- Dec 18, 2017
- 14,734
- 10,041
- 78
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Was Mathias God's choice given that casting lots is a doubtful way to ascertain God's will ?
Was No. 12 actually Paul ???
Was No. 12 actually Paul ???
We are outsiders looking in and probably have a better vantage point. So I would say that he is the 12th. IMHO. Afterall, I am guessing he witnessed Jesus Christ of Nazareth at some point in Jerusalem before he was appointed by Jesus to preach on the road to Damascus. Blessings.Was Mathias God's choice given that casting lots is a doubtful way to ascertain God's will ?
Was No. 12 actually Paul ???
Was Mathias God's choice given that casting lots is a doubtful way to ascertain God's will ?
Was No. 12 actually Paul ???
First, Peter was led by the Spirit to act as the necessityWas Mathias God's choice given that casting lots is a doubtful way to ascertain God's will ?
I've never liked how the church identifies what an "Apostle" is. I don't believe an Apostle is strictly someone who has seen Jesus. Because others are listed in scripture as Apostles, like Barnabus who almost certainly never met Jesus.
Now to the question, I would say Matthias is a legitimate Apostle. Just because he isn't mentioned elsewhere doesn't mean anything. Most of the Apostles are not mentioned after the first couple of chapters of Acts, so that's a rather weak stance to have.
Paul had a unique calling that set him apart from the others in a sense but his position didn't mean he was God's choice.
Perhaps Barnabus was one of those 70, that's possible, but if we stick to just scripture it's impossible to ascertain. I can see how church tradition may fit in there but from a strictly scripture standpoint Barnabus never met Jesus.Most of those, like Barnabas, are said to have been among the seventy that Jesus sent out among the towns and villages. Though in cases like Apollos, he was a convert who had previously been following the teachings of John the Baptist.
I don't know that there is a one size fits all definition of an apostle except that they were recognized as such by the Church. Which is why as the first century comes to a close and the generation of the apostles closes with it, we just don't see any new apostles in the Church. Had there been, someone would have written about it. Rather the witness of the Church suggests that rather than appoint new apostles, the apostles were putting the legwork in for the long haul, by having established communities of Christians with pastors to continue the apostolic work in their stead. Which is why the Church understood bishops and presbyters (pastors) as being successors of the apostles, sitting in the seat of the apostles. The historical record on this is fairly straight forward. The sole exception is how certain individuals have received honorifics that include "the apostolic" or "equal-to-the-apostles" or "apostle to the <group>". So, for example, Patrick is remembered as "apostle to the Irish" and Cyril and Methodius are remembered as "apostles to the Slavs".
-CryptoLutheran
Peter certainly thought it was.Was Mathias God's choice given that casting lots is a doubtful way to ascertain God's will ?
Was No. 12 actually Paul ???
Peter certainly thought it was.
“For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his homestead be made desolate,
And let no one dwell in it’;
and,
‘Let another man take his office.’
— Acts 1:20
There’s never any correction for that choice.
So was casting lots for Jesus' clothes divination?