law!Also the gift of the Holy Spirit was not yet given, so I hope now you can see what the law has to do with it.
As for the number of the apostles, let me ask you this!What about all those anonymous brothers that preached the gospel many years ago,in almost every corner of the world?In China, Africa... How many of them were slaughtered,killed,persecuted in every possible way?
Aren't they apostles?Do you doubt that many of them at least, were chosen by Jesus?
I keep telling you,do not judge like men and I will add to that Psalm 82(remember that?)... 'cause you will die like men!

Or as Homesell suggested, we could give God two options that we want and ask Him to tell us which is His choice.

Taking something out of context does not mean that it has God's endorsement.

You know Scripture!It is clear that those two were not just two,but they were with Christ from the day that our Lord was baptized , till the end!
Just those two,there was no other,that's why there were only two options.
Can't you see that those two were chosen by Jesus since only those two were with Him all that time?Their lives pointed out at them,their lives in Christ, not the apostles and the apostles could not pretend they were blind!

One more thing to think about !
We pray '' give us this day our daily bread ''.
Who gives us this bread?According to you Tom, not God, unless you tell me that every day Jesus personally knocks on your door and gives you bread.
You go out and work and earn money to buy bread,even you go to the bakery and buy it yourself, so where is God in all this?
But still you thank God for this and you know that He gives you this bread!
That is the spirit of the law against the letter of the law!

adam7gur,
Why do you limit God from the possibility that He did things in his own way, in His own time? Tom and I are saying both ways are possible. Do you think God has to have done it the way you think he did and there is no possibility that He did what we suggest? Or are you denying Paul was MORE directly appointed By Jesus?
You keep saying directly and then add "through the apostles." Directly is directly. God provides me daily bread but not directly. If Jesus came and handed me a loaf of bread, THAT would be directly. Jesus appointed Paul directly. He did not appoint Matthias directly.
Acts 13:2 is a perfect example of directly. "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit SAID, 'set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'"

adam7gur,
Why do you limit God from the possibility that He did things in his own way, in His own time? Tom and I are saying both ways are possible. Do you think God has to have done it the way you think he did and there is no possibility that He did what we suggest? or are you denying Paul was MORE directly appointed By Jesus?
You keep saying directly and then add "through the apostles." Directly is directly. God provides me daily bread but not directly. If Jesus came and handed me a loaf of bread, THAT would be directly. Jesus appointed Paul directly. He did not appoint Matthias directly.
Acts 13:2 is a perfect example of directly. "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit SAID, 'set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'"


4So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

Correct me if I am wrong but being sent forth sounds to me like an apostle,'cause that's what the word apostle means.
So, after Matthias and Paul, we have another challenger..
Matthias by his life,was directly chosen by Jesus through his desciples.The desciples did not set the rules , but it was Mattias' life that made him one of the two possibilities and because the other possibility had also a life that testified in favor,the desciples could not make that choise, but it was clear that their lives separated them from all the rest.
If you go to a store where you can only pay by VISA, you automatically don't count on MASTERCARD.Does this make it your choise?
The rules were not made by the desciples, the rules were made by Jesus Himself because all of His desciples were with Him from the beginning to the end.Paul was nowhere in sight!That made him not an option!Of course Jesus Himself reveals to him and Paul became the person that we so many times remember and thank God for,but that does not make him one of the twelve.
We are also apostles, we are also sent forth , does this make us one of the twelve?

Being sent forth by the holy spirit is what all of us true believers are hence we are all apostles. WE of course are apostles NOT DIRECTLY appointed by Jesus - and neither was Matthias. Paul's claim was to be a special apostle, directly appointed by Jesus. Something that ONLY the other eleven Apostles could claim.

Tom
Casting of lots is instructed by God and not just something mentioned in Scripture. I do remember not to go beyond Scripture but you seem to ignore Scripture 'cause Scripture is crystal clear about it.Even the goat that was a sin offering was chosen by lots.

It was symbolic. It could not take away sins.

Heb 10:4
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
NKJV


You ask what the law has to do with it?Do you remember that we are talking here about Jews?You can not separate a Jew from the law, everything they do has to be based on the law,and please remember that the law from the beginning to the end of it is Christ!

And don't forget that the purpose of the law was to point us to Christ and that those who are in Christ are no longer under the law.

But this has nothing to do with taking a specific ritual intended for specific purpose and then extrapolating it into all areas of life.


As for the number of the apostles, let me ask you this!What about all those anonymous brothers that preached the gospel many years ago,in almost every corner of the world?In China, Africa... How many of them were slaughtered,killed,persecuted in every possible way?
Aren't they apostles?Do you doubt that many of them at least, were chosen by Jesus?

Scripture says 12. There are certainly other godly men who have done much for the sake of the gospel, but not everyone is an Apostle. There were 12 according to scripture.

[QUOTE=Tj3;1736714]It was symbolic. It could not take away sins.

Heb 10:4
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
NKJV
QUOTE]

So you mean that all those OT people had no chance to wash away their sins?
I suppose then David remained a sinner,Elijah,Isaiah,Daniel,Samuel...
I also suppose then you call God a liar because He instructed all those people to do so, for their sins!
Of course the writter of Heb. Means something more than you want to say!

[QUOTE=Tj3;1736714]
And don't forget that the purpose of the law was to point us to Christ and that those who are in Christ are no longer under the law.
QUOTE]

What is it in Christ that is not in the law?
Did Christ ever say that we should forget about the law?
If it is as you mean it then why not just do exactly the opposite of what the law indicates?

[QUOTE=Tj3;1736714]
But this has nothing to do with taking a specific ritual intended for specific purpose and then extrapolating it into all areas of life.QUOTE]

Casting lots was done when people were not sure about God's will and not in every aspect of their lives.
I am hungry, oh what should I do ? Let's cast some lots!!
It was a specific ritual that was done whenever people waited for God's choise and the desciples were in that same place!

[QUOTE=Tj3;1736714
Scripture says 12. There are certainly other godly men who have done much for the sake of the gospel, but not everyone is an Apostle. There were 12 according to scripture.[/QUOTE]

Where does Scripture say that there will only be twelve throughout the centuries?

There are only 12 apostles that have been directly appointed by Jesus. Paul is one of them, Matthias was not.
There were only 11 apostles that were given the great commission (Matt 16-20) directly by Jesus and Paul claims he was also given the great commission by Jesus directly.
Again, that makes 12 apostles given the great commission directly from Jesus. Paul was one of them, Matthias was not.
And thass all I'ma going to say 'bout that.

It was symbolic. It could not take away sins.

Heb 10:4
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
NKJV


So you mean that all those OT people had no chance to wash away their sins?
I suppose then David remained a sinner,Elijah,Isaiah,Daniel,Samuel...
I also suppose then you call God a liar because He instructed all those people to do so, for their sins!
Of course the writter of Heb. Means something more than you want to say!

Quite the contrary - scripture is clear that those in the OT were saved through their faith in the coming Messiah and had their sins washed by the blood on the cross. God is outside of time and not limited by our timeline. The rituals and symbolic sacrifices in the OT were prophetic of the coming of Christ.

And don't forget that the purpose of the law was to point us to Christ and that those who are in Christ are no longer under the law.


What is it in Christ that is not in the law?
Did Christ ever say that we should forget about the law?
If it is as you mean it then why not just do exactly the opposite of what the law indicates?

Please do not put words in my mouth. Scripture is clear that we live b y the spirit not the letter. Jesus gives a explanation of how the spirit and the letter differ in Matthew 5. the fact that we are not under the law does not give us leeway to sin. But likewise, living by the law will not save you. The law only serves the one purpose and that is to show us har much we have missed the mark, and hiow futile it is to try to be saved through the law. Thus it points us to Christ.

Note that scripture also says that if you have failed to live up to even one point of the law, you are guilty of failing to abide by ALL of the law. So trying to do the best you can will not be good enough for your salvation. There is no way to be saved but through Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.

But this has nothing to do with taking a specific ritual intended for specific purpose and then extrapolating it into all areas of life.

Casting lots was done when people were not sure about God's will and not in every aspect of their lives.
I am hungry, oh what should I do ? Let's cast some lots!!
It was a specific ritual that was done whenever people waited for God's choise and the desciples were in that same place!

It was not endorsed by God for anything other than the specifics given in scripture. The fact that some people may have gone beyond that does not mean that it was endorsed by God, nor that it was His will or His direction that came of their use of it.

God is not obliged to live by our rules and to do our bidding.

Where does Scripture say that there will only be twelve throughout the centuries?

Rev 21:14.

I must agree with Adam.
What he says makes good common sense and it is back up be Holy Scripture.
Fred

I must agree with Adam.
What he says makes good common sense and it is back up be Holy Scripture.
Fred

Really Fred - that is interesting. So are you saying that you feel that casting lots is an infallible way to force God to make decisions for you?

Yj3,
Not at all. That is Not what he said, nor do I say we can force God to do anything.
You know better than that so why make such a silly statement?
Fred

Quite the contrary - scripture is clear that those in the OT were saved through their faith in the coming Messiah and had their sins washed by the blood on the cross. God is outside of time and not limited by our timeline. the rituals and symbolic sacrifices in the OT were prophetic of the coming of Christ.

You cannot put OT people in the same jar with us today!
They were under the law, we are not.The law was very clear for every little detail of their lives.As for sins in the OT let's see what the law says...

Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

God's Son was not incarnated at that time,and His sacrifise was about to take place centuries later.Yes God is beyond time but we are not.
I can last much longer without food than my 22 months old son.Does this mean ,that my son has to wait until I get hungry so that he has his meal?
He who has power , blesses the one who is weak!

Please do not put words in my mouth. Scripture is clear that we live b y the spirit not the letter. Jesus gives a explanation of how the spirit and the letter differ in Matthew 5. the fact that we are not under the law does not give us leeway to sin. But likewise, living by the law will not save you. The law only serves the one purpose and that is to show us har much we have missed the mark, and hiow futile it is to try to be saved through the law. Thus it points us to Christ.

Note that scripture also says that if you have failed to live up to even one point of the law, you are guilty of failing to abide by ALL of the law. So trying to do the best you can will not be good enough for your salvation. There is no way to be saved but through Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.

How easy it is for us to say all those things, now that Christ is revealed, but imagine us living in OT times.Imagine us being in their place.I doubt if we would be able to make it better than they did!
Of course now we play smart , now that all the answears are in front of us,but they did not have that privillege.
Those people heard God telling them that they should sacrifise , so that they could be forgiven.Do you realize how difficult it was for them to go beyond the law and understand Christ?
Of course we who never were under the law, say great things about Christ's sacrifise,but let's try to get into their position for a second!
You are judging those people by cretiria that are not suitable and right for them.
It is like judging me for not circumsizing my flesh! You cannot judge me under those rules 'cause I was never under those rules.
It is like whistling a three pointer in a soccer game.What kind of a judge would that be?

It was not endorsed by God for anything other than the specifics given in scripture. the fact that soem people may have gone beyond that does not mean that it was endorsed by God, nor that it was His will or His direction that came of their use of it.

God is not obliged to live by our rules and to do our bidding.

You got it totally wrong.
It was the apostles that by casting lots , lived by God's rules and not the opposite.
There is a saying...
You don't leave it on chance when you leave it on God!

Rev 21:14.

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

All this says is that the twelve foundations will have the names of the twelve apostles.
We know(more or less) the names.I asked you where does it say that the apostles throughout history will be only twelve?
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

All this says is that the twelve foundations will have the names of the twelve apostles.
We know(more or less) the names.I asked you where does it say that the apostles throughout history will be only twelve?
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The city has twelve foundations.What is a foundation? It is a rock that you build upon.
And Jesus said to Peter Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Do you think that Jesus is talking literally here to Peter?Is Peter himself a stone that the church is built upon or is it his testimony that Jesus is the Son of God?
That testimony is the rock, the foundation of the wall of the city that is mentioned in Revelation.
The number twelve symbolizes the ''whole'',just like the twelve tribes of Israel.
The twelve names of the foundations are the names of all of us, and not just the literally twelve.
The names of all of us are in those foundations, that's what twelve stands for!

As we go deeper into this, we go deeper in our hearts and whatever is hidden in our hearts will come to light.
May the Lord Jesus bring into the light of His rightouesness, whatever we have in our hearts and let Him choose between me and you!Amen!

Yj3,
Not at all. That is Not what he said, nor do I say we can force God to do anything.
You know better than that so why make such a silly statement?
Fred

I said it because you were suggesting it. If casting of lots is not an infallible way to make decisions, then neither can we say that the lost cast for Matthias were an indication that it was God's will.

You got it totally wrong.
It was the apostles that by casting lots , lived by God's rules and not the opposite.
There is a saying ...
You don't leave it on chance when you leave it on God!

God did not tell them to choose those two men, nor to use lots. It was their decision, and they therefore were setting the rules.

You cannot put OT people in the same jar with us today!
They were under the law, we are not.The law was very clear for every little detail of their lives.As for sins in the OT let's see what the law says...

Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

God's Son was not incarnated at that time,and His sacrifise was about to take place centuries later.Yes God is beyond time but we are not.
I can last much longer without food than my 22 months old son.Does this mean ,that my son has to wait until I get hungry so that he has his meal?
He who has power , blesses the one who is weak!

So, are you saying that the NT is wrong?

Heb 10:4-7
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come--
In the volume of the book it is written of Me--
To do Your will, O God.' "
NKJV

Are you saying that Jesus died in vain and that the blood of animals could take away sins?

Let me suggest that it was not the blood of the animals that took away sins, but the blood of Jesus on the cross, applied to them for their faithfulness looking forward to His coming. There was ever only one way to be saved.

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

All this says is that the twelve foundations will have the names of the twelve apostles.
We know(more or less) the names.I asked you where does it say that the apostles throughout history will be only twelve?
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

And if there were only 12 at the end of time, then that means 12.

Of course there were others spoken of in Revelation as being false Apostles,

Rev 2:1-3
2 "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
NKJV

But only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. I assumed that we are only talking about Jesus' Apostles.

Tom, what were the requirements to BE an apostle? I was always taught you had to have seen the risen Lord... and of course Paul did on the road to Damascus.

Tom, what were the requirements to BE an apostle? I was always taught you had to have seen the risen Lord....and of course Paul did on the road to Damascus.

From what I have read in scripture, I would suggest that the requirements would be:

1) The requirements for that of a bishop or deacon as found in 1 Tim 3, and in Titus 1:7.

2) Must have been a witness of the risen Lord.

3) Be personally chosen by Jesus.

Tj3,
The apostles cast lots to get God's help in whom select.
Keep in mind that they were people who had lived in OT times and were very used to the OT law and what was done then so it was natural for them to cast lots and ask for God's help.
Adam is very right about that.
As has been stated I will believe as I want to and you can do the same.
I know you do not believe in the apostolic succession that has been going on since the book of acts, but I do.
Jesus is with the apostles of His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Fred

Tj3,
The apostles cast lots to get God's help in whom select.


That, no doubt, was the intent. But God is not obliged to do what men tell Him to do, or to do things in the timing and methodology decided by men.

Tj3,
I do believe that God did help them and so they had a new apostle brother.
Fred

Tj3,
I do believe that God did help them and so they had a new apostle brother.
Fred

You are welcome to believe that regardless of what scripture actually says.

Th3,
Thanks!
I WILL believe as I want to and I do agree with what scripture says, but not the way you interpret it.
Fred

Back to the topic...




Tom, what were the requirements to BE an apostle? I was always taught you had to have seen the risen Lord....and of course Paul did on the road to Damascus.

From what I have read in scripture, I would suggest that the requirements would be:

1) The requirements for that of a bishop or deacon as found in 1 Tim 3, and in Titus 1:7.

2) Must have been a witness of the risen Lord.

3) Be personally chosen by Jesus.

Tom, what were the requirements to BE an apostle? I was always taught you had to have seen the risen Lord....and of course Paul did on the road to Damascus.

Yes, but he did not spend not even one single day with Jesus from His baptism , and that's something that all the rest did!
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Do you still believe that Matthias did not see the risen Lord?

So, are you saying that the NT is wrong?

Heb 10:4-7
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come--
In the volume of the book it is written of Me--
To do Your will, O God.' "
NKJV



Are you saying that Jesus died in vain and that the blood of animals could take away sins?

Let me suggest that it was not the blood of the animals that took away sins, but the blood of Jesus on the cross, applied to them for their faithfulness looking forward to His coming. there was ever only one way to be saved.

Again twisting words and Scripture!That is not a good spirit you demonstrate here and may the Lord Jesus deliever us (you too)from its presenceWhere did I say that the NT is not valid?
But you seem to draw a line and delete the OT and therefore condemn OT people for doing what OT instructed!
If I have to drive for 10 miles and I am at the 9th, do I delete the previous 8 ? Don't you know that it was the previous 8 miles that brought you to the 9th?
So are you calling God a liar?Because He is the one that said.. ''it shall be forgiven''!
Do not judge OT people with NT knowledge!
Are the children of Adam and Eve guilty for sleeping together and having kids?How could they know that hounderds of years later God would stop it?
Were they not under grace??
Do not think that only Jesus in a literall way is grace!Everything that comes out of God is grace!
God is the one that said that OT people should circumsize.Did they sin just because in the NT that is not required any more?Or do you doubt that it was God's law?
When something changes that does not automatically mean that what we did till that time was wrong!We did not always have cars!Does this mean that riding horses was not good?
But what you say is without grace at all!This should make you think about your faith!

God did not tell them to choose those two men, nor to use lots. It was their decision, and they therefore were setting the rules.

Absolutely not! You know Scripture and you keep twisting it!

And if there were only 12 at the end of time, then that means 12.

Of course there were others spoken of in Revelation as being false Apostles,

Rev 2:1-3
2 "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
NKJV

but only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. I assumed that we are only talking about Jesus' Apostles.

I was not talking about false apostles!Again twisting words by your side!

adam7gur and TJ3,
Your passion leaps from your words and I wonder why on such an irrelevant subject. There are many more important things. We are almost doing the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" thing... it doesn't matter. We are splitting hairs over what being "appointed directly by Jesus" means. Both sides have legitimate biblical positions so let us not waste time accusing each other of "twisting scripture" or even not believing the Bible. Both sides fully believe(as I do) that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Everybody gets something different from reading the same words of God as God touches us each in a different and personal way. I am pleading with you my brothers to end this petty thread and answer some important questions.

adam7gur and TJ3,
Your passion leaps from your words and I wonder why on such an irrelevant subject. There are many more important things. We are almost doing the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" thing...it doesn't matter. We are splitting hairs over what being "appointed directly by Jesus" means. Both sides have legitimate biblical positions so let us not waste time accusing each other of "twisting scripture" or even not believing the Bible. Both sides fully believe(as I do) that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Everybody gets something different from reading the same words of God as God touches us each in a different and personal way. I am pleading with you my brothers to end this petty thread and answer some important questions.

Jeff!
Thank you for your honest advice.
It is Tom's attitude and I repeat Tom's attitude and not Tom himself that brought many of us to a point like this one.
I would gladly end it right here but be very sure that the same thing will happen about another thread really soon!
Of course anyone can express his/hers different opinion,but this spirit is nothing about expressing , it is about twisting things the other way, it is not a spirit of grace or mercy.It is a spirit of a whip on a believer's back and that is not fair!That is not what Christ taught us and personally I don't like that kind of a spirit dwelling among believers.
As I wrote earlier as we go deeper in this , we go deeper in our hearts.May what we have in our hearts come out to the Lord's light and may the Lord Jesus Christ seal His own!
By the way we judge , we are also judged

Absolutely not! You know Scripture and you keep twisting it!



It is Tom's attitude and I repeat Tom's attitude and not Tom himself that brought many of us to a point like this one.

Adam,

This thread is not about false accusations nor abusive comments about the individuals involved. If you disagree with what I am saying, then deal with the issue and let's stay off the person comments, shall we? Whether I agree with you or not, I accept that you are sincere in presenting what you believe, so please accord others the same respect.

Yes, but he did not spend not even one single day with Jesus from His baptism , and that's something that all the rest did!
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Do you still believe that Matthias did not see the risen Lord?

So, are you saying that Jesus made the wrong call and the 11 made the right call?

I was not talking about false apostles!Again twisting words by your side!

Nor did I say that you were. But the fact remains that, other than Jesus, those are the only Apostles mentioned in scripture outside of the 12. That is why I mentioned it.

Nor am I saying that Matthias was in any way a false leader. He was no doubt a godly man and a capable Christian leader, or he would not have been considered for the role of an Apostle - but that does not mean that he was the right choice. It is interesting that we never hear anything of him again after that.


Again twisting words and Scripture!That is not a good spirit you demonstrate here and may the Lord Jesus deliever us (you too)from its presenceWhere did I say that the NT is not valid?

I never said that you did. What I said was that if you are holding to there being a different means of atonement in the OT, then that would mean that scripture is wrong in the book of Hebrews. Thus my question.



But you seem to draw a line and delete the OT and therefore condemn OT people for doing what OT instructed!

No that is not true. I draw no different a line than what Jesus and Paul did.

Matt 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
NKJV

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
NKJV

Does that sound like the law is made for believers?

Gal 3:21-25
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

This is the line that they drew. The law is not done away with, but it is prophetic of the coming of Christ and through Christ, much of what we see in the law and the OT rituals has been fulfilled (the passover for example). But the law was a mirror to show us how much we failed to live up to thye standard that God set for us, and in so doing make us aware of the need of a Saviour, who is Jesus Christ. And once we have received Jesus, we no longer have need of that tutor to bring us to Him, because we have Him. And it is through Him that we can be righteous, not our own righteousness but the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to believers. That is why we are no longer under the law.

Does this mean that we can do whatever we wish? Absolutely not.

Rom 6:1-3
6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
NKJV

Once saved, we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which acts as our guide, to help us live to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law.

Do I or scripture condemn the OT people for doing these rituals? Absolutely not nor did I say such a thing. What I am saying is that the people ion the OT looked forward to the coming of their Messiah, for example:

Job 19:25-26
25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God,
NKJV

Heb 11:23-27
24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
NKJV

So those in the OT were obedient to God in carrying out rituals which were prophetic of the true source of their salvation, Jesus.

adam7gur and TJ3,
Your passion leaps from your words and I wonder why on such an irrelevant subject. There are many more important things. We are almost doing the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" thing...it doesn't matter. We are splitting hairs over what being "appointed directly by Jesus" means. Both sides have legitimate biblical positions so let us not waste time accusing each other of "twisting scripture" or even not believing the Bible. Both sides fully believe(as I do) that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Everybody gets something different from reading the same words of God as God touches us each in a different and personal way. I am pleading with you my brothers to end this petty thread and answer some important questions.

Jeff,

I hear what you are saying. Let me explain why I feel passionate about this one. In the area of ministry that I am involved in, I find that I often heal with people or churches within what is considered orthodox Christianity who argue for now just more than 12 Apostles, but argue for Apostles today in the churches. Many of these are men who have used this titled wrongly claimed to claim power and authority in churches that they do not have for reasons of control, and in some cases have become outright abusive of said assumed authority. This issue is becoming more widespread all the time, probably more so than many people realize.

Matthias in an of itself is an interesting point, but far too often, this is a starting point when people want to claim, not 13 Apostles, but then expand it further. It is therefore important for the protection of churches and for those in the churches to ensure that people are aware what scripture says on this matter.

I am however agreeable to having the thread closed if someone wishes to request that that happen. Once we get into the personal accusation stage of a thread, that is often the first signs that it is time to close the thread.

adam7gur,
I believe that Matthias did see the risen Lord,
I have every time I go to Mass.
Fred

So, are you saying that Jesus made the wrong call and the 11 made the right call?

Tom
You are creating dillemas out of nothing.Jesus did choose Paul to be His apostle.Does this make him one of the twelve that companied Him from His baptism till the day He was taken up?No,Paul was nowhere around that time.Does this make him not His apostle?Surely not!Of course Paul is His apostle.Do you see Jesus telling Paul that he is going to be one of the twelve?No!Jesus says that Paul will be His apostle.I don't see Jesus saying anything more to that!
What Jesus said to Paul He could also tell you today.He could send you somewhere for His name.Does this make you an apostle?Yes it does!Does this make you one of the twelve?No it does not!
Peter says Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Imagine this!Those two men companied Jesus all the time.Wherever He went , they also went.Don't you think that Jesus somehow chose them even if we do not see this literally happening?
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Do you honestly believe that Matthias is not included in ''them'' He also called and do you honestly still not believe that Matthias was not chosen by Jesus?

adam7gur,
Your point is well made AND WELL SAID.
Paul was made the apostle to the gentiles, number thirteen but not one of the twelve.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Originally Posted by adam7gur
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

All this says is that the twelve foundations will have the names of the twelve apostles.
We know(more or less) the names.I asked you where does it say that the apostles throughout history will be only twelve?
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


You said ''I assumed that we are only talking about Jesus' Apostles.''
And I said ''I was not talking about false apostles!Again twisting words by your side!''
And you replied ''Nor did I say that you were.''
But Tom , by saying ''I assumed that we are only talking about Jesus' Apostles'' means that I was talking about false apostles.
That is twisting words and I will not be silent about it just as the Lord was not silent about it!
Now, after my statement of not liking your spirit of twisting you try to hide behind '' a kind attitude'' and respecting others but I do not believe you.You can prove me wrong in the future, take it as a challenge. I 'll be around to see if you mean what you say or if you continue to twist words.
I imagine this thread will soon be closed, I do apologize for this but there comes a time that I believe that one has to discern the spirits and not compromise with what is not from above!

Originally Posted by adam7gur
Again twisting words and Scripture!That is not a good spirit you demonstrate here and may the Lord Jesus deliever us (you too)from its presenceWhere did I say that the NT is not valid?
Tom , you said
I never said that you did. What I said was that if you are holding to there being a different means of atonement in the OT, then that would mean that scripture is wrong in the book of Hebrews. Thus my question.

I keep telling you that the OT is the OT and the NT is the NT.
People under the OT were obligated to keep the law , casting lots was instructed by God in the law.
The NT changed things into a more mature level.Does this mean that a baby was not doing well for being fed only with milk?
Can you judge this newborn as you judge a grown up?Just because you as a grown up eat meat , do you expect newborns to eat meat also?
I gave you so many examples , still you keep on judging them wrong!
If I say that the OT is a newborn , does this mean that I find wrong the NT? Why asking me this after all that I wrote?
You are smart enough to ask me things like that.But you are not waiting for an answear , your point is only to twist words!

Tom
You are creating dillemas out of nothing.Jesus did choose Paul to be His apostle.

Good. And since there are only 12, that makes Paul the 12th.


Does this make him one of the twelve that companied Him from His baptism till the day He was taken up?

But that is also not given as a requirement to be an apostle, but rather that was chosen by the 11 as the set from which they would draw their candidates.


Imagine this!Those two men companied Jesus all the time.Wherever He went , they also went.Don't you think that Jesus somehow chose them even if we do not see this literally happening?

When you look at the other chosen as Apostles, no doubt if you looked at them before Jesus chose them, you would likely have considered them as unworthy candidates or at least less acceptable candidates than, perhaps some leaders in the local synagogues. But God's criteria is not ours - He looks ahead to thiongs that we cannot see or know, and He looks at the heart.

What we do know is that He chose Paul. That ought to be enough to say that paul was fully qualified.


Do you honestly believe that Matthias is not included in ''them'' He also called and do you honestly still not believe that Matthias was not chosen by Jesus?

Yes. If you disagree, show me where Jesus directly and personally called him.

Originally Posted by adam7gur
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

All this says is that the twelve foundations will have the names of the twelve apostles.
We know(more or less) the names.I asked you where does it say that the apostles throughout history will be only twelve?

Do you know when that New Jersusalem comes down? It is at the end of history. Do you think that God omitted names?


You said ''I assumed that we are only talking about Jesus' Apostles.''
And I said ''I was not talking about false apostles!Again twisting words by your side!''
And you replied ''Nor did I say that you were.''
But Tom , by saying ''I assumed that we are only talking about Jesus' Apostles'' means that I was talking about false apostles.

Well, weren't we? If we go beyond the 12, we have only the false Apostles identified in scripture, as well as 1 special case, and that is where scripture says that now Jesus is The Apostle of our faith.


That is twisting words and I will not be silent about it just as the Lord was not silent about it!

If you are concerned about twisting words, then please stop the practice and lets discuss the topic.

What I said was that if you are holding to there being a different means of atonement in the OT, then that would mean that scripture is wrong in the book of Hebrews. Thus my question.

I keep telling you that the OT is the OT and the NT is the NT.
People under the OT were obligated to keep the law , casting lots was instructed by God in the law.

But the point is that NO ONE was saved by the law or keeping the rituals. The NT tells us that specifically.


You are smart enough to ask me things like that.But you are not waiting for an answear , your point is only to twist words!

I have seen many times that you directly twisted what I said, and yet you seem to have no problem with that.I, however, never said that you said what you clsimed that I did - that alone is twisting my words. BTW, I think that it is interesting that the only two posts were you don't use the quote feature is where you take my comments out of context to make such accusations. I would suggest that in the future, if you wis to suggest that I said something, that you provide the proper quote in context.

Now, please deal with the issue and stop making false accusations. I get the impression that you want to get this thread closed.

Tj3,
Matthias was apostle number twelve taking the place of Judas.
Paul was apostle number 13 and neither one were false.
Since the there have been thousands of apostles as history records.
I know you don't believe that but your believe does NOT change the facts.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Matthias was apostle number twelve taking the place of Judas.

That is your claim.


Paul was apostle number 13

Scripture says that there were only 12 - apparently you disagree.


and neither one were false.
Since the there have been thousands of apostles as history records.

Some of the additional ones were exposed by the church at Ephesus (Rev 2:2).
I am not so impressed by historians telling me who is and is not an Apostle, as I am by Jesus telling who is an Apostle.

Each of us must decide which sources to consider legitimate, and I am satisfied with God's word.

Tj3,
It is what I read in the holy bible.
I have 8 different versions and they all agree on that.
Fred

Tj3,
It is what I read in the holy bible.
I have 8 different versions and they all agree on that.
Fred

Fred,

Really? Perhaps you can tell me which verse says that Jesus directly and personally chose Matthias, and which verse says that there are thousands of Apostles.

I have several dozen different versions and would be quite pleased to check out your claim.

Tj3,
THAT has been discussed several times here.
There is no need to go through it all again.
Obviously you read the bible differently than I and others do.
That has been going on for several centuries.
It's not new.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
THAT has been discussed several times here.
There is no need to go through it all again.
Obviously you read the bible differently than I and others do.

I read what it says, and so far NO ONE on here has shown any verses that either says that Jesus personally and directly chose Matthias or that there are thousands of Apostles.

And apparently you are not able to provide such verses either.

The spirit you demonstrate is the spirit of the scribes.You keep on saying '' where in scripture this and where in scripture that'', but it is for spirits like this that Jesus spoke in parables so that with their ears they may hear but not understand!
It is that same spirit that convicted Jesus for accusing Him for not doing things by scripture while this spirit kept on twisting His words.
No grace came out of this spirit,when Jesus healed people on the Sabbath that spirit could not be happy about it because no grace is in it,only self justification and it kept on screaming ''Where in scripture is it written that you can heal someone on the Sabbath . Note that even Satan tempted the Lord through scripture. Jesus is the scripture and He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Now that we know about Christ if we keep on judging that way we will be in a more worse position than those who killed Him.
No matter how many verses , how many parables,how many miracles, that spirit is never convinced about the truth because it does not care about the truth, it only cares about itself.It does not want to come to the truth and because it does not come to the truth , it tries to block others to come to the truth.
I pray for people that are under its tyranny to be freed!

Yes. If you disagree, show me where Jesus directly and personally called him.

Tom
Correct me if I am wrong but did you not say ''Nor am I saying that Matthias was in any way a false leader. He was no doubt a godly man and a capable Christian leader, or he would not have been considered for the role of an Apostle ''?
Does this not make him like one of these people ''Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
No doubt , Matthias is like one of these people and for all those , Paul says...
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Who called those people if not Jesus?

Tom
Does this not make him like one of these people ''Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
No doubt , Matthias is like one of these people and for all those , Paul says...
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Who called those people if not Jesus?

Hello adam7gur,
The verses quoted by you above apply to all of us that are believers today and ever since Pentecost.
We could say we are all apostles only in the sense that apostle means special messenger and we are all called to give the Good news about Jesus to all that we can.
There are only 13 that Jesus personally appeared to and said that he was choosing them or he had chosen them. The original 12(remember Jesus said speaking to the 12 in the upper room at the last supper, "did I not choose all of you? Yet one of you is a devil."
The 13th chosen directly by Jesus was Paul. We know Judas is destined for hell and that leaves 12. Why do I keep answering this question and promising to stop? Because these questions aren't beneficial and only cause dissension among my brothers. Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in.

Good. And since there are only 12, that makes Paul the 12th.


But, of course, there weren't only twelve. 1Thess.1.1 and 2.6 tell us that Silas and Timothy were apostles; Acts 14.14 tells us that Barnabas was an apostle; 1Cor.4.9 tells us that Apollos was an apostle.

As for Matthias, Acts 1.24 indicates that God chose Matthias ("which one you have chosen"--this shows us that God's choice of Matthias preceded the casting of lots, which procedure was undertaken so that God's decision would be made manifest to the remaining members of the Twelve).

Tj3 is mistaken. I have just shown that Scripture tells us that there were more than twelve apostles. Moreover, Scripture is clear that the choice of Matthias was God's. The use of the past tense ("which one you have chosen") fully accords with adam7gur's point that he was predstined, chosen by God before the foundation of the world.

This thread seems to me to have outlived its usefulness as Tom has made it quite clear that his refusal to take Scripture at its word is motivated not by a desire to reach a deeper understanding of Scripture but by the fact that he has seen people appeal to the selection of Matthias in order to give Scriptural support for something he personally doesn't like (apostolic succession?). Despite adam7gur's patient efforts, this stopped being an honest discussion quite some time ago. As the OP, I ask that the mods please close this thread.

The spirit you demonstrate is the spirit of the scribes.You keep on saying '' where in scripture this and where in scripture that'', but it is for spirits like this that Jesus spoke in parables so that with their ears they may hear but not understand!

You would be more effective dealing with the topic than continually making demeaning comments about people who disagree with you.

But, of course, there weren't only twelve. 1Thess.1.1 and 2.6 tell us that Silas and Timothy were apostles; Acts 14.14 tells us that Barnabas was an apostle; 1Cor.4.9 tells us that Apollos was an apostle.

I've have seen and refuted the claims so many times that there were more than 12 Apostles. Of course you still have that annoying comment that God put in His word about there only being 12.



As for Matthias, Acts 1.24 indicates that God chose Matthias ("which one you have chosen"--this shows us that God's choice of Matthias preceded the casting of lots, which procedure was undertaken so that God's decision would be made manifest to the remaining members of the Twelve).

It shows that they believed that God had chosen Him, just as you do. They tried to help out God just as Abraham did in Genesis 16.


Tj3 is mistaken. I have just shown that Scripture tells us that there were more than twelve apostles. Moreover, Scripture is clear that the choice of Matthias was God's. The use of the past tense ("which one you have chosen") fully accords with adam7gur's point that he was predstined, chosen by God before the foundation of the world.


As homesell pointed out, this applies to all believers.


As the OP, I ask that the mods please close this thread.

I agree. Once a thread starts degenerating into demeaning comments about other people who are respectfully engaging in discussion, the usefulness of the thread has probably diminished.

But, of course, there weren't only twelve. 1Thess.1.1 and 2.6 tell us that Silas and Timothy were apostles; Acts 14.14 tells us that Barnabas was an apostle; 1Cor.4.9 tells us that Apollos was an apostle.

As for Matthias, Acts 1.24 indicates that God chose Matthias ("which one you have chosen"--this shows us that God's choice of Matthias preceded the casting of lots, which procedure was undertaken so that God's decision would be made manifest to the remaining members of the Twelve).

Tj3 is mistaken. I have just shown that Scripture tells us that there were more than twelve apostles. Moreover, Scripture is clear that the choice of Matthias was God's. The use of the past tense ("which one you have chosen") fully accords with adam7gur's point that he was predstined, chosen by God before the foundation of the world.



I think this thread is quite useful.

So then in your opinion, God is still revealing himself outside of Scripture through Apostolic successors? If not then, where did Paul come from? Don't his epistles reveal God's truth?

JoeT

Perhaps this will help for a reference:

Appendixes to The Companion Bible
Dr. E.W. Bullinger
189. APOSTLES : ELDERS : PROPHETS

Apostles: Elders: Prophets. - Appendix to the Companion Bible (http://levendwater.org/companion/append189.html)

I MUST AGREE with Adam, Akoue, and Joe.
They have clearly shown that there were more than 12 apostles.
I accept what they have shown.
Others may not but that is their personal choice.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I MUST AGREE with Adam, Akoue, and Joe.
They have clearly shown that there were more than 12 apostles.
I accept what they have shown.
Others may not but that is their personal choice.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

They have shown that they believe that there are, but scripture says that, other than Jesus, there are ONLY 12 TRUE Apostles.

I'll believe the Bible.

Tj3,
So says you.
I do not agree.
Sorry.
Fred

Tj3,
So says you.
I do not agree.
Sorry.
Fred

As you wish Fred. I will not take my eyes off God's word whether you agree or not.

Tj3,
I also will not take my eyes, of belief, or faith off God's Holy Word.
That is what I do and will stand by.
Thanks,
Fred

I think this thread is quite useful.

So then in your opinion, God is still revealing himself outside of Scripture through Apostolic successors? If not then, where did Paul come from? Don’t his epistles reveal God’s truth?

JoeT

Hi Joe. Good to hear from you.

Here's what I think (make of it what you will): Scripture is clear that there were more than twelve apostles. Acts 14.14 refers to "the apostles Barnabas and Paul". 1 Thessalonians 1.1 is a salutation from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy and 1Thess.2.7 says "we were able to impose our weight as apostles of Christ". So these verses make it perfectly clear that there were more apostles than just the Twelve.

Adam7gur has pointed to Scriptures which refer to the office of apostle alongside other offices (or ministries). Now, to be sure, the Twelve had a special standing among apostles, but just as clearly, Barnabas and Timothy are said by Scripture to have been apostles. So there's that.

Nowhere does Scripture say that there were "only" twelve apostles. Our dear Tj3 has added the word "only" to Scripture in order to try to get some leverage. But he hasn't shown us a single verse which says unambiguously that there were only ever twelve apostles. This, taken together with the clear affirmation at Acts 14.14 that Barnabas was an apostle and at 1Thess.2.7 that Timothy was an apostle seem to me to doom the claim that there could only ever be twelve. So there's that.

Now, returning to Matthias: I've already quoted Scripture which shows the remaining eleven (after Judas's death) addressing God in prayer and unambiguously affirming that Matthias was God's choice ("you have chosen"), a choice made known through the casting of lots. The casting of lots, notice, was not the mechanism by which the choice was made by the eleven. The choice was God's and the casting of lots was rather the mechanism by which God's choice was revealed to the eleven. So there's that.

It is my suspicion that Tom's reason for digging in his heels and pretending that Rev. says that there were "only" twelve apostles (and ignoring what Scripture says about Barnabas and Timothy) is that he doesn't like the idea of apostolic succession. In an earlier post to homesell, he seems to me to have gestured in this direction (he said there that he gets passionate about this because he has seen people appeal to the selection of Matthias in order to license things he doesn't like).

It is my opinion that Scripture is clear that the selection of Matthias was made not by the eleven apostles but by God. It is my opinion that Scripture is clear that there were more than eleven apostles (Barnabas, Timothy). It is my opinion that these two facts, taken together, make it clear that apostolic succession is licensed by Scripture. And this, taken together with the fact that the writings of the first post-apostolic generation (Ignatius of Antioch--who was taught by Peter, Paul, and John--to name only one) affirm the practice of apostolic succession, encourages me to think that I'm probably not misunderstanding Scripture on this point.

I also think that apostolic succession is hugely important as a way of preserving the oral teachings transmitted by Christ and the Apostles. We know that Scripture does not contain the whole of God's revelation to his people because Scripture tells us to uphold and abide by oral teachings. The well-ordered succession of apostles is a way of preserving this body of teachings in the face of Gnostic preachers and others who teach heretical doctrines (like, for instance, the man-made and unscriptural doctrine of sola scriptura). The office (or ministry) of apostle is and has been vital to the survival of the faith, since it has preserved both the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles as well as the Scriptures themselves.

Nowhere does Scripture say that there were "only" twelve apostles.

Akoue, I was clear that there are more than 12, but scripture says that there were only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. Now, I don't know about you, but it is only the Apostles of the Lamb that I want to be associated with!


It is my suspicion that Tom's reason for digging in his heels and pretending that Rev. says that there were "only" twelve apostles (and ignoring what Scripture says about Barnabas and Timothy) is that he doesn't like the idea of apostolic succession. In an earlier post to homesell, he seems to me to have gestured in this direction (he said there that he gets passionate about this because he has seen people appeal to the selection of Matthias in order to license things he doesn't like).


Actually, that is not what I said - what I said was that I have seen people use the claims of more than 12 Apostles to claim falsely to be Apostles, with the result often abuse of power and authority that they do not legitimately have.

And I ignore nothing in scripture, nor do I ignore what scripture says about the limit of 12 Apostles.

Akoue, I was clear that there are more than 12, but scripture says that there were only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. Now, I don't know about you, but it is only the Apostles of the Lamb that I want to be associated with!

What, pray tell, was Barnabas, then? (Oops, I just prayed to you. Naughty Akoue!) Acts 14.14 tells us unambiguously that he was an apostle. Would you have a problem being associated with Barnabas? How about Timothy? Scripture says that he too was an apostle.



And I ignore nothing in scripture, nor do I ignore what scripture says about the limit of 12 Apostles.

You are clearly mistaken, since Barnabas (Acts 14.14) and Timothy (1Thess.1.1 and 2.7) were also apostles. Clearly, then, there were more than twelve.

I also think that apostolic succession is hugely important as a way of preserving the oral teachings transmitted by Christ and the Apostles. We know that Scripture does not contain the whole of God's revelation to his people because Scripture tells us to uphold and abide by oral teachings. The well-ordered succession of apostles is a way of preserving this body of teachings in the face of Gnostic preachers and others who teach heretical doctrines (like, for instance, the man-made and unscriptural doctrine of sola scriptura). The office (or ministry) of apostle is and has been vital to the survival of the faith, since it has preserved both the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles as well as the Scriptures themselves.



I’m reading Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth. In the introduction he asks where did Christ come from? Just how did THIS Galilean ‘burst’ onto the scene with a fully developed theology? What was his mission?

Why wasn’t He the Messiah expected by the Jews? Was it the ‘original twelve’ who were the start of an organized ‘Proto-Catholic Church’ or did it happen some 2 or 3 hundred years later? Were these twelve organized, commissioned, and assigned a mission? Scripture leaves no doubt that they were. They had a hierarchy, an established chain of command, and a temporary replacement for the head (the Vicar of Christ), and equally important, a means to pass on this authority from generation to generation. I contend that the twelve were even compartmentalized to some extent – that is each taking on a specialized ministry.

All of which seems as if it came right out of the box! The emphasis of Scripture on ‘One’ Church, One faith, One baptism, and being One with Christ bears out that Christ knew what he was doing, it was the will of God. Christ was not simply a product of societal winds like all earthly leaders are. He had a Divine mission which he completed. The mission was His Kingdom, the Catholic Church. No surprise to a Catholic, but all of which reflects rather poorly on the TJ3’s view; each to his own sola Scriptura each a church unto himself, doesn’t it?

JoeT

He had a Divine mission which he completed. The mission was His Kingdom, the Catholic Church. No surprise to a Catholic,

JoeT

Joe, Just to edify in the love of Jesus Christ... It is God's Kingdom with the children of God to be heirs.

He did fulfill the Will of God, and the mission was to convert each of us to children of God. Then acceptable to be heir of adoption. When baptized and made one with the Spirit, and Christ Jesus, we are not born of any type of earthly flesh, and that includes the churches. (John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. )

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Should anyone choose to follow the gospel bases on anything other then Christ as their Salvation, it is of corruption because it came by man. Scripture was inspiried by God, and is the flesh of Christ (not of this world)


But the fact remains that Christ tells us in the Gospel that we have one Advocate (the Holy Spirit) with us, that we may not sin: and the Holy Spirit tells us in the Epistle that we have another Advocate (Jesus Christ the righteous One) with the Father, if we do sin. So that all is foreknown, foreseen, and provided for; and nothing can forfeit this wondrous gift of God. Nor will God ever recall His gift, or take from us that spirit, which He implanted in us, His sons, when He thus sealed us as His children.

~a child of God

refer:
Matthew 3:18 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

All of which seems as if it came right out of the box! The emphasis of Scripture on 'One' Church, One faith, One baptism, and being One with Christ
JoeT



Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism

There is one body(Christ), and one Spirit(Holy Spirit), even as ye are called in one hope (salvation) of your calling ( to answer in confessiong of Faith)

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism

There is one body(Christ), and one Spirit(Holy Spirit), even as ye are called in one hope (salvation) of your calling ( to answer in confessiong of Faith)

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


Agreed.

What, pray tell, was Barnabas, then? (Oops, I just prayed to you. Naughty Akoue!) Acts 14.14 tells us unambiguously that he was an apostle. Would you have a problem being associated with Barnabas? How about Timothy? Scripture says that he too was an apostle.

I have been through this going through all the conspiracy theories of this person being an apostle, or another, but one again, I don't plan to do the "20 questions" game. By the way, Acts 14:14 is commonly translated as

Acts 14:14
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
KJV

Thus showing that Barnabas was being discussed, but not being called an apostle.

Ultimately, unless you are trying to prove that God made a mistake in the in the Bible, to try to go and on trying to prove beyond hope that there is yet another Apostle in the Bible serves no purpose.

Acts 14:14
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
KJV

Thus showing that Barnabas was being discussed, but not being called an apostle.


You’ve got to be kidding!

You've got to be kidding!

I feel the same about your position. But the number twelve means twelve, not 13, 14, or thousands.

Acts 14:14
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
KJV

Thus showing that Barnabas was being discussed, but not being called an apostle.

Ultimately, unless you are trying to prove that God made a mistake in the in the Bible, to try to go and on trying to prove beyond hope that there is yet another Apostle in the Bible serves no purpose.


Every one of these translations say that both Barnabas and Paul are Apostles.

Acts 14:14 Douay-Rheims
Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying,

Acts 14:14 (New International Version)
14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:

Acts 14:14 (New American Standard Bible)
14But when (A)the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they (B)tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out

Acts 14:14 (King James Version)
14Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Acts 14:14 (American Standard Version)
14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out

Acts 14:14 (Wycliffe New Testament)
14 And when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this [Which thing, when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard], they rent their coats; and they skipped out among the people, and cried [crying],

Shouldn't you explain yourself?

JoeT

Every one of these translations say that both Barnabas and Paul are Apostles.

Acts 14:14 Douay-Rheims
Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying,

Acts 14:14 (New International Version)
14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:

Acts 14:14 (New American Standard Bible)
14But when (A)the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they (B)tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out

Acts 14:14 (King James Version)
14Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Acts 14:14 (American Standard Version)
14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out

Acts 14:14 (Wycliffe New Testament)
14 And when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this [Which thing, when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard], they rent their coats; and they skipped out among the people, and cried [crying],

Shouldn't you explain yourself?

JoeT

Odd, But my copies of some of the versions that your posted read differently. Should YOU explain YOURSELF?

BTW, read the list that you gave - you may notice some disagree with you.

But nonetheless - 12 still means 12.

Odd, But my copies of some of the versions that your posted read differently. Should YOU explain YOURSELF?

BTW, read the list that you gave - you may notice some disagree with you.

But nonetheless - 12 still means 12.



Really?

JoeT

Really?

JoeT

Yes - ask any elementary school student.

12 means 12.

How do we explain 4th century Doctors referring to Barnabas as Apostles?

Which when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you. (v. 14, 15.) St. Chrysostom, Homily 30 on the Acts of the Apostles


And how about the 3rd century Doctor referring to Barnabas as an Apostle?

…the Apostle Barnabas says, From the portion I have received I have done my diligence to send little by little to you; that along with your faith you may also have perfect knowledge. Fear and patience are then helpers of your faith; and our allies are long-suffering and temperance. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata book II, 6



JoeT

How do we explain 4th century Doctors referring to Barnabas as Apostles?

Which when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you. (v. 14, 15.) St. Chrysostom, Homily 30 on the Acts of the Apostles


And how about the 3rd century Doctor referring to Barnabas as an Apostle?

…the Apostle Barnabas says, From the portion I have received I have done my diligence to send little by little to you; that along with your faith you may also have perfect knowledge. Fear and patience are then helpers of your faith; and our allies are long-suffering and temperance. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata book II, 6

I am abiding by scripture not the opinions of men.

May I intersect with the 12 being disciples. All 12 disciples followed one teacher, Jesus.

An apostle is a messenger which the 12 did become after their teaching with Jesus. The apostle is sent as a servant of the Lord.

In general: (2 Corinthians 8:23 Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ. )

I have been through this going through all the conspiracy theories of this person being an apostle, or another, but one again, I don't plan to do the "20 questions" game. By the way, Acts 14:14 is commonly translated as

Acts 14:14
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
KJV

Thus showing that Barnabas was being discussed, but not being called an apostle.

Ultimately, unless you are trying to prove that God made a mistake in the in the Bible, to try to go and on trying to prove beyond hope that there is yet another Apostle in the Bible serves no purpose.

I've seen you do this before (re: 2 Timothy and Eph.2): Confronted with explicit and unambiguous Scriptural evidence that the view you have advocated is mistaken you suddenly lose basic reading comprehension skills. The very translation you quote tells us that Barnabas and Paul are apostles who "rent their clothes" (this means that they tore their clothes) and "ran in among the people" (this means that they ran in among the people) shouting. If you aren't able to follow simple grammar then you probably need to try using a children's Bible. I'm not sure whether to feel embarrassed for you, or pity for you, or what, since I don't know whether you are feigning incomprehension or really just don't read well at all. If I hadn't seen you do this sort of thing when confronted with Scripture that just plainly shows that you are wrong, I'd be inclined to think that you aren't able to read well and would offer something in the vicinity of sympathy.

In the quote you give from the KJV the word "apostles" and the names "Barnabas" and "Paul" are appositives. This, once again, is just basic English grammar. I think I learned about appositives in junior high.

I can't see the point continuing a discussion with someone who either is functionally illiterate or finds it useful to feign functional illiteracy when he has been proven wrong, so I'm off this thread. I trust that anyone who reads this thread with an interest in the OP will be a sufficiently competent reader to decipher Acts 14.14 just fine on their own.

See you around, Joe.

The very translation you quote tells us that Barnabas and Paul are apostles who "rent their clothes" (this means that they tore their clothes) and "ran in among the people" (this means that they ran in among the people) shouting.
See you around, Joe.

No, No, you’ve got that wrong; “rent their clothes" (means a periodic payment for the use of their clothing). I’m not going to comment on where Paul and Barnbas might have ran to after they “rented” their cloths. You reckon the shouting had to do with Renter’s Rights (you know-like tenant laws)?

I’ll be around. It was good to hear from you too. You’re always a sound voice in a cacophony.

JoeT

I've seen you do this before (re: 2 Timothy and Eph.2): Confronted with explicit and unambiguous Scriptural evidence that the view you have advocated is mistaken you suddenly lose basic reading comprehension skills. The very translation you quote tells us that Barnabas and Paul are apostles who "rent their clothes" (this means that they tore their clothes) and "ran in among the people" (this means that they ran in among the people) shouting. If you aren't able to follow simple grammar then you probably need to try using a children's Bible. I'm not sure whether to feel embarassed for you, or pity for you, or what, since I don't know whether you are feigning incomprehension or really just don't read well at all.

Akoue, it seems whenever we put forward a position and evidence that you cannot refute, you go into some form of negative attack on the person.

That is not a compelling argument.

>Thread Closed<
As it's degenerating yet again.