Replacing the 12th Apostle

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

The apostles did make mistakes as recorded in Acts, even though their mistakes didn't change the fact that they were apostles/commissioned by the Lord to do great things in building the church. It's similar to someone being given the call to pastor a fellowship/having the giftings to do so as well as training. The fact that they are not flawless and make mistakes along the way doesn't equate to them no longer having that calling....nor does it mean that times of not looking as good as another pastor equate to them being false as a pastor.

 

[Lulav]

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

Yes, it seems that the book entitled the Acts of the Apostles, really focuses on not the 12 but the one who was friend or employer of the writer. There is the Didache, which might hold a better picture of what happened.

[SIZE=-1]The Didache[/SIZE]

 

[ananda]

Yes, it seems that the book entitled the Acts of the Apostles, really focuses on not the 12 but the one who was friend or employer of the writer. There is the Didache, which might hold a better picture of what happened. [SIZE=-1]The Didache[/SIZE]

Lots of good advice there in the Didache!

 

[mercy1061]

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

How so? You never heard the responses before?

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?

Earlier I was responding to another poster about the angel of Adonia.

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.

This is why I said "thank you".

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.

He said he would punish any one who does not stop sinning. The courts have the power to punish you if they find that you have broken the law. Considering that Pharisee Paul is an expert in the law of Moses...

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

In the "ancient" game of checkers (3000 bc) each checker has equal weight or power until the checker reaches the end of his enemies side; then he is crowned by his enemy with another "dead" checker to carry on his head.

 

[yedida]

How so? You never heard the responses before?


Earlier I was responding to another poster about the angel of Adonia.



This is why I said "thank you".



He said he would punish any one who does not stop sinning. The courts have the power to punish you if they find that you have broken the law. Considering that Pharisee Paul is an expert in the law of Moses...




In the "ancient" game of checkers (3000 bc) each checker has equal weight or power until the checker reaches the end of his enemies side; then he is crowned by his enemy with another "dead" checker to carry on his head.

When you use quotes, please show the original poster/post. It's awful reading a posted response and having no idea who you're talking to. I follow these threads and have read everything that I'm aware of in this one, but for the life of me I have no idea who you're responding to, those quotes are not ringing a bell at all.....
Thank you.


Ah, okay, I found it (missed it somehow earlier). But still, it just makes it easier all around to have the original post/poster listed. Thanks again.

 

[Laureate]

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).

The verses which you beautifully pointed out, clearly shows a precedent that pertains to all of the Apostles which Yeshua personally commissioned prior to his crucifixion, i.e., they were all there with Yeshua in the beginning of Yeshua's ministry which took place two thousand (+) years ago.

I can see where Yeshua points out, in addition to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, that the testimony of his (Disciples, and) Apostles (to whom the words would apply) would make a worthy witness, and in the context which Yeshua spoke I could naturally assume that Yeshua was referring to them being (eye) witnesses of his resurrection, but I fail to see where Yeshua indicates that this precedent is also a requirement to be (one of) his Apostles.

Biblical standard only requires two or three witness, therefore the word "must" used by Peter, appears to be suggesting a requirement that Yeshua never specified, however Yeshua did specify, let all things be established by the mouth of two or three Witnesses.

 

[Laureate]

Quote Netzarim:
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
End Quote:

As it pertains to "the Very beginning of Yeshua's ministry", a closer examination of the scriptures will show that not all twelve of the initial Apostles were present with Yeshua at his baptism/the Very beginning of his ministry which began 2,000 (+) years ago.

Matthew 4:1
Then was Yeshua led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

4:11
Then the devil leaves him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

4:12
Now when Yeshua had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;

4:13
And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:

4:17
From that time Yeshua began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

4:18
And Yeshua, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

4:19
And he said unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

4:21
And going on from thence, he saw another pair of brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.

In John's account, only two Apostles are specified as being witnesses to John's baptism of Yeshua (i.e., Andrew, and probably John), the other Apostles were reportedly not with Yeshua from the very, very beginning. therefore I assume Peter was referring to, any Disciple that was with Yeshua any where from the baptism (and continued with him) unto his ascension, so that they could be an eye witness to the fact that Yeshua did raise from the dead.

The passages which I quote from the Gospel of Matthew (4:1-4:21) makes it clear that Yeshua was referring to those who were with him -throughout- the beginning (of his ministry), and not necessarily that they were with him from the -very- beginning of his ministry which began 2,000 (+) years ago.

The lexicographical meaning of an Apostle in its raw form implies one who is Committed (such as a disciple), and thus Commissioned by a higher authority (i.e., given specific instructions to follow), and are then Sent out (as living Epistles), the context often refers to such as "an early advocate or leader of a new principle or movement, esp. one aimed at reform", (just as Yeshua's Apostles were).

One major difference between a Disciple and an Apostle is "commissioning", one is not commisioned/chosen to be a Disciple, but one is commisioned/chosen to be an Apostle, such a commissioning does not come from another Apostle, any more than can a prophet assume the authority to ordain another prophet, not without explicit instructions from on High first, the Commissioning must come from higher to be legitimate.

The Apostles were explicitly instructed to go to a designated area and wait until the promise of the Father to pour out his Holy Spirit upon them, where does he suggest for them to appoint two candidates? Elijah was explicitly told who to appoint, who to anoint, and who to ordain, Yeshua was full of the Holy Spirit yet did not select his own Apostles until he spent an entire evening praying/communing with the Father, why would anyone not pray or commune with their Maker before assuming to put someone in a divine office when they themself have not been given the authority to do so, neither was it part of the explicit instructions they were given, nor had they received the Holy Spirit to benefit from a higher discernment?

 

[Laureate]

Quote Netzarim:
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)
End Quote:

Acts 7:53
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Where does Stephen say, that the angels ordained anything? nevertheless, I do believe the following verses justify Stephen's testimony...

Exodus 3:2
And the angel of YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3:4
And when YHWH saw that he turned aside to see, Elohym called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moshe, Moshe. And he said, Here am I.

3:6
Moreover he, (YHWH) said, I am the Divine Author of your father, the Elohym of Abraham, the Elohym of Isaac, and the Elohym of Jacob. And Moshe hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon Elohym.

According to Psalms 104:4, Elohym makes his angels spirits, and his ministers are a flaming fire:

Deuteronomy 4:12
And YHWH spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: you heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only you heard a voice.

4:13
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

4:14
And YHWH commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might do them in the land where you go over to possess it.

4:15
Take you therefore good heed unto yourselves; for you saw no manner of similitude on the day that YHWH spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

According to Peter (before he was anointed from on High), Yeshua should not have fulfilled what Yeshua came to fulfill, (Matthew 16:22-23) consequently, Yeshua referred to Peter as 'Satan', because Peter stood offensively to Yeshua: because he did not appreciate the things that were of Elohym, but those things that were appreciated/esteemed by men; this is the same hard headed man (bless his heart), whom Yeshua had to tell three times, "feed my sheep", and when the time came to do so, he replied, (Acts 6:2) "There is no reason that we should leave the word of Elohym, and serve tables...", yet Yeshua had a reason for feeding how many?

6:3
Wherefore, brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

6:4
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

6:5
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6:8
And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Notice the difference now that Peter (and the congregation) have the Holy Spirit, instead of the appointees being without the Holy Spirit, men endowed with the Holy spirit appointed men, just as Yeshua was full of the Holy Spirit when he appointed his Apostles.

 

[Laureate]

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.

When I initially read the biblical account I was not looking for error on anyone's behalf, but was encouraged to look again closely by the Holy Spirit, and then with the presence and purity of Ruach HaKodesh contrasting the contextual events, then the lack of equity became apparent, please let me reiterate, it is not about finding error (with anyone) that is important here, at least not for me, so much as it is about discovering what is, or what would be (more) proper and fitting, according to scripture and the Holy Spirit, otherwise I agree, Peter was acting according to a precedent established by Yeshua, no fault can be found in his motive, I believe he was anxious to do good, but in light of the evidence, I believe he jumped the gun, an innocent mistake (i.e., without guile/ill intent).

Drawing lots has always been deemed an acceptable manner of divination, but equity was absent from the Apostles attempt to draw a fair lot, in that their drawn lots limited the Lord by permitting only two choices to chose from, where was the option to continue waitijg until you receive further instructions? or to select someone other than from those two candidates?

 

[yedida]

Quote Netzarim:
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)
End Quote:

Acts 7:53
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Where does Stephen say, that the angels ordained anything? nevertheless, I do believe the following verses justify Stephen's testimony...

Exodus 3:2
And the angel of YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3:4
And when YHWH saw that he turned aside to see, Elohym called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moshe, Moshe. And he said, Here am I.

3:6
Moreover he, (YHWH) said, I am the Divine Author of your father, the Elohym of Abraham, the Elohym of Isaac, and the Elohym of Jacob. And Moshe hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon Elohym.

According to Psalms 104:4, Elohym makes his angels spirits, and his ministers are a flaming fire:

Deuteronomy 4:12
And YHWH spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: you heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only you heard a voice.

4:13
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

4:14
And YHWH commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might do them in the land where you go over to possess it.

4:15
Take you therefore good heed unto yourselves; for you saw no manner of similitude on the day that YHWH spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

According to Peter (before he was anointed from on High), Yeshua should not have fulfilled what Yeshua came to fulfill, (Matthew 16:22-23) consequently, Yeshua referred to Peter as 'Satan', because Peter stood offensively to Yeshua: because he did not appreciate the things that were of Elohym, but those things that were appreciated/esteemed by men; this is the same hard headed man (bless his heart), whom Yeshua had to tell three times, "feed my sheep", and when the time came to do so, he replied, (Acts 6:2) "There is no reason that we should leave the word of Elohym, and serve tables...", yet Yeshua had a reason for feeding how many?

6:3
Wherefore, brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

6:4
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

6:5
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6:8
And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Notice the difference now that Peter (and the congregation) have the Holy Spirit, instead of the appointees being without the Holy Spirit, men endowed with the Holy spirit appointed men, just as Yeshua was full of the Holy Spirit when he appointed his Apostles.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think you're going to "make a case" for Paul with the non-pauline Messianics here. People were getting the gospel preached to them, receiving the Holy Spirit and basically doing pretty good before Paul came along - he's not required reading in many camps, including the very earliest.
(I am not anti-Paul, but he's not all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips for me either.)

 

[Laureate]

Quote Easy G
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
End Quote:

I agree whole-heartedly to this and all you have posted,I wasn't trying to down play Matthias at all, I was trying to point out, the New Testament mentions 14 (primary) Apostles of Yeshua, 13 just so happened to be appointed by Yeshua, minus Judas, and you get 12, it was just something I noticed.

 

[ContraMundum]

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

"Corroborating testimony?" I am not being rude but I laughed so loud I startled the cat- in the neighbors house. We don't have any "Corroborating testimony" about the commands of Jesus either. Just the word of a couple of guys- written years after the fact.

You either accept the Bible, or you don't. I can live with that. I'm not trying to invent a new religion nor am I arrogant enough to think that I can solve 20 centuries of "incorrect thinking" because I know better than centuries of Christian thinkers combined and in large agreement.

The fact is this: you try to define what an Apostle is according to your 20thC paradigm that has to have everything in neat little boxes. If something doesn't fit- you discard it. Hence, you hate Paul etc, because he doesn't meet your expectations. Me, OTOH, I say let the Bible- as messy as it is- define my paradigms and then I'll work with that. So, if you think so-and-so isn't worthy or a "real" Apostle- so be it. But, I say the scriptures are far more complex than your little boxes and the mind of faith seeks to understand, not undermine.

 

[ananda]

... Yeshua was referring to them being (eye) witnesses of his resurrection, but I fail to see where Yeshua indicates that this precedent is also a requirement to be (one of) his Apostles.

Why else would the apostles repeatedly emphasize that they were eyewitnesses?

The Apostles were explicitly instructed to go to a designated area and wait until the promise of the Father to pour out his Holy Spirit upon them, where does he suggest for them to appoint two candidates? Elijah was explicitly told who to appoint, who to anoint, and who to ordain, Yeshua was full of the Holy Spirit yet did not select his own Apostles until he spent an entire evening praying/communing with the Father, why would anyone not pray or commune with their Maker before assuming to put someone in a divine office when they themself have not been given the authority to do so, neither was it part of the explicit instructions they were given, nor had they received the Holy Spirit to benefit from a higher discernment?

We don't know all of the circumstances surrounding the events of Acts 1:15-26 - I don't presume that we have all the details in Luke's account. I hold Acts largely as a history book & the work of a well-meaning historian, and thus place it generally among the Ketuvim. Therefore, I don't believe in its inspiration, but I believe parts of it are edifying.

Acts 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. ... Where does Stephen say, that the angels ordained anything?

οἵτινες ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων καὶ οὐκ ἐφυλάξατε - who received the law as it was διαταγὰς/ordained/commanded by angels, and not kept it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

" I say let the Bible- as messy as it is- define my paradigms and then I'll work with that. .

Personally, I find it interesting when seeing how many Jewish scholars have noted that what Paul actually lined up with Peter on most issues when it came to the Gentiles...with Peter doing the same thing Paul said in his letters when seeing Acts 10-11 and Acts 15 in his acknowledgements that the Holy Spirit would fall on Gentiles as well as Jews and that the Lord was not a respector of persons, but favored all who sought His face---and he noted that the Gentiles were never to feel as if they had to keep all aspects of Mosaic since it was not given to them.

Paul later confronted Peter on the issue, seeing that Peter didn't do as Christ commanded in going into all the world and treating others the same as Christ treated Gentiles...and Paul taught exactly what Christ lived out--be it in his work in Mark 5 with the demonized Gentile he healed/told to remain with his people and proclaim who he was...or with the Roman Centurion whose servant he healed and whom he noted had greater faith than all in Israel in Matthew 8...or with the woman in Matthew 15 who was a Gentile/had her daughter healed due to her great faith in Messiah...or with the woman at the Well who was a Samaritan/remained one even though she came to trust in the Messiah (and Samaritans differed from Jews at multiple points). The same thing goes for the ways he touched those with skin diseases/issues of blood and even dead bodies (as seen in Mark 6 with the little girl healed in Mark 9:18-26/Luke 8:26-56 and Luke 7:11-13 when he touched the dead body matt didn't become unclean even though the Torah warned against it...and the ways he ate with tax collectors/sinners and other unclean Jews and was willing to be criticized for it because God's Love was more important than the regulations alone.

There's also the issue of his working on the Sabbath in healing/doing good--which bothered MANY (Luke 13:13-15 and John 5:14-34 ) and the ways he noted that those who kept/fulfilled the ultimate commandments were those who loved their neighbor...with him referencing an "unclean" Samaritan as the one who fulfilled the Spirit of the Law above the priest/Levite who kept the other regulations and yet were failing at doing as the Lord commanded---as seen in Luke 10:25-39. There are many other places besides this (more discussed in #15 #35 #62 #62, #66 , #68 ,#69 #77 , #179 and #180 )

Again, whenever it seems like others try to pit Paul against the other apostles, I don't see where the logic really lines up---and the same thing goes for trying to pit Paul against all of Judaism as if he was disqualified. As said before, Paul himself was a Pharisee and never ceased being one in practice. 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 (who were very much against Gentiles being included as God's people and advocated for complete conversion of Gentiles in order for them to be acceptable before the Lord)----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)

As it concerns the ways that Paul mirrored Yeshua's form of Judaism, we know thatYeshua was a rabbi Himself, abeit different from all of the others (even though he often referenced thought from the other camps). In some of what he noted, you see thoughts that the Essenes taught....and at times, language utilized was akin to what the Zealots would say when it came to militant terminolgoy. Most scholars have noted where Christ Himself often spoke directly in line with the Pharisees, specifically the school of Hiliel....often directly at odds with the School of Shemai (which had a very LOW view of Gentiles and happened to be one that many Pharisees in the days of Christ were with).

Hiliel was involved with the school advocating for the Gentiles to not live fully as the Jews in order to achieve salvation...with their salvation being tied to things expressed to Noah and known generally amongst mankind. But Shammai's school felt Gentiles would be doomed for an eternity apart from the Lord if they didn't convert FULLY to Jewish lifestyles/law. And because of that, both schools often fought. It was this context that Yeshua stepped into, seeing how some of the Pharisees were of the Hiliel school and others of Shammai...and the latter felt Christ was often stepping over the line for daring to say the things He did with Gentiles--just as it was with Paul.

More was discussed here in #15 and #167 ...as it concerns the book by scholar, Harvey Faulk, called "Jesus the Pharisee. Time Magazine did an excellent review on the subject as well. The book by Harvey Faulk has truly been a blessing/good way to build dialouge between those who are Christians and Jews----as its often the case that both sides miss the Mark when trying to polarize. Of course, I don't agree with all of his conclusions. In example, I don't think he really grapples with those areas in which Jesus and the School of Hillel did most definitely part company---and for more, go here. Christ, as a teacher/rabbi, would be taken in His teachings (IMHO) as having his own form of Halacha whenever He challenged that of others while referencing what they did at the same time....such as with the Good Samaritan Story (more discussed here, here, here, here, and here ) or Matthew 23 when he essentially quoted directly from rabbinical law/Talmud on the differing kinds of Pharisees. As God, He didn't merely rely only upon what scholars and teachers debated on...but as a Man, he didn't simply say what He felt divorced from cultural context--or ignoring the reality that the Lord could work through men in discussions and the teachings they developed could be emphasized.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Quote Easy G
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
End Quote:
​

I agree whole-heartedly to this and all you have posted,I wasn't trying to down play Matthias at all, I was trying to point out, the New Testament mentions 14 (primary) Apostles of Yeshua, 13 just so happened to be appointed by Yeshua, minus Judas, and you get 12, it was just something I noticed.

I think that it'd be going past what the scriptures said (and you wouldn't agree whole-heartedly) when arguing that only 13 were appointed by Yeshua. As noted earlier, just because there's notice of the 12 being commissioned doesn't mean that there were no others the Lord didn't work with--and that's seen in scripture multiple times, the example of the man who wasn't of the apostles casting out demons and yet being approved by Yeshua being the biggest example. The same goes for Matthias, as casting lots after using wisdom/prayer was a means of discovering what the will of the Lord was---and it was outlined in the Law/Torah. Thus, the apostles were doing EXACTLY what the Torah suggested and there's no real basis in saying that Matthias was not appointed by the Lord simply because there's no mention of CHrist coming out of the sky and saying "Choose Mattias!!!"...for the Lord spoke to his people in a variety of ways. Looking at descriptions as an indicator of what was meant to always be prescriptions (i.e. seeing where Christ commissioned others directly and assuming it's always like that ) is like saying the Lord doesn't speak to others in dreams or through the arts because the OT noted where the Lord anointed others to interpret dreams (like Daniel and Joseph) and others to do all types of artistic works (like Bezalel in Exodus 31:2-5) and the passages in the NT on spiritual gifts like I Corinthians 12 or Romans 12 don't mention such. There's more in the text than the texts has to always make clear......

Again, there's really no objective or solid way to say that Mattias was not chosen by the Lord/Holy Spirit to do the work that he did when considering the whole of scripture. At best, one can say that the Lord determined the fate of Mattias in a differing way than he did with others----as He controls the fate of the Lot and it was not a mistake that it landed on him....but could've easily chosen to tell the apostles to not choose him if he was not meant to be one. It's not as if the Lord, if feeling that Mattias being chosen was a big mistake, could not have said "Hey guys, I don't think this guy cuts the mustard---I have someone else to work with." They did what was wise according to the scriptures, chose someone who was eye-witness to Christ/walked with them (meaning that Mattias was not a stranger to the work of the apostles and was probably one of the other disciples who followed Christ)....and the Lord blessed it

 

[pat34lee]

As you rightly pointed out, we have the corroborating testimony of multiple guys regarding Messiah's life

No, I discard paul, not only because he doesn't "fit" with the idea that he wasn't an eyewitness, but mainly because I believe that much of what he says disagrees with the Law and the Prophets (Isa 8:20). The author of 2Pet would have no reason to write his warning if he believed that Paul couldn't be interpreted to support lawlessness:

Ὑμεῖς οὖν ἀγαπητοί προγινώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε ἵνα μὴ τῇ τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ - 2Pet 3:17 - You therefore, beloved, knowing beforehand, continually-beware, that being led away with the error of the lawless, you should possibly-fall from your own stedfastness.

There would be no good reason for Messiah to spend 3+ years on earth, teaching His apostles and commissioning them to preach what they witnessed to all nations, if He would just turn around moments later to secretly commission Paul with secret knowledge, giving the latter instructions which contradicted his earlier ones. It just doesn't fit.

Paul is just another witness, just one who had not met him during his ministry. We discussed Paul on a thread sometime before. His main problem was that he was the only scholar of the group, possibly discounting Luke. He was highly trained in the scriptures, and probably knew the whole Torah by heart. If you have ever spoken with a scholar, you would see that they tend to either oversimplify when talking to others, or they use concepts and terminology that can be difficult for someone who doesn't know the subject to understand. Paul was in the second group. He taught, and the people he wrote to, he expected to learn.

You skipped 2 Peter 3:16

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
​

The people who had a problem with Paul were the unlearned and unstable, those who could not understand him, and usually Paul's words are not the only ones they twisted. People still do that today, creating their own theology by picking which parts of scripture they will accept and how they accept them.

Yeshua's ministry was seventy weeks, or just over one year. And Paul did not change anything the apostles were doing, merely adapting the work for spreading the gospel to a larger area.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

Although the question is fascinating to consider, I'd think it wise to remember that they already asked us at CF not to open the door for saying that Paul was a false apostle---and for many, that question will always lead to those conclusions, regardless of what the Messianic SOP says or what CF Noted. In several places, from what I could see, there has already been discussion arising saying that Paul was false and things got very harsh from the mods before on the issue...as seen in places like Opinion Of Paul, Not Paul bashing and [REPORT FREE THREAD] staff/member(MJ members) discussion "Discrediting Paul"

 

[Lulav]

I guess we are all supposed to be non-questioning and as passive as the Eloi of H.G. Wells creation. I doubt that's what Elohim wants from us, he gave us brains to use.

He also said he would test us. Now if there is a test, where most likely would it be found?

 

[ananda]

I guess we are all supposed to be non-questioning and as passive as the Eloi of H.G. Wells creation. I doubt that's what Elohim wants from us, he gave us brains to use. He also said he would test us. Now if there is a test, where most likely would it be found?

Fascinating synchronicity I was just reading about H.G. Wells & his opinion of Paul earlier today:

It is a fact in history that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth had in it something profoundly new and creative; he preached a new Kingdom of Heaven in the hearts and in the world of men. There was nothing in his teaching, so far as we can judge it at this distance of time, to clash or interfere with any discovery or expansion of the history of the world and mankind. But it is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for—as you may prefer to think— the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer's ordinary habits and occupations, and that this Pauline teaching did involve very definite beliefs about the history of the world and man. It is not the business of the historian to controvert or explain these matters; the question of their ultimate significance depends upon the theologian; the historian's concern is merely with the fact that official Christianity throughout the world adopted St. Paul's view so plainly expressed in his epistiles and so untraceable in the gospels, that the meaning of religion lay not in the future, but in the past, and that Jesus was not so much a teacher of wonderful new things, as a predestinate divine blood sacrifice of deep mystery and sacredness made in atonement of a particular historical act of disobedience to the Creator committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve, in response to the temptation of a serpent in the Garden of Eden. Upon the belief in that Fall as a fact, and not upon the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, upon the theories of Paul, and not upon the injunctions of Jesus, doctrinal Christianity built itself.
​

 

[Lulav]

Fascinating synchronicity I was just reading about H.G. Wells & his opinion of Paul earlier today:

It is a fact in history that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth had in it something profoundly new and creative; he preached a new Kingdom of Heaven in the hearts and in the world of men. There was nothing in his teaching, so far as we can judge it at this distance of time, to clash or interfere with any discovery or expansion of the history of the world and mankind. But it is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for—as you may prefer to think— the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer's ordinary habits and occupations, and that this Pauline teaching did involve very definite beliefs about the history of the world and man. It is not the business of the historian to controvert or explain these matters; the question of their ultimate significance depends upon the theologian; the historian's concern is merely with the fact that official Christianity throughout the world adopted St. Paul's view so plainly expressed in his epistiles and so untraceable in the gospels, that the meaning of religion lay not in the future, but in the past, and that Jesus was not so much a teacher of wonderful new things, as a predestinate divine blood sacrifice of deep mystery and sacredness made in atonement of a particular historical act of disobedience to the Creator committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve, in response to the temptation of a serpent in the Garden of Eden. Upon the belief in that Fall as a fact, and not upon the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, upon the theories of Paul, and not upon the injunctions of Jesus, doctrinal Christianity built itself.
​

Great minds.

Wow, that is profound. I hadn't read that before, although I have read of a great number of acclaimed scholars and well studied men putting forth similar sentiments. It seems that the 'unschooled' or the 'Unlearned' are far from the ones who struggle with what he had to say, specifically in light of the gospels and taking it all as a whole, not in just a verse here or there preached in some sermon.

I am especially struck by these line:

it is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for—as you may prefer to think— the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer's ordinary habits and occupations,

and

the fact that official Christianity throughout the world adopted St. Paul's view so plainly expressed in his epistiles and so untraceable in the gospels,

How succinctly put!