Replacing the 12th Apostle

mercy1061 said:

I am on my way to visit you for the third time. And as the Scriptures say, “Any charges must be proved true by at least two or three witnesses.” 2 During my second visit I warned you that I would punish you and anyone else who doesn’t stop sinning. I am far away from you now, but I give you the same warning.

Click to expand...

If one man says something three times, does that count as three witnesses?

netzarim said:

If one man says something three times, does that count as three witnesses?

Click to expand...

I am uncertain, but I know the rules of baseball say that with one pitcher and one batter; three strikes you are out. I wonder if Pharisee Paul ever played baseball?

Laureate said:

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'

Click to expand...

God is capable of running the world. I think it's just better to trust that He always knew who the Twelve would ultimately be, and in His sovereignty made it happen. The proof is in the life of Matthias, who preached to all and died a martyr. Perhaps that's not good enough for some of the critics on this forum, but I'll take it as a sign of a man of God.

ContraMundum said:

God is capable of running the world. I think it's just better to trust that He always knew who the Twelve would ultimately be, and in His sovereignty made it happen. The proof is in the life of Matthias, who preached to all and died a martyr. Perhaps that's not good enough for some of the critics on this forum, but I'll take it as a sign of a man of God.

Click to expand...

I think their first acts in replacing the last apostle was right in line with what they understood at the time and God honored it with the man He chose - Matthias.

Laureate said:

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).

Click to expand...

I would note that one would have to overlook a host of historcal practices in order to conclude that the apostles themselves were wrong to do as they did with Matthias. For the apostles lived within a culture that loved God's Torah/Law--and the Torah gave many examples of others casting lots in order to discern the Will of the Lord..with the Lord giving divine guidance on things through that methodology. ..including things such as Urim and Thummim.

One would walk in wisdom, of course, in making decisions...but it was perfectly acceptable to cast lots on important decisions, no different than praying and asking the Lord to reveal something in a dream or a vision or a sign for confirmation (more#5#19 and #25 as it concerns the Biblical history of casting lots). The apostles did pray/ask the Lord to reveal whom to chose...and it fell to Mattias.

As it was matter of having an eyewitness of CHrist and knowing him to be an apostle, it makes sense that Mattias was chosen---and history does not show that choice in vain since the man died as a martyr. One tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded. (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7).

Something else to consider, as it concerns being an apostle, is that even Christ himself didn't always hand-pick people who walked in the power that the apostles did.
Who was the man casting out demons in the name of CHrist as the apostles did? Who knows..but it's interesting that he was doing things that Christ had comissioned the apostles to do---and even if saying (as some do) that the man could've been one of the 70 empowered for ministry after the apostles were, the reality is that this situation was done BEFORE that time frame. What you have is a man casting out demons in the name of CHRIST (as the apostles were doing) long before Christ had the 70 sent out for ministry in Luke 10 and right after the 12 had been commissioned for ministry to heal the sick/cast out demons in Luke 9:1-3 /Luke 9.

I would be curious to see who that man was that Christ told the apostles to leave alone...as they were thinking that He hadn't handpicked that man for work they felt qualified alone to do, but not all of God's dealings are ever listed fully in scripture. We can't rule out the ways the Lord has often spoken to people who may've seemed disconnected from others. Christ could have come to the man when the apostles were unaware and told him things, or the Lord could have revealed it in a dream what he was to do. And the man did well on something that even the apostles struggled with later inLuke 9:37 even after Christ commissioned them:

You never know the people God has in place, just as it wasn't the case that Abraham wasn't the ONLY person God ever talked to since there were others in that era the Lord worked with (Job being one of them, as he was known to live in that time period). Job himself was a righteous man after God whom God highly favored---with many scholars saying that Job actually existed way before Abraham did. The Israelite author presents Job as a person living in Uz, which is outside the borders of Israel itself ---and His piety (Job 1:1) exemplifies the ideal in Israelite wisdom and He invokes the name of Yahweh (Job 1:21). But at the same time, his relationship to Abraham's offspring remains a mystery. The events of the book seem to be set in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The way Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 14:20 refer to Job along with two others apparently from ancient times enhances this impression....and so do the favorite names for the deity, God" (Hb. 'Eloah, the singular of 'Elohim) and "the Almighty" (Hb. Shadday), which seem more suited to the days before the Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 6:3 instances. The name Yahweh, the Lord, appear only in Job 1-2 and Job 38-42, with one lone exception in the middle of the book, 12:9). Again, the prophet Ezekiel mentions Job along with Noah and Daniel, and this seems to imply that he took Job as a real perosn. This is also the implication of James 5:11. With what was noted by Ezekiel, its interesting to see Noah and Job listed together---as Noah and Job are well-known righteous men of the past (Genesis 6:9, Job 1:1)..and Noah existed before the era after the Flood. Its possible that Job either existed at the same time as Noah or came directly after Him.

But the text makes clear Job was in the form of a priest, making sacrifices for the sake of his children/family and intercedding for them....with no connection to Abraham or awareness of what the Lord was doing all over the world.

The LORD Works with many you'd never know about. Thus...there's nothing to say Mattias wasn't chosen by the Lord. simply because no record exists of Christ hand-picking him in front of the other apostles. It's even possible that the man himself casting out demons was actually Mattias in an earlier state before the early church began

As another noted best on the situation of Luke 9:49-51:

Laureate said:

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'

Click to expand...

I think it should be noted that Paul himself was a Pharisee and never ceased being one. He simply was one who joined the ranks of other Pharisees (such as Nicodemus and Joseph ) that supported Christ (more discussed here on that issue ). We know that Paul was a student of the Tana Talmudic Sage Rabban Gamliel, who was the grandson of Hillel the founder of Beyt Hillel Pharisees, and we know that the 12 Shlichim (Apostles) were students of Yeshua. We know that Yeshua was largely a Hillel Pharisee (really a Sage more so than a Rabbi since he didn't go to any schools like the others and yet was well learned) and Paul supported the same strand of Pharisee culture that Christ did when it came to opposing Pharisees of the camp of Shemai----and Paul was one who had the education to get the job done that was required for reaching Gentiles/finding unique ways of presenting the Kingdom of God to them and the Transcultural Judaism he taught (as shared here, here and here)

Additionally, some things to consider on why God chose Paul was that Peter was given the commission to take the message to the gentiles...and yet didn't do that. The history of the church, according to the book of Acts, seem to indicate that Peter wasn't really doing the best in leadership when it came to ensuring unity in the body---and all parts of the Church living out their function. Paul had a specific purpose that did much for both Jews/Gentiles..and some of this was discussed more in-depth in #91

I've always been of the thought that Paul was not necessarily God's FIRST Choice---but rather the choice the Lord decided to utilize after the apostles didn't seem to get the job done that He had entrusted to them. There were already lots cast to fulfill the position of Judas when it came to the choosing of Mattias in Acts 1:12-25. Peter followed indicates that Matthias was a reasonable choice from their point of view...and lots were used to decide issues many times (Leviticus 16:7-9, Numbers 26:54-56 , Numbers 33:53-55, Numbers 34:12-14 , Joshua 18:5-7 / Numbers 36:1-3 , Joshua 14:1-3 , 1 Samuel 10:19-21 , 1 Samuel 14:40-42 , 1 Chronicles 24:30-31, Nehemiah 10:33-35, Nehemiah 11:1-3 , Esther 3:6-8 , Proverbs 16:32-33, Proverbs 18:17-19 , Jonah 1:6-8, Luke 1:8-10 , )...... although others argue that it’s not clear from Acts 1:12-26 that the Lord actually prompted the disciples to fill the vacancy in their rankss. None of the other apostles gave any objection to Paul’s description of himself as an Apostle chosen by God, (all his letters except for Philippians, Thessalonians and Philemon begin with him introducing himself this way)

Some of this is interesting to consider from a larger perspective when it comes to the exception of the apostle Paul among the apostles. For his position as the thirteenth reigning apostle can be reconciled by more closely examining Jesus' description in Matthew, "upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel". A light survey of the the Old Testament will reveal that Israel's tribes eventually numbered thirteen, although they began with twelve sons! Generally, each of the tribes of Israel was called by one of the twelve sons of Israel (Jacob), who fathered the respective tribe. However, the tribe belonging to Israel's son, Joseph, was split into two more tribes, named after Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Mansseh (Genesis 48:1-6). They were numbered with Israel's sons as his sons. Apparently, Joseph was blessed with a "double portion" of sorts (Genesis 48:21-22). In spite of their being thirteen tribes, the tribes of Israel continued to be called the "twelve" after the twelve original sons of Israel (Genesis 49:22-28; Exodus 24:4).

Likewise, the office left vacant by Judas was split into two offices, which were filled by Matthias and Paul. This spiritual figure is enforced by Jesus, Who linked their reign upon twelve thrones to the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:27-28). Therefore, there were and are twelve apostles - figuratively: Twelve appointed originally, but the twelfth office was split into two, just as the twelve original tribes of Israel were eventually numbered as thirteen. If that figure seems strange, please consider that the entire statement is figurative. The apostles' reign was ultimately over spiritual Israel, not physical Israel, since the apostles were sent to all nations in all the earth (Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 9:3, )....and the sure and ancient end of appointing modern apostles is confirmed by the last apostle, Paul, writing of the different witnesses and apostles who saw Jesus after His resurrection:
Just as the youngest child in a family may be born "unexpectedly" and several years after their older siblings, so the apostle Paul was like "one born out of due time". Figuratively speaking, there were only twelve apostles (thirteen literally), who were appointed by Jesus and remain so even today.

As it concerns the effectiveness of Paul's ministry in comparision with Peter's, the history of the Book of Acts is generally where it seems to get interesting. Its funny, when reading Acts 6:1-8, that the Jerusalem church had a great feeding program going at one point, while the Corinthians and the Thessalonians really looked out for their Jerusalem counterparts when famine hit that region. And this is significant since it seems that the church in Antioch is the first multiethnic church with intentional missions and church planting as its model. We do not know exactly who started this …although we do have a list of its leaders in Acts 13:1-3 (Acts 11:21-26, Acts 15:30). Some of the names are Greek and others are Jewish–those showing that it was not simply an “ethnic” church with programs only for one group at the exclusion of others. There was multi cultural mixture happening…

The Church in Antioch was radically different from others seeing how they sent their very best (Paul and Barnabas) out into uncharted territory rather than keep things within the camp—and whereas the Jerusalem Church looked out for its own, it didn’t do so for others abroad….and had to LITERALLY be forced through persecution to spread out. To see how the Gentile Churches had to literally keep sending support to the Jerusalem Church (Romans 15:25-28, I Corinthians 16:1-23) is amazing, especially seeing how the Mother Church of Jerusalem was responsible for so much—-and yet, the Jews there mainly kept to their own…even avoiding those who were Samaritans (Half Breed Jews) until forced out in Acts 8:. That’s odd to see the church do that since Jesus Himself had a heart for Samaria ( John 4:4-6, Luke 9:50-56, Luke 17:10-19, )—-and he told them SPECIFICALLY that the power of the Spirit was to go to Samaria and all the ends of the earth (Acts 1:7-9 , Matthew 28).

Though the early church prospered where they were, it seems things got inward and no action was going OUTWARD—and thus, the persecution sent them/the apostles toward Samaria anyhow ( Acts 8:1-3, Acts 8:4-6 , Acts 9:30-32 ).

When Noah stepped off the ark God gave him the original command to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1, 7). Like people so often do, they tried to settle in one place and started a building project in direct disobedience to God’s design and God had to force decentralization with the confusion of languages (Gen. 11:7-8). The issue was not whether or not the building was evil. The reason God had to intervene was to force obedience to His command to decentralize and fill the earth.

The church has been given a command to spread out and fill the earth as well (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). But like all people, the apostles struggled with the temptation to settle in one place and build—-and some of this may’ve been due to their desire to not go through so much transition since they already had to deal with being a new movement and seeing their Lord ascend into Heaven.

When looking at how the churches developed in Antioch, Ephesus, or Thessalonica, it seems that they inherently had a healthier outlook and a better model of church than did the church in Jerusalem when it became isolated with its own affairs. Jesus commanded the first disciples in Acts 1:8 to spread out from Jerusalem until the ends of the earth are filled with the power of God. However, they all stayed in Jerusalem. Just as God forced decentralization in Genesis 11 with languages, he forced decentralization in Acts by allowing persecution (Acts 8:1).

Though they were blessed with comfort as seen in Acts 2:41-46 as they dilligently maintained a credible witness amongst their own people—-as was the case with much of the Black Church when dealing with outisde oppressive/internal struggles—-the comfort came at the price of them being disconnected with the global arena.

Ironically, after the perseuction by Saul, what’s interesting is that literally everyone went from the Jerusalem church went out except the “sent ones” (Apostles) who were given the command in the first place. They only went after others before them made contact ( Acts 8:24-26 Acts )—and even then, it still seems apparent that Peter Struggled with Racism/exclusion of others (Acts 11:1-19, Acts 10:9-48, Galatians 2:8-18, etc) Only Philip, who was working alongside Stephen, went to Samaritans (closest to being deemed "Gentiles") and reached out as Christ commanded...setting the stage for Gentile revival.

This brings us back to the church in Antioch, where God had to use others to do the job that the sent ones were called to do..(Acts 13:1-3). Peter and those others in Acts 15:1-22 gave their gave their blessing to the new apostles in their multicultural vision for the Kingdom….and it seems that the only way for their to be peace was for Paul to be for the Gentiles whereas Peter and the others would be solely for the Jews ( Galatians 2:8-10 )

Perhaps they felt that those with more experience in Multicultural Backgrounds would be better suited for working with those in multicultural issues while they being more comfortable/suited for their own people would stay home………………


By Acts 21:17-37, Paul returns to the Jerusalem church and finally the “sent ones” are gone. Only James, who supported Multicultural perspectives (Acts 15:12-14 ), Paul is taken aside and told in private that he shouldn’t be there… that the church was overrun with legalists who would attack Paul if they see him (Acts 21:20-26). And sure enough, he is attacked, arrested and many in the Jerusalem Church tried to have him killed…

By A.D 70, the Jerusalem Church was nearly gone—and the second tier generation of leaders had risen up, taking the church in differing directions. For those directions it went into, it avoided the dangers of being centralized in one location amongst one group —as Jerusalem was destroyed….while those with a multi-cultural perspective were able to go on.


Without Paul, the church would have not been able to survive to the significant degree which it did...

The key to solving this issue is to identify, what exactly was the purpose of the office of "apostle".

I contend that the apostles were the foremost & eldest disciples who knew Yehoshua personally, and knew all details of His life & teachings as first-hand witnesses. They were divinely empowered to perfectly recount the record of His life and teachings.

I also contend that "apostles" (while on earth) were not infallible & sinless lords of the "church", nor did they have any particular authority beyond any other elder, such as James the brother of Yehoshua & leader of the congregation at Jerusalem. They were not guaranteed perfection in their actions or words (beyond recounting Messiah's Life & Words, that is).

Laureate said:

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.

Click to expand...

That Paul was one chosen by the Lord as an apostle included in the primary group of the 12 is not something I see as in conflict with the ideology of other apostles existing outside of them....for to me, its an issue of levels/establishing rankings. The 12 apostles are the "chief" apostles, whereas the others are also apostles but in a differing sense---lesser, but still carrying authority.

And we see this plainly when seeing the many others noted to be apostles/in the position of apostle in Acts. Take Barnabas...one who was a Levite/trained in Levitical Law and who trained Paul at one point/sponsored him before the other apostles...and his word counting for much due to his position, as well as the ways he looked out for people in the community
Paul mentioned him favorably later when speaking of the rights of an apostle:
Its interesting to consider the example of Barnabas when it comes to the definition of what it means to be an "Apostle"---for some would say that the apostles themselves could only be the ORIGINAL 12 and no one had the right to challenge them....but it seems that both Paul and Barnabas did---and later on, it seems that the churches that both Paul and Barnabas started in Antioch were able to survive/thrive FAR better than those in Jerusalem where the original 12 were.

When it comes to saying what the original criteria is for being an apostle, most will go to Acts 1:21-26 (KJV):
The problem here is Acts 1 does not lay down this criterion for all future apostles. Paul, of course, would not meet this requirement..but Acts 9-10 show clearly that Paul was visited BY Jesus.

Regarding the replacement of Judas, it appears that there was a group of men who did indeed met this criterion, from which they selected Barsabas and Mathias. ...and thus, in many ways, Paul was an exception. In saying he was an exception, we also declare the requirements stated in Acts 1 null and void for future apostles. Paul did not accompany the original apostles from the baptism by John to the day He ascended into heaven. For some reason, however, many critics claim that this is the lone exception and thus, the Lord would not allow any others. Certainly, one is free to make such a claim, but the Bible contains no foundation for it.

All can usually agree that Paul is an exception...bu there were there other Apostles..

First, there was Barnabas. Acts 14:14 records,
There was also Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4:6-9,
Then, there was James, the brother of Jesus Christ, who was not one of the original Twelve (and there were two other apostles named James). In Galatians 1:19, Paul says, "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And James helped in the leadership of the early church and had as much authority as the other apostles.

Additionally, there was also Silvanus and Timothy. In 1 Thessalonians, we find Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, writing to those in Thessalonica:
Later, they're referenced as Apostles...
There are two others that could be considered apostles, as in Romans 16:16-17 Paul praises a woman named Junia as "outstanding among the apostles." The language issue/translation is mainly why there's debate, but there are many academics who've been of the mindset that having a female translation was the correct one ....and with that one, it always seems to be something that gets ALOT of people upset--for many cannot handle the idea that women were actually ministers of the Gospel just as the male apostles were. For more info, one can go here to the thread entitled Women rabbis (which examines the many female leaders of high rank in the world of the apostles).

Also, some good resources to consider on the matter would be the following:

• The Apostle Junia - God's Word To Women
• Junia . . . Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7)
• Junia or Junias, what does the evidence tell us ... - Michael S. Heiser

Using the New Testament text, it seems clear that there are a significant number of men with the title of "Apostle"----and logically, one must ask "Did all 19 or 21 see the resurrected Lord?"...to that question, we don't know. If they did, it is not recorded in our current New Testament or there to our knowledge. Suffice it to say, there were several other Apostles, in addition to the original 12. And while the original 11 (minus Judas) were chosen from men who had been with Christ throughout His ministry, it doesn't seem that this was never declared a universal requirement........

Something that immediately comes to my mind is that the Book of Acts is as much a book about Description of events as much as it can be about instruction on what to do---and not every description on what occurred is necessarily on what should have been done. The conflict between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 16 is classic, as many academics have noted that the conflict DIDN'T have to happen...even though its recorded. And though many assume Paul was right because he split/God was using him, others have noted its possible that he was very wrong when looking at the outcome of what occurred with John Mark being trained by Barnabas...and becoming useful to the Lord.


Likewise, the same is possible with Acts 1...as Acts 1 was a recording of events/actions rather than PRESCRIPTIVE of all that men should do, there may need to be caution in saying that the actions of the apostles in Acts 1 is to be taken as a sign of what to do. That'd be no more reasonable than saying that we should examine/do as they apostles did when it came to their initially not GOING to Gentile territory as Jesus commanded---as that was something that was error, even though it was recorded and they were still doing ministry...and only later was it realized by the apostles where they had error in ignoring ministry amongst the Gentiles.
__________________

ContraMundum said:

God is capable of running the world. I think it's just better to trust that He always knew who the Twelve would ultimately be, and in His sovereignty made it happen. The proof is in the life of Matthias, who preached to all and died a martyr. Perhaps that's not good enough for some of the critics on this forum, but I'll take it as a sign of a man of God.

Click to expand...

Good Word God is in control and doesn't make mistakes, nor is He unable to work things out for the good of His people.

Easy G (G²);61568372 said:

Its interesting to consider the example of Barnabas when it comes to the definition of what it means to be an "Apostle"---for some would say that the apostles themselves could only be the ORIGINAL 12 and no one had the right to challenge them....but it seems that both Paul and Barnabas did---and later on, it seems that the churches that both Paul and Barnabas started in Antioch were able to survive/thrive FAR better than those in Jerusalem where the original 12 were.

Click to expand...

Messiah does not measure success or legitimacy by numbers (Mt 7:13-14)

All can usually agree that Paul is an exception...bu there were there other Apostles..

Click to expand...

Except me!

netzarim said:

Messiah does not measure success or legitimacy by numbers (Mt 7:13-14)

Click to expand...

Indeed, and neither did Paul or Barnabas. It's measured by conforming to His heart/message, which will ALWAYS grow just like he said it would ( Matthew 13:31-33/ Matthew 13 ). And where the church is strong/reflecting what He taught, numbers are always a big deal when seeing how the Lord adds on to it (Acts 2:46-47 , Acts 5:13-15, Acts 9:30-32 , Acts 11:19-30, Acts 16:4-6/Acts 16 ). When it comes to health/being able to survive, that's something that Christ often noted as something that would be dependent on being in Him (John 15). And when the Church grows and others walk in obediance to who He is/what he calls for, it's not a matter of "Well, you can't look at numbers alone!!!" as much as a matter of "Look at the fruit"...and a lot of people often bring out Mt 7:13-14 when churches are doing poorly in discipleship/lifestyle after Christ by saying "Well, it's not about the numbers!!" when the reality is that their churches are dying due issues of the flesh being out of control/choking the life out of others just as it happens in many other places that went under due to allowing certain things to flourish (i.e. sexual immorality, backbitting/gossip, slander, pride, selfishness, xenophobia/racial discrimination, etc). Of course, in those times when the church is under persecution and some churches get wiped out, understanding that it's not about the numbers is a big deal since people can grow discouraged without cause and forget that God is sovereign.

Discussed more elsewhere when examining the realities of Crypto-Christianity/Crypto-Judaism and what happened when others around the world were forced into hiding...many having a theology of extinction/being prepared to be wiped out if it meant glorifying the Lord (as seen here and here ).

Except me!

Click to expand...

Your responses are getting stranger and stranger...........

mercy1061 said:

Pharisee Paul is not preaching another gospel; therefore Pharisee Paul at this time is not cursing the angel of Adonai. The angels do guard the way to the tree of life with a flaming sword. There are "angels" but only one sword turned in every direction.

Click to expand...

We don't know that for sure, Paul mentions differing messages to many of the congregations, proclaiming his is the correct one, but pitted against whose? And the Keruvim are a specific type of heavenly being, they are those on the mercy seat, the throne of G-d, and to guard the tree of life, and the adversary, known as HaSatan, was also a Keruv. But what has this to do with anything?

mercy1061 said:

Thank you for the correction. I will be careful to denote this in my future observations concerning Pharisee Paul not being an apostle (delegated to replace one of the twelve).

Click to expand...

There was a great difference in the two and for anyone looking it up I thought the correction should be made. We all make mistakes, this was not an insult to you.

mercy1061 said:

Pharisee Paul would be "crowned" among the phillipians (Phil 4:1); therefore a king has the power or authority to punish his subjects; as a father has the right to punish his children.

So, my brothers, whom I love and long for, my joy and my crown, my dear friends, keep standing firm in union with the Lord.

Click to expand...

No, he would not be crowned among the Philippians, he was saying that he would be given a crown as reward for his work with them, which he was only hoping would happen. He was no King, nor had been given any authority to punish anyone. That is G-ds job, ALONE.

mercy1061 said:

I think one man can punish any one man as the rules of checkers prescribe.....

Pharisee Paul circumcised Timothy alone......

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Checkers? circumcision?

netzarim said:

The key to solving this issue is to identify, what exactly was the purpose of the office of "apostle".

I contend that the apostles were the foremost & eldest disciples who knew Yehoshua personally, and knew all details of His life & teachings as first-hand witnesses. They were divinely empowered to perfectly recount the record of His life and teachings.

I also contend that "apostles" (while on earth) were not infallible & sinless lords of the "church", nor did they have any particular authority beyond any other elder, such as James the brother of Yehoshua & leader of the congregation at Jerusalem. They were not guaranteed perfection in their actions or words (beyond recounting Messiah's Life & Words, that is).

Click to expand...

And apostle was one who was send forth to represent someone, in this case, Yeshua. They were sent out to teach what they had been taught by the Master, directly. This was in everyday life and observance. To me Paul, even if he did see Yeshua, which I doubt, since the three accounts don't even match up, could not have learned from him what was taught by living with him, with his disciples.

Yeshua was a man, no? and he as the Master, Rabbi, taught his students. They sat under his teachings and passed them on.

Paul on the other hand was proclaimed to have sat under Gamaliel, but he never mentions this, only Luke says this, but it contradicts how Gamaliel reacted to the new movement and how Paul did quite the opposite. Anyway, Paul could only pass on what he had been taught by Rabbi Gamaliel.

Why would someone listen to anyone that could not prove to anyone that he had learned under Messiah Yeshua, against 12 that had? for over three years? And some of them were first disciples of John who taught repentance.

Yeshua told his Apostles that they were to:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo , I am with you alway , even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Yet Paul himself proclaims that:

For Christ sent me not to baptize , but to preach the gospel : not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect .

Click to expand...

So basically he is saying he was sent to contradict what Yeshua sent his Apostles to do?

We see Peter and the others following the instructions of the Master on Shavuot, where he says:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent , and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

It is an interesting study on baptism, comparing the gospels, to the Acts and then Paul's writings.

The following cited reference is in response to the post which stated that Caiaphas was not a chief priest, but a high priest:

Webster's 3rd Dic.Amer. Eng. reads as follows:

high priest a chief priest; specif., the chief priest of the ancient Jewish priesthood

namakele said:

Laureate posted this..."that Caiaphas the chief priest who was (historically recorded as being) a Pharisee."
​

The following cited reference is in response to the post which stated that Caiaphas was not a chief priest, but a high priest:

Webster's 3rd Dic.Amer. Eng. reads as follows:

high priest a chief priest; specif., the chief priest of the ancient Jewish priesthood

Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to make a correction? Just wondering. Webster's doesn't have all the answers.

There was one High Priest at a time. He is the only one who was allowed into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippurim. There could well be many from the same line of Aaron alive at the time, so they would be considered 'chief priests' but not High Priest, not the Cohen HaGadol.

This explanation from Websters, is from the Greek so the differentiation is in the context more than the words themselves.

ContraMundum said:

God is capable of running the world. I think it's just better to trust that He always knew who the Twelve would ultimately be, and in His sovereignty made it happen..

Click to expand...

Sovereignty is truly an amazing subject, as it deals with many things in the scriptures that do seem to be a mistake when considering a lot of facts. I've had many times wondering how the Lord chose Paul in addition to the other apostles when it could have been different...with other examples in scripture coming to mind like the life of Samson/all the mistakes he made and yet the Lord still used him for His glory to fulfill His ultimate goal, as opposed to saying that all the mess Samson did was what the Lord wanted (more here ). The same could be said of things like Judah being chosen over Reuben/cursing of Levi and Simeon and others feeling that Jacob's kingly blesisng of Judah was what the Lord always wanted while others feel it could've been the case that the Lord worked out the mistakes of men for his glory (as Reuben was more righteous than Judah on multiple points/the First Born and Levi/Simeon did what their father should have done...with the Lord blessing them both later on, as seen here, #8 and #6)...and even before that situation, there's the situation of Isaac and Ishmael and others thinking Ishmael was a mistake the Lord didn't care for and yet the Lord worked it out for His glory with Ishmael/his descendants being blessed and even aiding the arrival of the Messiah in multiple ways (as discussed here).

I definately don't think Paul was anywhere near being a mistake, although I do think he was sent to address the mistakes of others....and even though he made mistakes himself , the reality is that the Lord still used him and the man was consistent much of time with what the Lord desired. In many ways, Paul is like a link in a long chain of people the Lord used to get a job done...and there were others a part of that process (be it the Original Twelve or those outside of the group who were present in the time of Christ/afterward that the Lord used....or the others such as Cornelius in Acts 10-11 who was used to begin the Gentile Pentecost/Prescence of the Spirit coming to impact the Gentile world....or the Ethiopian Eunuch impacted by Philip in Acts 8 to spread what he knew back to his homeland....or the Demonized Gentile Christ healed in Mark 5 whom the Lord told to remain where he was and talk of what CHrist did..and so many others besides that).

No one will ever be able to fully know the scope of what Paul/others accomplished and what the Lord originally had in mind at all points throughout the life of Paul...but we can be thankful for seeing how the Lord was truly glorified throughout it. And ultimately, with Paul/the other apostles, we'll be able to sit down with the Lord in the life to come and ask for all the details there

Easy G (G²);61568389 said:

Good Word God is in control and doesn't make mistakes, nor is He unable to work things out for the good of His people.

Click to expand...

Every time I hear of some error or conspiracy theory in the Bible, like Matthias not really being an Apostle chosen by God or whatever, I just see it as a lack of faith. It's a way of saying that we need more control over the Bible because obviously God isn't in charge enough. I say relax and try to live the life taught in the Bible rather than stress out over such useless speculations. Have a little faith, I say.

netzarim said:

The key to solving this issue is to identify, what exactly was the purpose of the office of "apostle".

I contend that the apostles were the foremost & eldest disciples who knew Yehoshua personally, and knew all details of His life & teachings as first-hand witnesses. They were divinely empowered to perfectly recount the record of His life and teachings.

I also contend that "apostles" (while on earth) were not infallible & sinless lords of the "church", nor did they have any particular authority beyond any other elder, such as James the brother of Yehoshua & leader of the congregation at Jerusalem. They were not guaranteed perfection in their actions or words (beyond recounting Messiah's Life & Words, that is).

Click to expand...

Why not flip the question around and solve the puzzle of what an Apostle was by what they did, rather than try to configure a definition and then try to see if who will fit in. Let the actions of the Apostles define what Apostles are. After all, no two were alike.

ContraMundum said:

Every time I hear of some error or conspiracy theory in the Bible, like Matthias not really being an Apostle chosen by God or whatever, I just see it as a lack of faith. It's a way of saying that we need more control over the Bible because obviously God isn't in charge enough. I say relax and try to live the life taught in the Bible rather than stress out over such useless speculations. Have a little faith, I say.

Click to expand...

Some things do take faith more so than others, whereas other things are open to honest questioning/studying if one's doing so to better understand how things work and thus honor the Lord

But there are some things which ultimately don't matter as much as others.

ContraMundum said:

Why not flip the question around and solve the puzzle of what an Apostle was by what they did, rather than try to configure a definition and then try to see if who will fit in. Let the actions of the Apostles define what Apostles are. After all, no two were alike.

Click to expand...

We don't have much corroborating testimony as to what the apostles did after Messiah's ascension. What we can be sure of is what He commanded them to do