Replacing the 12th Apostle

[Laureate]

How many Apostles did Yeshua personally hand pick initially?

Luke 6:12
And it came to pass in those days, that he (Yeshua) went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to Elohym.

6:13
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

6:14
Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

6:15
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphæus, and Simon called Zelotes,

6:16
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

I count the original twelve...
1) Peter
2) James
3) John
4) Andrew
5) Philip
6) Thomas
7) Bartholomew
8) Matthew
9) James (Ben Alpheus)
10) Simon (Zealotes)
11) Judas (brother of James)
12) Judas (Iscariot)

Yet after the betrayal of Judas I count Paul as the replacement of Judas, not Matthias, because Matthias was not hand picked by Yeshua, and Saul/Paul was.

John 15:16
You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

My point being, Yeshua personally selected his Apostles not someone else, and note how He spent the entire night in prayer prior to doing so, compared to the eleven Apostles appointing two candidates for the Lord to choose from, they did not pray before they appointed the two candidates, but afterwards they prayed, asking which of the two appointees were worthy to replace Judas (Iscariot), then they drew lots to see which one the Lord would pick, (Acts 1:15-26).

When I read this passage, Ruach HaKodesh asked me, if I saw something wrong with the way it went down, and I answered yes, because lots were not used to select any of Yeshua's (hand picked) Apostles.

Ruach HaKodesh then said, they alloted the Lord two choices to choose from, one lot for Joseph, and one for Matthias, where was the third lot to represent, I choose neither of these two, but be patient and wait, and see who the Lord hand picks himself, (paraphrased from memory).

From these words I concluded that they were both anxious and presumptuous to have appointed the two candidates, and the manner in which they drew lots could have been more pure/fair.

Then Ruach HaKodesh began to show me how Stephen the (Martyr) was the most likely candidate, but because Saul/Paul looked on with approval as Stephen was being stoned to death, he was chosen for (imposed) conversion to replace Judas as the twelfth hand picked Apostle.

Wouldn't it only be fitting to replace Judas Iscariot, with a Pharisee?
The Pharisees were one of three entities known two conspire, and encourage Judas to betray Yeshua.

As Judas was compelled to betray Yeshua on behalf of the Pharisees, Paul was compelled to (appear to) betray the Pharisees on behalf of Yeshua.
I believe on the streets where I was raised they would call it, 'Poetic Justice'

 

[GuardianShua]

Good call.

 

[ananda]

Yet after the betrayal of Judas I count Paul as the replacement of Judas, not Matthias, because Matthias was not hand picked by Yeshua, and Saul/Paul was.

The apostles were the apostles, not necessarily because they were "hand-picked by Messiah," but because they were first-hand eyewitnesses of Messiah's life from the very beginning of His ministry:

and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. - Jn 15:27

Ye are witnesses of these things. - Lk 24:48

But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. - Acts 1:8
​

This was confirmed by the Apostles John & Peter:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. Jn 1:14

That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal [life], which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ: ... And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. - 1John 1

And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world. - 1John 4:14

The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: - 1Pet 5:1

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. - 2Pet 1:16

for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard. - Acts 4:20
​

Matthias was chosen to replace Judas because he was one of two eyewitnesses from the very beginning of Messiah's ministry, as was required for the original apostles:

Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. - Acts 1:21,22
​

Paul was not an eyewitness to Messiah's ministry.

Then Ruach HaKodesh began to show me how Stephen the (Martyr) was the most likely candidate, but because Saul/Paul looked on with approval as Stephen was being stoned to death, he was chosen for (imposed) conversion to replace Judas as the twelfth hand picked Apostle.

Stephen could not have been an apostle. There is no evidence that he was a witness, nor did he know that Torah was ordained by YHWH - not by the angels, as he claimed! (Acts 7:53)

Wouldn't it only be fitting to replace Judas Iscariot, with a Pharisee? The Pharisees were one of three entities known two conspire, and encourage Judas to betray Yeshua. As Judas was compelled to betray Yeshua on behalf of the Pharisees, Paul was compelled to (appear to) betray the Pharisees on behalf of Yeshua. I believe on the streets where I was raised they would call it, 'Poetic Justice'

I doubt it. Paul did not betray the Pharisees. In fact, he confessed that he remained a Pharisee well into his "Christian ministry" (Acts 23:6, Phl 3:5).

 

[Lulav]

How many Apostles did Yeshua personally hand pick initially?

Luke 6:12
And it came to pass in those days, that he (Yeshua) went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to Elohym.

6:13
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

6:14
Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

6:15
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphæus, and Simon called Zelotes,

6:16
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

I count the original twelve...
1) Peter
2) James
3) John
4) Andrew
5) Philip
6) Thomas
7) Bartholomew
8) Matthew
9) James (Ben Alpheus)
10) Simon (Zealotes)
11) Judas (brother of James)
12) Judas (Iscariot)

Yet after the betrayal of Judas I count Paul as the replacement of Judas, not Matthias, because Matthias was not hand picked by Yeshua, and Saul/Paul was.

John 15:16
You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

My point being, Yeshua personally selected his Apostles not someone else, and note how He spent the entire night in prayer prior to doing so, compared to the eleven Apostles appointing two candidates for the Lord to choose from, they did not pray before they appointed the two candidates, but afterwards they prayed, asking which of the two appointees were worthy to replace Judas (Iscariot), then they drew lots to see which one the Lord would pick, (Acts 1:15-26).

When I read this passage, Ruach HaKodesh asked me, if I saw something wrong with the way it went down, and I answered yes, because lots were not used to select any of Yeshua's (hand picked) Apostles.

Ruach HaKodesh then said, they alloted the Lord two choices to choose from, one lot for Joseph, and one for Matthias, where was the third lot to represent, I choose neither of these two, but be patient and wait, and see who the Lord hand picks himself, (paraphrased from memory).

From these words I concluded that they were both anxious and presumptuous to have appointed the two candidates, and the manner in which they drew lots could have been more pure/fair.

Then Ruach HaKodesh began to show me how Stephen the (Martyr) was the most likely candidate, but because Saul/Paul looked on with approval as Stephen was being stoned to death, he was chosen for (imposed) conversion to replace Judas as the twelfth hand picked Apostle.

Wouldn't it only be fitting to replace Judas Iscariot, with a Pharisee?
The Pharisees were one of three entities known two conspire, and encourage Judas to betray Yeshua.

As Judas was compelled to betray Yeshua on behalf of the Pharisees, Paul was compelled to (appear to) betray the Pharisees on behalf of Yeshua.
I believe on the streets where I was raised they would call it, 'Poetic Justice'

What makes you think that Judas was a Pharisee? He was paid by the High Priest who was a Sadducee.

 

[yedida]

Good points, both of you, Netzy and Lulav. You guys left nothing further for me to say

 

[Laureate]

What makes you think that Judas was a Pharisee? He was paid by the High Priest who was a Sadducee.

No, I didn't say Judas was a Pharisee, I was pointing out the irony of a Pharisee (Paul) being hand picked to replace Judas who made an agreement with Caiaphas the chief priest who was (historically recorded as being) a Pharisee.

 

[visionary]

I think the apostles were doing their best with what they knew. They knew that lots were drawn for the two goats on Yom Kippur. They knew that the High priest used the Urim and the Thummim for making decisions..

Exodus 28:30
And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

Given that they believed Yeshua would want them to keep the number 12, they looked to a "tried and true" method to help them make this choice. But as we know, man may choose but unless God calls, it won't make a difference.

 

[mercy1061]

The apostles were the apostles, not necessarily because they were "hand-picked by Messiah," but because they were first-hand eyewitnesses of Messiah's life from the very beginning of His ministry:

and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. - Jn 15:27

Ye are witnesses of these things. - Lk 24:48

But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. - Acts 1:8
​

This was confirmed by the Apostles John & Peter:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. Jn 1:14

That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal [life], which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ: ... And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. - 1John 1

And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world. - 1John 4:14

The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: - 1Pet 5:1

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. - 2Pet 1:16

for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard. - Acts 4:20
​

Matthias was chosen to replace Judas because he was one of two eyewitnesses from the very beginning of Messiah's ministry, as was required for the original apostles:

Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. - Acts 1:21,22
​

Paul was not an eyewitness to Messiah's ministry.

Stephen could not have been an apostle. There is no evidence that he was a witness, nor did he know that Torah was ordained by YHWH - not by the angels, as he claimed! (Acts 7:53)

I doubt it. Paul did not betray the Pharisees. In fact, he confessed that he remained a Pharisee well into his "Christian ministry" (Acts 23:6, Phl 3:5).

You have made some excellent points. In fact Pharisee Paul only claimed to be an "apostle" to the gentiles, the original 12 were apostles to the jews. Therefore Paul is a Pharisee, not an official apostle of the original 12. I would have to slightly disagree with you with regards to Stephen; I agree that Stephen was not an "original" apostle but the law was delivered to Abraham through a voice from an angel in heaven (Gen 22:11-12). The law says "thou shall not murder"!

If the ancient hebrews would have heard and obeyed the angel from heaven, Yeshua may have not been crucified. Of course the ancient hebrews did not personally crucify Yeshua, but conspired together with the romans to have him crucified.

Isaac was the father of Jacob, thus the angel saving Isaac, brought salvation to Israel. Yeshua had no descendants, so he is truly the the first and the last. Even if Isaac would have been raised from the dead, like some hypothesize according to Abraham's faith; he would have had no descendants like Yeshua.

 

[mercy1061]

I think the apostles were doing their best with what they knew. They knew that lots were drawn for the two goats on Yom Kippur. They knew that the High priest used the Urim and the Thummim for making decisions..

Exodus 28:30
And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

Given that they believed Yeshua would want them to keep the number 12, they looked to a "tried and true" method to help them make this choice. But as we know, man may choose but unless God calls, it won't make a difference.

I agree. The law practiced by the priest is continued in the new testament.

 

[Lulav]

No, I didn't say Judas was a Pharisee, I was pointing out the irony of a Pharisee (Paul) being hand picked to replace Judas who made an agreement with Caiaphas the chief priest who was (historically recorded as being) a Pharisee.

You said:

Wouldn't it only be fitting to replace Judas Iscariot, with a Pharisee?
The Pharisees were one of three entities known two conspire, and encourage Judas to betray Yeshua.

As Judas was compelled to betray Yeshua on behalf of the Pharisees, Paul was compelled to (appear to) betray the Pharisees on behalf of Yeshua.
I believe on the streets where I was raised they would call it, 'Poetic Justice'

What you said seemed to imply that. And the priestly group were Sadducees, I don't know where you got that Caiphas was a Pharisee?

Caiaphas the chief priest who was (historically recorded as being) a Pharisee.

Firstly, Caiaphas was not a 'chief priest', he was a High Priest.

Then assembled together the

1. chief priests and the
2. scribes and the
3. elders of the people unto the palace of
4. the high priest, who was called Caiaphas

Caiaphas upheld the Messianic prophecy that one man should die for the good of all Israel.

Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish."

I can find no concrete historic evidence to suggest that Caiaphas was not a Sadducee like the rest of his family, the family of Annas, his father in law.

 

[yedida]

You said:



What you said seemed to imply that. And the priestly group were Sadducees, I don't know where you got that Caiphas was a Pharisee?



Firstly, Caiaphas was not a 'chief priest', he was a High Priest.

Then assembled together the

1. chief priests and the
2. scribes and the
3. elders of the people unto the palace of
4. the high priest, who was called Caiaphas

Caiaphas upheld the Messianic prophecy that one man should die for the good of all Israel.






I can find no concrete historic evidence to suggest that Caiaphas was not a Sadducee like the rest of his family, the family of Annas, his father in law.

That's right. If the Sadducees had control of the Temple at the time, it's only fitting that a Sadducee would be appointed High Priest. Very unlikely that Caiaphas would be a Pharisee.

 

[Lulav]

You have made some excellent points. In fact Pharisee Paul only claimed to be an "apostle" to the gentiles, the original 12 were apostles to the jews.

Actually the 12 were sent to the Jews and the Gentiles. The risen Messiah told them:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying , All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Peter also in Acts 10, tells of his visit to Cornelius, the first of three tellings of this. He proclaims to Cornelius the G-d fearer, that

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said , Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation
he that feareth him,
and worketh righteousness,
is accepted with him.

This follows Acts 9 where we find the first of three versions of Paul's 'conversion', but in this version the voice does not tell him that he will be the apostle to the Gentiles, in fact it doesn't tell him anything except to go into Damascus and wait. It seems it came to him second hand from a man named Ananias, who got it in his vision.

Peter reiterates his story of being sent to the Gentiles later in chapters 11 (1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.) Peter tells them how it happened with Cornelius and his household.
Then again we read of this before the council in Jerusalem at Chapter 15.

His story does not change.

Therefore Paul is a Pharisee, not an official apostle of the original 12.

Paul was many things, he was a self proclaimed Pharisee but worked for a Sadducee (high priest).

I would have to slightly disagree with you with regards to Stephen; I agree that Stephen was not an "original" apostle but the law was delivered to Abraham through a voice from an angel in heaven (Gen 22:11-12). The law says "thou shall not murder"!

Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew, some say he was related to Paul, either way he was not a witness to the ministry, death or resurrection.
I am not sure what you mean by the law being delivered to Abraham by an angel. Or what this has to do with the OP, care to elaborate?

If the ancient hebrews would have heard and obeyed the angel from heaven, Yeshua may have not been crucified. Of course the ancient hebrews did not personally crucify Yeshua, but conspired together with the romans to have him crucified.

Which angel are you speaking of? And if he was not sacrificed for the many, where would the Gentiles be? They didn't have the law, they didn't have the atonement........... Besides he wanted it to happen, he did not run away, even though he knew that Judas was going to betray him.

Isaac was the father of Jacob, thus the angel saving Isaac, brought salvation to Israel. Yeshua had no descendants, so he is truly the the first and the last. Even if Isaac would have been raised from the dead, like some hypothesize according to Abraham's faith; he would have had no descendants like Yeshua.

Angels do not bring salvation, to anyone, only G-d can do this, as he has stated many times in the tenahk, that he is our Salvation.

Yes, there is the story that Isaac was indeed sacrificed and then raised from the dead, but how would that keep him from procreating? And we have no proof that Yeshua was celibate, unmarried, childless.

 

[pat34lee]

Yes, there is the story that Isaac was indeed sacrificed and then raised from the dead, but how would that keep him from procreating? And we have no proof that Yeshua was celibate, unmarried, childless.

We do know that he was without sin, so if he was not married, he was celibate. Since his purpose was not to create a divine bloodline, as that would vastly complicate his mission, I don't see that he would have been married or have had children. Just the fact that there is no hint of any such relationship until many years after his time would seem to discount the possibility. People knew him and his family: his mother, father, sisters and brothers. They would have known if he was married.

 

[Lulav]

We do know that he was without sin, so if he was not married, he was celibate. Since his purpose was not to create a divine bloodline, as that would vastly complicate his mission, I don't see that he would have been married or have had children. Just the fact that there is no hint of any such relationship until many years after his time would seem to discount the possibility. People knew him and his family: his mother, father, sisters and brothers. They would have known if he was married.

Being married, you could be celibate or not. But yes, I worded that wrong, we don't really know if he was married or celibate. And I don't see where his purpose was not to procreate, that is one of the first mitzvot. This is one of the reasons that Jews will tell you he wasn't the Messiah, because he did not keep that commandment. He was of the royal line of David and that needs to continue.

Sure folks would have known if he was married or not, but that doesn't mean it would filter down to us. The Catholic contention was that he was a virgin, as was his mother and her mother! He was sinless and she was sinless. Should we believe that? I don't. (the latter). However to uphold this contention there were many things that happened to back this up. They had to make Miriam marry an old man, but never have sex with him. The ones who are proclaimed to be his sisters and brothers, are made to be either cousins or step-siblings, from another marriage of Joseph, and the most likely candidate for a wife, Mary of Magdala was made out to be a prostitute, when it doesn't say any such thing. Redaction and omission has happened wither we want to believe it or not, by those who were not Jews, and for their own political purposes.

 

[ananda]

Being married, you could be celibate or not. But yes, I worded that wrong, we don't really know if he was married or celibate. And I don't see where his purpose was not to procreate, that is one of the first mitzvot. This is one of the reasons that Jews will tell you he wasn't the Messiah, because he did not keep that commandment. He was of the royal line of David and that needs to continue.

But He was betrothed, and He was indeed fruitful and multiplied. We are His bride, and His offspring, no?

 

[yedida]

Being married, you could be celibate or not. But yes, I worded that wrong, we don't really know if he was married or celibate. And I don't see where his purpose was not to procreate, that is one of the first mitzvot. This is one of the reasons that Jews will tell you he wasn't the Messiah, because he did not keep that commandment. He was of the royal line of David and that needs to continue.

Sure folks would have known if he was married or not, but that doesn't mean it would filter down to us. The Catholic contention was that he was a virgin, as was his mother and her mother! He was sinless and she was sinless. Should we believe that? I don't. (the latter). However to uphold this contention there were many things that happened to back this up. They had to make Miriam marry an old man, but never have sex with him. The ones who are proclaimed to be his sisters and brothers, are made to be either cousins or step-siblings, from another marriage of Joseph, and the most likely candidate for a wife, Mary of Magdala was made out to be a prostitute, when it doesn't say any such thing. Redaction and omission has happened wither we want to believe it or not, by those who were not Jews, and for their own political purposes.

Here's an off-the-wall thought: Yeshua couldn't procreate because of the law of "after its own kind." (Here we have breaking the lesser for the greater, at least in this instance, it looks like it would be in this order.) If we believe the virgin birth, then he's not exactly like the rest of human-kind and his offspring (at least the first to second or thrid generations) would be of a different kind of human.....don't you think?

 

[ananda]

Here's an off-the-wall thought: Yeshua couldn't procreate because of the law of "after its own kind." (Here we have breaking the lesser for the greater, at least in this instance, it looks like it would be in this order.) If we believe the virgin birth, then he's not exactly like the rest of human-kind and his offspring (at least the first to second or thrid generations) would be of a different kind of human.....don't you think?

My wife & I just had this discussion

If Messiah did have earthly children, then His sons and daughters would be nothing more than normal men and women, as they would be of His fleshly nature, and not His spiritual nature.

 

[mercy1061]

Actually the 12 were sent to the Jews and the Gentiles.

The twelve were sent only to Israel before his ressurrection. As another poster stated you had to follow him from the "beginning" in order to be called his apostle. This is why an apostle was chosen that was already following him.

The risen Messiah told them:

Peter also in Acts 10, tells of his visit to Cornelius, the first of three tellings of this. He proclaims to Cornelius the G-d fearer, that

Why was Peter accepted and Paul rejected by the jews? Was it not because Paul was a Pharisee? The apostles did not fully accept Paul even after his conversion; Yeshua tells the apostles to beware of the pharisees.....

Peter even warns that Pharisee Paul's words are difficult to understand.

This follows Acts 9 where we find the first of three versions of Paul's 'conversion', but in this version the voice does not tell him that he will be the apostle to the Gentiles, in fact it doesn't tell him anything except to go into Damascus and wait. It seems it came to him second hand from a man named Ananias, who got it in his vision.

Of course, but he was rejected by the jews, so he had to seek another audience. If Pharisee Paul would have been accepted by the jews, he may have never been sent to the gentiles to establish a church.

Peter reiterates his story of being sent to the Gentiles later in chapters 11 (1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.) Peter tells them how it happened with Cornelius and his household.
Then again we read of this before the council in Jerusalem at Chapter 15.

His story does not change.

Paul was many things, he was a self proclaimed Pharisee but worked for a Sadducee (high priest).

I think he may have been a well known Pharisee; but an apostle is questionable. Since he writes in his letter (to the gentiles) calling himself an apostle; but Pharisee Paul also claimed to be crucified with Christ. In fact, no apostles were crucified with Christ; only the worst sinners.

Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew, some say he was related to Paul, either way he was not a witness to the ministry, death or resurrection.
I am not sure what you mean by the law being delivered to Abraham by an angel. Or what this has to do with the OP, care to elaborate?

I was only responding to a poster comment that the Torah came from YHWH, not the angel.

Which angel are you speaking of?

Gen 22:11-12

11 But the angel of Adonai called to him out of heaven: “Avraham? Avraham!” He answered, “Here I am.” 12 He said, “Don’t lay your hand on the boy! Don’t do anything to him! For now I know that you are a man who fears God, because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

And if he was not sacrificed for the many, where would the Gentiles be? They didn't have the law, they didn't have the atonement........... Besides he wanted it to happen, he did not run away, even though he knew that Judas was going to betray him.

Abraham was a gentile before he was circumcised, therefore Abraham received the law. It was possible for a gentile to receive the law in the old testament. Israel's grandfather was a gentile; her ancestors were idolaters.

Angels do not bring salvation, to anyone, only G-d can do this, as he has stated many times in the tenahk, that he is our Salvation.

The angel from heaven commanding Abraham to not harm the boy; did spare Isaac's life, then afterward Jacob was born from Isaac. The law says "YOU shall not murder". Abraham was not allowed to murder his only son with his own hands; so the jews conspired to have the romans to crucify Yeshua. This was not the proper protocol for human sacrifice, human offerings were supposed to be burned alive. This is why Pharisee Paul writes:

Romans 12:1
I exhort you, therefore, brothers, in view of God’s mercies, to offer yourselves as a sacrifice, living and set apart for God. This will please him; it is the logical “Temple worship” for you.

The three hebrew boys thrown into the fiery furnace.

Yes, there is the story that Isaac was indeed sacrificed and then raised from the dead, but how would that keep him from procreating?

I have never heard of that story. Only those "born from above" can be "born again" (John 3:7). Yeshua was the "firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).

And we have no proof that Yeshua was celibate, unmarried, childless.

Yeshua himself says that he is the first and the last.

Rev 22
12 “Pay attention!” [says Yeshua,] “I am coming soon, and my rewards are with me to give to each person according to what he has done. 13 I am the ‘A’ and the ‘Z,’ the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

 

[back2thebible]

How many Apostles did Yeshua personally hand pick initially?

Luke 6:12
And it came to pass in those days, that he (Yeshua) went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to Elohym.

6:13
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

6:14
Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

6:15
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphæus, and Simon called Zelotes,

6:16
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

I count the original twelve...
1) Peter
2) James
3) John
4) Andrew
5) Philip
6) Thomas
7) Bartholomew
8) Matthew
9) James (Ben Alpheus)
10) Simon (Zealotes)
11) Judas (brother of James)
12) Judas (Iscariot)

Yet after the betrayal of Judas I count Paul as the replacement of Judas, not Matthias, because Matthias was not hand picked by Yeshua, and Saul/Paul was.

John 15:16
You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

My point being, Yeshua personally selected his Apostles not someone else, and note how He spent the entire night in prayer prior to doing so, compared to the eleven Apostles appointing two candidates for the Lord to choose from, they did not pray before they appointed the two candidates, but afterwards they prayed, asking which of the two appointees were worthy to replace Judas (Iscariot), then they drew lots to see which one the Lord would pick, (Acts 1:15-26).

When I read this passage, Ruach HaKodesh asked me, if I saw something wrong with the way it went down, and I answered yes, because lots were not used to select any of Yeshua's (hand picked) Apostles.

Ruach HaKodesh then said, they alloted the Lord two choices to choose from, one lot for Joseph, and one for Matthias, where was the third lot to represent, I choose neither of these two, but be patient and wait, and see who the Lord hand picks himself, (paraphrased from memory).

From these words I concluded that they were both anxious and presumptuous to have appointed the two candidates, and the manner in which they drew lots could have been more pure/fair.

Then Ruach HaKodesh began to show me how Stephen the (Martyr) was the most likely candidate, but because Saul/Paul looked on with approval as Stephen was being stoned to death, he was chosen for (imposed) conversion to replace Judas as the twelfth hand picked Apostle.

Wouldn't it only be fitting to replace Judas Iscariot, with a Pharisee?
The Pharisees were one of three entities known two conspire, and encourage Judas to betray Yeshua.

As Judas was compelled to betray Yeshua on behalf of the Pharisees, Paul was compelled to (appear to) betray the Pharisees on behalf of Yeshua.
I believe on the streets where I was raised they would call it, 'Poetic Justice'

I like the way you think, most assuredly Paul was an apostle, but I find the bible to teach that these positions of authority were not only for a short period of time (as long as they the twelve lived) but as the body of Christ grew more apostles and prophets and teachers and evangelist are needed, just as the church grew so was the need for apostles, I would say its much like the priesthood, the mantle is passed on, I would concur Paul passed his on to Timothy

 

[yedida]

My wife & I just had this discussion

If Messiah did have earthly children, then His sons and daughters would be nothing more than normal men and women, as they would be of His fleshly nature, and not His spiritual nature.

That may be, but He was not of a man and a woman so his offspring would be different by virtue of His difference - His birth did not follow that law (by God's decree) but does that release Him to break that law?