Apostolic Succession

[Randy_Carson]

I’m following your logic in these scriptures. I like the connections.

:tiphat:

 

[mcloud]

After his encounter with the risen Jesus Christ on his way to Damascus, St Paul became a part of the established Church when the disciple Ananias laid hands on him and baptized him. Depending on how Acts 9 and Galatians 1 are harmonized, after his baptism, St Paul either spent some time with the disciples in Damascus, i.e., with the Church at Damascus, proclaiming Jesus Christ in the synagogues until the Jews of Damascus tried to kill him and then went to Arabia or St Paul immediately went to Arabia, presumably to proclaim Jesus Christ, and later returned to the Church at Damascus. In either case, after three years, St Paul went to Jerusalem to get to know those who were apostles before him and he stayed fifteen days with Cephas, presumably St Peter, and he also met with St James, the brother of the Lord. Not long after that St Paul teamed up with St Barnabas, an early associate of the apostles first mentioned in Acts 4:36, and they worked together for many years. They spent a year together with the Church at Antioch, they took relief to the Church in Jerusalem, and the Church at Antioch sent them on a long mission to proclaim Christ in Cyprus and Asia Minor. After twelve years, they went to Jerusalem, on account of the circumcision controversy, and St Paul submitted the gospel he had been preaching to the scrutiny of the apostles and elders of the Church there and received their approval. (Acts 15; Galatians 2:1-10).

If a person considers only Galatians 1:16-17, he might get the idea that St Paul operated quite independently of the established Church. However, if a person also considers Acts 9-15 and the rest of Galatians 1 and 2, he will see that St Paul was definitely a part of the established Church.

Okay, I see were he might believe that Paul wasn’t apart of the church if you he just read Galatians 1:16-17. How do I get him to see with different lenses? Thank you for your insight.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay, I see were he might believe that Paul wasn’t apart of the church if you he just read Galatians 1:16-17. How do I get him to see with different lenses? Thank you for your insight.

Thoughts on the Ordinations of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas

Consider the following:

Acts 9:26-28
26When [Saul] came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.

Clearly, Paul wasn’t having a lot of success in joining the Church in Jerusalem until Barnabas took him to the Apostles. I wonder if Paul was not something like Apollos at this point…preaching the gospel but making only limited progress. In fact, after a threat on Paul’s life, he was sent to Tarsus and disappears from the narrative until Barnabas goes to Tarsus to enlist his help in Antioch. Later, during a time of famine, the Church at Antioch took up a collection for the Church in Jerusalem.

Acts 11:30
30This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 12:25
25When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.

It seems that Barnabas and Saul weren’t even Bishops or elders at this point; they were sent wherever they were needed by the Apostles. And then we read the following:

Acts 13:1-3
1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Notice especially that Barnabas was either A) a prophet, B) a teacher or C) both in the Church at Antioch. As a sidebar, notice that one chapter earlier, Luke recorded the following:

Acts 12:16-17
16But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What was this other place that Peter left for? Antioch. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch followed by Evodius and Ignatius (who later recorded that the Church was calling itself the “Catholic Church” in a letter he wrote in 107 AD). So, it is plausible that Peter is in Antioch at this time…and that’s where we find Barnabas and Saul.

Note further that the text tells us, “the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

Hmmm…Saul and Barnabas had hands laid on them in preparation for the work that the Holy Spirit called them to. There’s a lot going on here, so let’s itemize.

1. Peter may have been among those who laid hands on Saul and Barnabas
2. Barnabas is still considered a prophet and/or teacher at this point
3. Paul is still called Saul here (a minor point perhaps)
4. Although Saul had seen Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Holy Spirit called him apart for a separate ministry.

Here is my question to you: At what point did the prophet/teacher Barnabas become an Apostle?

We know that Barnabas was an apostle because later we read:

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

Notice that Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle after the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on him.

Another point: When did Saul become Paul? Of course, this may simply have been his Greek name from the time of his youth (since he was a Jew raised in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus), but the first mention of it in scripture is here:

Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Again, this was AFTER the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on Saul and Barnabas in Acts 13:3.

Well, as I said, there is a lot going on here, and perhaps I have read too much into these verses. I won’t be a stickler for Peter being present in Antioch at this time or Saul’s name change, but I will hold firm on the idea that the Church laid hands on Saul and Barnabas and subsequently we see changes in the way the scriptures refer to them both.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for your insight.

Here, I take a different approach:

The Development of Saul of Tarsus

Acts 9:19-25
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. 23After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

It is thought that after his escape, Paul travelled to Arabia and spent three years there in a self-imposed exile or extended retreat before returning to Israel. The narrative in Acts picks up the trail in the very next verse:

Acts 9:26-30
26When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. 30When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

Clearly, Paul wasn’t having a lot of success in joining the Church in Jerusalem until Barnabas took him to the Apostles. I wonder if Paul was not something like Apollos at this point…preaching the gospel but making only limited progress. In fact, after a threat on Paul’s life, he was sent to Tarsus and disappears from the narrative of Acts for a second time.

At this point, we have to ask some honest questions: is there any evidence that Paul succeeded in building up the Church in Tarsus? Are there epistles from Paul to the believers in Tarsus written while he was travelling? None whatsoever. There is no record of Paul’s evangelism in Tarsus of at all. Finally, after a period of silence, Barnabas goes to Tarsus to enlist Paul’s help in Antioch where Barnabas was having great success.

Acts 11:25-30
25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. 27During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. 30This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

The Church in Antioch took up a collection for the Church in Jerusalem, and Saul is sent as a courier to deliver the gift to the elders in Jerusalem. Then:

Acts 12:25
25When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.

It seems that Barnabas and Saul weren’t even Bishops or elders at this point; they were sent wherever they were needed. And then we read the following:

Acts 13:1-3
1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Notice especially that Barnabas was either A) a prophet, B) a teacher or C) both in the Church at Antioch. As a sidebar, notice that one chapter earlier, Luke recorded the following:

Acts 12:16-17
16But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What was this other place that Peter left for? Antioch. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch followed by Evodius and Ignatius (who later recorded that the Church was calling itself the “Catholic Church” in a letter he wrote in 107 AD). So, it is plausible that Peter is in Antioch at this time…and that’s where we find Barnabas and Saul.

Note further that the text tells us, “the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hmmm…Saul and Barnabas had hands laid on them in preparation for the work that the Holy Spirit called them to. There’s a lot going on here, so let’s itemize.

1. Peter may have been among those who laid hands on Saul and Barnabas
2. Barnabas is still considered a prophet and/or teacher at this point
3. Paul is still called Saul here (a minor point perhaps)
4. Although Saul had seen Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Holy Spirit called him apart for a separate ministry.

Here is a question: At what point did the prophet/teacher Barnabas become an Apostle? We know that Barnabas became an apostle because later we read:

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

Notice that Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle after the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on him.

Another point: When did Saul become Paul? Of course, this may simply have been his Greek name from the time of his youth (since he was a Jew raised in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus), but the first mention of it in scripture is here:

Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Again, this was AFTER the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on Saul and Barnabas in Acts 13:3.

Well, as I said, there is a lot going on here, and perhaps I have read too much into these verses. I won’t be a stickler for Peter being present or the bit about Saul’s name change, but I will hold firm on the idea that the Church laid hands on Saul and Barnabas and subsequently we see changes in the way the scriptures refer to them both.

Paul was a nobody, an assistant to Barnabas at best, until the Church at Antioch laid hands on him. After that, he begins to rise to prominence.

That’s right, Paul was of little account in the Church prior to Acts 13:13. He had an experience of Jesus on the Damascus Road (Don’t all of us have stories about when we first believed?), then he went into Arabia on an extended personal retreat, and then Saul, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, went home to momma in Tarsus. Barnabas found him living in his parents’ basement and brought him out of obscurity. Only then was he ordained by the Church and set apart for greater ministry.

God called him, the Church ordained him, the Holy Spirit inspired him. Seems pretty straight forward to me…

Yet, even after all of this, Paul himself felt it necessary to double-check his understanding of the gospel with Peter.

Galatians 2:1-2
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

Paul FEARED that he might be in error; who did He check with? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? The Bible Alone? Nope. He checked his gospel against the infallible, authoritative teaching of the living head of the Church, Peter the rock.

 

[JohnR77]

Galatians 2:1-2 …
Paul FEARED that he might be in error; who did He check with? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? The Bible Alone? Nope. He checked his gospel against the infallible, authoritative teaching of the living head of the Church, Peter the rock.

Good analysis Randy. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good analysis Randy. Thanks.

:tiphat:

 

[mcloud]

Thoughts on the Ordinations of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas

Consider the following:

Acts 9:26-28
26When [Saul] came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.

Clearly, Paul wasn’t having a lot of success in joining the Church in Jerusalem until Barnabas took him to the Apostles. I wonder if Paul was not something like Apollos at this point…preaching the gospel but making only limited progress. In fact, after a threat on Paul’s life, he was sent to Tarsus and disappears from the narrative until Barnabas goes to Tarsus to enlist his help in Antioch. Later, during a time of famine, the Church at Antioch took up a collection for the Church in Jerusalem.

Acts 11:30
30This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 12:25
25When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.

It seems that Barnabas and Saul weren’t even Bishops or elders at this point; they were sent wherever they were needed by the Apostles. And then we read the following:

Acts 13:1-3
1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Notice especially that Barnabas was either A) a prophet, B) a teacher or C) both in the Church at Antioch. As a sidebar, notice that one chapter earlier, Luke recorded the following:

Acts 12:16-17
16But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What was this other place that Peter left for? Antioch. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch followed by Evodius and Ignatius (who later recorded that the Church was calling itself the “Catholic Church” in a letter he wrote in 107 AD). So, it is plausible that Peter is in Antioch at this time…and that’s where we find Barnabas and Saul.

Note further that the text tells us, “the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

Hmmm…Saul and Barnabas had hands laid on them in preparation for the work that the Holy Spirit called them to. There’s a lot going on here, so let’s itemize.

1. Peter may have been among those who laid hands on Saul and Barnabas
2. Barnabas is still considered a prophet and/or teacher at this point
3. Paul is still called Saul here (a minor point perhaps)
4. Although Saul had seen Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Holy Spirit called him apart for a separate ministry.

Here is my question to you: At what point did the prophet/teacher Barnabas become an Apostle?

We know that Barnabas was an apostle because later we read:

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

Notice that Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle after the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on him.

Another point: When did Saul become Paul? Of course, this may simply have been his Greek name from the time of his youth (since he was a Jew raised in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus), but the first mention of it in scripture is here:

Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Again, this was AFTER the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on Saul and Barnabas in Acts 13:3.

Well, as I said, there is a lot going on here, and perhaps I have read too much into these verses. I won’t be a stickler for Peter being present in Antioch at this time or Saul’s name change, but I will hold firm on the idea that the Church laid hands on Saul and Barnabas and subsequently we see changes in the way the scriptures refer to them both.

I just unpacked this. It was really helpful. Thank you

 

[Randy_Carson]

I just unpacked this. It was really helpful. Thank you

:tiphat:

 

[cottice]

One has to be careful of the word “apostle”. It is used in both a generic sense as well as a specific sense. The word means ‘one who is sent’ and therefore could refer to anyone in a generic sense who was sent on a mission. The word comes from the Greek *apostolos *. This is still used in the Eastern Churches but in the West it has been supplanted with the word ‘missionary’ from the Latin ‘emittere’ which means ‘to send’.

In the specific sense the word ‘apostle’ refers to the disciples of Jesus who were selected and sent by Jesus. All of the Apostles were missionaries and fulfilled the duties of missionaries. In addition, they held the office of bishops.

This double meaning mirrors that of the word ‘tradition’. However, we have come to distinguish between ‘tradition’ (lower case “t”) and ‘Tradition’ (upper case “T”). Maybe we should do likewise with ‘apostle’ and ‘Apostle’.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One has to be careful of the word “apostle”. It is used in both a generic sense as well as a specific sense. The word means ‘one who is sent’ and therefore could refer to anyone in a generic sense who was sent on a mission. The word comes from the Greek *apostolos *. This is still used in the Eastern Churches but in the West it has been supplanted with the word ‘missionary’ from the Latin ‘emittere’ which means ‘to send’.

In the specific sense the word ‘apostle’ refers to the disciples of Jesus who were selected and sent by Jesus. All of the Apostles were missionaries and fulfilled the duties of missionaries. In addition, they held the office of bishops.

This double meaning mirrors that of the word ‘tradition’. However, we have come to distinguish between ‘tradition’ (lower case “t”) and ‘Tradition’ (upper case “T”). Maybe we should do likewise with ‘apostle’ and ‘Apostle’.

From Pope St. John Paul:

Bishops Are Successors of the Apostles
General Audience — July 8, 1992
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19920708en.html

And from a source almost as good:

The Bishops as Successors of the Apostles
Jimmy Akin
jimmyakin.com/2014/03/the-bishops-as-successors-of-the-apostles.html

 

[cottice]

From Pope St. John Paul:

Bishops Are Successors of the Apostles
General Audience — July 8, 1992
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19920708en.html

And from a source almost as good:

The Bishops as Successors of the Apostles
Jimmy Akin
jimmyakin.com/2014/03/the-bishops-as-successors-of-the-apostles.html

I am in total agreement. The Apostles created bishops. They did not create more Apostles. Matthias held the office of a bishop and was empowered as a bishop. The eleven Apostles laid hands on Matthias but no one laid hands on the eleven to make them Apostles. Paul received his Apostleship from Jesus enabling him to consecrate Timothy and Titus as bishops. Again, no one laid hands on Paul to make him an Apostle.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am in total agreement. The Apostles created bishops. They did not create more Apostles. Matthias held the office of a bishop and was empowered as a bishop. The eleven Apostles laid hands on Matthias but no one laid hands on the eleven to make them Apostles. Paul received his Apostleship from Jesus enabling him to consecrate Timothy and Titus as bishops. Again, no one laid hands on Paul to make him an Apostle.

I hear this often from Protestants, and it is incorrect. On the day of Pentecost, there were about 120 believers gathered together in the Upper Room when the Spirit descended upon them all. The people of Jerusalem wondered what all the noise was about, and “Peter stood up with the Eleven.” (cf. Acts 2:14)

IOW, 12 men stood up to witness to the crowds: Peter and “the Eleven” - not Peter and “the Ten”. Judas Iscariot was dead; Matthias had filled his office as one of the Eleven. In total, there were Twelve apostles, and this is consistent with the election of Matthias as recorded in Acts 1:

26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Matthias became one of the Twelve.

 

[mcloud]

I am in total agreement. The Apostles created bishops. They did not create more Apostles. Matthias held the office of a bishop and was empowered as a bishop. The eleven Apostles laid hands on Matthias but no one laid hands on the eleven to make them Apostles. Paul received his Apostleship from Jesus enabling him to consecrate Timothy and Titus as bishops. Again, no one laid hands on Paul to make him an Apostle.

I’m confessed about Paul. When did Paul become an Apostle or Bishop (apostle) in Acts 13:3 or when?

 

[cottice]

I’m confessed about Paul. When did Paul become an Apostle or Bishop (apostle) in Acts 13:3 or when?

No, it occurred earlier. Acts chapter 9 to be specific. Saul has just been blinded while on the road to Damascus. In verse 10of chapter 9 we pick up the scripture narrative regarding what happens next:

"10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,
12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;
14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.”
15 **But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; **16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

Look at verse 15: "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; Saul (Paul) is chosen by the Lord and will be sent to the Gentiles. This qualifies Paul as an Apostle of Jesus Christ to which the New Testament proclaims no fewer than ten times.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m confessed about Paul. When did Paul become an Apostle or Bishop (apostle) in Acts 13:3 or when?

No, it occurred earlier. Acts chapter 9 to be specific.

mcloud-

cottice is mistaken, and I have shown this carefully in posts #24, & #25. I wrote:

Paul was a nobody, an assistant to Barnabas at best, until the Church at Antioch laid hands on him. After that, he begins to rise to prominence.

That’s right, Paul was of little account in the Church prior to Acts 13:13. He had an experience of Jesus on the Damascus Road (Don’t all of us have stories about when we first believed?), then he went into Arabia on an extended personal retreat, and then Saul, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, went home to momma in Tarsus. Barnabas found him living in his parents’ basement and brought him out of obscurity. Only then was he ordained by the Church and set apart for greater ministry.

God called him, the Church ordained him, the Holy Spirit inspired him. Seems pretty straight forward to me…

 

[mcloud]

No, it occurred earlier. Acts chapter 9 to be specific. Saul has just been blinded while on the road to Damascus. In verse 10of chapter 9 we pick up the scripture narrative regarding what happens next:

"10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,
12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;
14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.”
15 **But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; **16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

Look at verse 15: "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; Saul (Paul) is chosen by the Lord and will be sent to the Gentiles. This qualifies Paul as an Apostle of Jesus Christ to which the New Testament proclaims no fewer than ten times.

I’m still confused. We have laying of hands in Acts 9, which seems to heal him and laying of hands in Acts 13 that’s sends him on his mission. Which is it? Does anyone know what Tradition tells us?

 

[cottice]

mcloud-

cottice is mistaken, and I have shown this carefully in posts #24, & #25. I wrote:

Paul was a nobody, an assistant to Barnabas at best, until the Church at Antioch laid hands on him. After that, he begins to rise to prominence.

That’s right, Paul was of little account in the Church prior to Acts 13:13. He had an experience of Jesus on the Damascus Road (Don’t all of us have stories about when we first believed?), then he went into Arabia on an extended personal retreat, and then Saul, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, went home to momma in Tarsus. Barnabas found him living in his parents’ basement and brought him out of obscurity. Only then was he ordained by the Church and set apart for greater ministry.

God called him, the Church ordained him, the Holy Spirit inspired him. Seems pretty straight forward to me…

You want us to think that Paul was a “nobody”? Well, let’s see here, a person selected by God for a particular mission is, according to you, a nobody. Well then, the Apostles were selected by God. The prophets were selected by God. And lest we forget, the Blessed Virgin was selected by God. I guess these were “nobodies” also? Do you really want to go that route? I mean REALLY? I don’t think so. And by the way Barnabus did not find Paul living in his parents basement. The scriptures don’t mention that or anything about Paul’s mother. You conjured that up in your own mind. And your attempt to belittle Paul’s three year experience in the dessert as an “extended personal retreat”, what can we say about that? I guess that makes Jesus’ forty day experience just a mini retreat. Still it remains that Paul was called by the Lord for the purpose of sending him to the Gentiles. I did not conjure that up. I just read it in the scriptures.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You want us to think that Paul was a “nobody”? Well, let’s see here, a person selected by God for a particular mission is, according to you, a nobody. Well then, the Apostles were selected by God. The prophets were selected by God. And lest we forget, the Blessed Virgin was selected by God. I guess these were “nobodies” also? Do you really want to go that route? I mean REALLY? I don’t think so. And by the way Barnabus did not find Paul living in his parents basement. The scriptures don’t mention that or anything about Paul’s mother. You conjured that up in your own mind. And your attempt to belittle Paul’s three year experience in the dessert as an “extended personal retreat”, what can we say about that? I guess that makes Jesus’ forty day experience just a mini retreat. Still it remains that Paul was called by the Lord for the purpose of sending him to the Gentiles. I did not conjure that up. I just read it in the scriptures.

Obvious hyperbole used for illustrative purposes. And to show that you are flat dead wrong.

Matthias was “added to the Eleven” which makes Twelve. How could Peter stand up with “the Eleven” if there were only Ten besides himself?

Another passage and question:

Acts 6:2
And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.

Who were these twelve, cottice?

Paul didn’t meet Jesus until Acts 9, remember? And Paul refers to himself as being distinct from the Twelve here:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
15 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Paul teaches that Jesus appeared to the Twelve before His ascension. Jesus appeared to Paul after His ascension. Thus, Paul knows that there are Twelve Apostles, and that he is not one of them.

Matthias was one of the Twelve.

 

[mcloud]

Also, the texts suggest that Ananias was afraid of Saul (Paul) and by Jesus explaining the purpose of Saul’s mission, actually encouraged him. Saul wasn’t called an “apostle” until Acts 14:14 along with Barnabas and both were laid hands on in Acts 13:3. Then you also have Saul’s name change. Was that name change significant or I’m just reading into it?