R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You have it correct.
- Status
M
mcloud
Guest
My only purpose for posting this is to learn and teach so I can effectively evangelize.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You’ve come to the right place for that!
M
mcloud
Guest
Now, I see the confusion that my friend has with his doctrine that Paul was not a part of the Catholic Church. He has to deny succession in two ways. First, to add a requirement to succeed the “apostles”, but that wouldn’t solve the problem by itself because you have the problem with Paul being called an “apostle”. So the second, you would have to show he wasn’t a part of the church because he wasn’t counted as an apostle in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. His church’s tradition eliminates the easiest way of showing succession through Paul (Saul). Now I know that I have to poke holes in his believes on Paul before I can successfully show Apostolic Succession even though succession is throughout the New Testament.
If my logic is correct, the only problem I see is in Acts 13:1. It doesn’t have an “elder” or “apostle” mentioned that was present in the church and the word “they” can be miss understood who exactly “laid hands on them”. I need help still but getting closer.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
From above (in my post, not heaven):
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.”
Was Peter among those who laid hands on Barnabas and Saul? Quite possibly.
M
mcloud
Guest
I got your logic. Jesus promised the Apostle’s the Holy Spirit to lead them in all Truths. The Holy Spirit came and fell upon the Apostles in Acts 2, more specifically in verse 3. So a claim can be made that the Holy Spirit that separated Barnabas and Saul was the Apostles or even more specific, Peter.
M
mcloud
Guest
One more thing that I found problematic. When my friend reads 'Acts 13:2 “set apart for me Barnabas and Saul” he probably takes “set apart” literally that both Barnabas and Saul are not “apart” of the church. I’m just taking a guess but that’s where the logic leads if he’s saying that Paul wasn’t “apart” of the church.
C
cottice
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
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.
[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.
Again look for the word that is not there. You keep adding the word Apostle toscripture passages when thereis no evidence that is what the writer was inspired to write. Ithink we can trust tjhe Holy Spirit to inspire Luke to write the word ‘apostle’ if indeed the Holy spirit wanted Luketo do so. But since Luke did not write it then I thinkit is safe to think that he was inspired to not write it. This is further evidence for my claim that Luke goes out his way to not call Matthias an Apostle. Matthias was called to occupy the office of bishop that Judas vacated. Those twelve are twelve bishops. Eleven are Apostles, one is not.
Originally Posted by cottice
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.
No, not hyperbole. Even if it were why resort to it? Scripture isclear that TheLord calledPaul to send him to the gentiles. No hyperbole here. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Does scripture dolikewise with Matthias? NOPE!
Read the passage again and notice the word that is not there. Peter stood up withthe eleven ____________. Eleven what? The word Apostle is not there. You added it just like you did with that bit about Paul’s mother.
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.
Again look for the word that is not there. You keep adding the word Apostle toscripture passages when thereis no evidence that is what the writer was inspired to write. Ithink we can trust tjhe Holy Spirit to inspire Luke to write the word ‘apostle’ if indeed the Holy spirit wanted Luketo do so. But since Luke did not write it then I thinkit is safe to think that he was inspired to not write it. This is further evidence for my claim that Luke goes out his way to not call Matthias an Apostle. Matthias was called to occupy the office of bishop that Judas vacated. Those twelve are twelve bishops. Eleven are Apostles, one is not.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
So, how do we KNOW that ALL of our Bishops have valid Apostolic Succession? The Apostles lived 2000 years ago. That’s a long time. Could mistakes have snuck in?
The Emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which ended religious persecution in the Roman Empire. Constantine himself became a Christian, and suddenly it was very fashionable (and perhaps profitable) to be a Christian (before the Edict, it would get you killed). The Church was confronted with an unprecedented wave of conversions, and possibly with the problem of some people misrepresenting themselves as Christian priests and Bishops. Credentials were difficult to verify back in those days.
The problem was not really so much about a few illicit “bishops,” but what would happen if those “bishops” “ordained” other men as “bishops” (who were not aware of the illicit nature of their “consecrators”). Suddenly, the whole Apostolic foundation of Catholic Orders could be called into question.
The Church needed a solution to this problem - some way to guarantee that Episcopal Ordinations were valid, even if the validity of the consecrator could not be assured. The Church turned to mathematics.
Just twelve years after the Edict of Milan (just twelve years after being a Christian was not a capital offense), the Church convened the very first full Ecumenical Council, the great Council of Nicea. This topic was on the agenda.
Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. But the very first Ecumenical Council, Nicea, imposed a rule (Canon 4) which remains in place to this day - a licit Episcopal Ordination requires at least three Consecrators. As long as just one is valid, the Ordination is valid (FWIW, it is customary for an Episcopal Ordination to be celebrated by many Bishops (ten or more), simply because they want to be present).
Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD (we don’t know that there actually were - there are no actual records of spurious bishops - but it could have happened). Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It’s 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops.
The probability of selecting three invalid bishops from such a pool is 8000 x 8000 x 8000, which is 1 in 512,000,000,000 (that’s 1 in 512 billion - the population of the earth TODAY is not even eight billion, and my analysis has not scratched even the next century - I’m only talking about the THIRD generation of Bishops after Nicea). As you see, the line of succession actually purifies itself over time. There have been hundreds of generations of Bishops, meaning the probability of having even ONE invalidly ordained bishop is staggeringly improbable. It’s what physicists call a “small but nonzero probability.” That is about the same probability that all of the air will disappear from your living room (it could happen, but it is staggeringly unlikely).
The math wins, every time. The only way the math could NOT win is if 2/3 + 1 of all bishops were invalid at any point in time, and Episcopal ordinations *never *had more than three consecrators (whereas it is common to have many more). For this extreme situation to occur in the twelve-year window of opportunity between the Edict of Milan and Nicea-1 is patently absurd.
It is therefore unnecessary that we know (and can prove) any Bishops episcopal lineage. We don’t need knowledge of history, or even the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to know that every Bishop has valid Apostolic succession. We know this by simple math.
The Emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which ended religious persecution in the Roman Empire. Constantine himself became a Christian, and suddenly it was very fashionable (and perhaps profitable) to be a Christian (before the Edict, it would get you killed). The Church was confronted with an unprecedented wave of conversions, and possibly with the problem of some people misrepresenting themselves as Christian priests and Bishops. Credentials were difficult to verify back in those days.
The problem was not really so much about a few illicit “bishops,” but what would happen if those “bishops” “ordained” other men as “bishops” (who were not aware of the illicit nature of their “consecrators”). Suddenly, the whole Apostolic foundation of Catholic Orders could be called into question.
The Church needed a solution to this problem - some way to guarantee that Episcopal Ordinations were valid, even if the validity of the consecrator could not be assured. The Church turned to mathematics.
Just twelve years after the Edict of Milan (just twelve years after being a Christian was not a capital offense), the Church convened the very first full Ecumenical Council, the great Council of Nicea. This topic was on the agenda.
Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. But the very first Ecumenical Council, Nicea, imposed a rule (Canon 4) which remains in place to this day - a licit Episcopal Ordination requires at least three Consecrators. As long as just one is valid, the Ordination is valid (FWIW, it is customary for an Episcopal Ordination to be celebrated by many Bishops (ten or more), simply because they want to be present).
Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD (we don’t know that there actually were - there are no actual records of spurious bishops - but it could have happened). Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It’s 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops.
The probability of selecting three invalid bishops from such a pool is 8000 x 8000 x 8000, which is 1 in 512,000,000,000 (that’s 1 in 512 billion - the population of the earth TODAY is not even eight billion, and my analysis has not scratched even the next century - I’m only talking about the THIRD generation of Bishops after Nicea). As you see, the line of succession actually purifies itself over time. There have been hundreds of generations of Bishops, meaning the probability of having even ONE invalidly ordained bishop is staggeringly improbable. It’s what physicists call a “small but nonzero probability.” That is about the same probability that all of the air will disappear from your living room (it could happen, but it is staggeringly unlikely).
The math wins, every time. The only way the math could NOT win is if 2/3 + 1 of all bishops were invalid at any point in time, and Episcopal ordinations *never *had more than three consecrators (whereas it is common to have many more). For this extreme situation to occur in the twelve-year window of opportunity between the Edict of Milan and Nicea-1 is patently absurd.
It is therefore unnecessary that we know (and can prove) any Bishops episcopal lineage. We don’t need knowledge of history, or even the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to know that every Bishop has valid Apostolic succession. We know this by simple math.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Can you name the Eleven? Do you have a list?
Actually, it is. In just about every translation including all three major Catholic translations as well as the Latin Vulgate:
Acts 1:26 (KJV)
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:26 (RSV - Catholic Edition)
26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:26 (New American Bible)
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:26 (Douay-Rheims)
Then they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
1 26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. et dederunt sortes eis et cecidit sors super Matthiam et adnumeratus est cum undecim apostolis
You can even see it in the Greek here:
scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act1.pdf
Perhaps the problem is that you don’t realize just how many apostles are named in the NT.
There are 21, and here are the names and the verses:
In addition to the original twelve (which included Judas Iscariot), scripture mentions Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias (less likely), Apollos (possibly), Silas and Timothy.
Acts 1:26 – Matthias
26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Note that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Luke to qualify the election of Matthias in any way.
Acts 14:14 – Paul and Barnabas
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd,
Gee, Barnabas gets named first here so there is no doubt that the author is designating him to be an apostle, is there?
Romans 16:7 – Andronicus and Junias
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Andronicus and Junias are outstanding among the apostles. Wow. They must have been something special.
2 Corinthians 11:5-6 – Reference to Apollos who was a gifted speaker
5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.
A clear reference to Apollos (cf. 1 Cor. 1)
1 Thessalonians 1:1 – Silas and Timothy
1Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.
1 Thessalonians 2:6
As apostles of Christ we (Paul, Silas and Timothy) could have been a burden to you, 7but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children.
These two verses suggest that Paul considered Silas and Timothy to be apostles.
C
cottice
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
Scripture calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Does scripture dolikewise with Matthias?
Quote:
Read the passage again and notice the word that is not there. Peter stood up withthe eleven ____________. Eleven what? The word Apostle is not there.
"Acts 2:14 - But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
I think you will agree that the word Apostle is not in Acts 2:14. As far as Acts 1:26 is concerned I covered that before. Suffice it to say that after Matthias is raised to the office of a bishop there are still eleven Apostles. Eleven before; eleven after.
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Revelation 21:14"
How many foundations and how many Apostles of the Lamb? So perhaps the real problem here is that you don’t realize that scripture contradicts you.
Originally Posted by cottice
Scripture calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Does scripture dolikewise with Matthias?
Yes I have a list and Matthias is nowhere to be found.
Quote:
Read the passage again and notice the word that is not there. Peter stood up withthe eleven ____________. Eleven what? The word Apostle is not there.
Wrong quote Randy. Re read my post. When I wrote, “Peter stood up with the eleven ____________. Eleven what? The word Apostle is not there.” I was answering your post where you used the words “Peter stood up with the eleven.” which I took to be you paraphrasing Acts 2:14:
"Acts 2:14 - But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
I think you will agree that the word Apostle is not in Acts 2:14. As far as Acts 1:26 is concerned I covered that before. Suffice it to say that after Matthias is raised to the office of a bishop there are still eleven Apostles. Eleven before; eleven after.
There are many apostles, Randy but there are only twelve **Apostles **according to the book of Revelation. These the book of Revelations call “the twelve Apostles ofthe Lamb”:
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Revelation 21:14"
How many foundations and how many Apostles of the Lamb? So perhaps the real problem here is that you don’t realize that scripture contradicts you.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But Peter is, right? So, when Luke says, "Peter stood up with “the Eleven” shouldn’t he have said “the Ten” to be mathematically correct?
It was not the wrong quote. I gave you all those translations of Acts 1:26 to show clearly that Luke had ALREADY filled in the __________ when he specified “eleven apostles”. And he had used that phrase, “the Eleven”, not only in Acts but twice in his gospel.
Luke 24:9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.
Luke 24:33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together
Luke uses the phrase four times: three times to refer to the group of Apostles which included Peter, and once to refer to the group that did not include Peter.
IOW, for Luke “the Eleven” referred to two slightly different groups: one with Peter but no Matthias, and one with Mattias but no Peter. So, how can Luke call two different groups by the same name? Because in all cases, Luke is using the phrase to refer to a class or category or office within the Church: the APOSTLES.
So, “the Eleven” was, in Luke’s terminology, a known group to which Matthias was added bringing the total number back to the original 12. This is certain because “the Eleven” included Peter, and Peter did not stand up with himself.
Eleven Apostles + Matthias = 12 men in Acts 1:26 - all of whom were apostles…
The Eleven - Peter = 10 men. in Acts 2:14.
But Eleven stood with Peter, so now it’s my turn, cottice: Eleven what in that verse? Please fill in the blank regarding who stood up in Acts 2:14: Eleven ____________?
Luke has already provided the answer. Eleven apostles.
In closing, if Matthias is an apostle, then there is no problem with Acts 1:26 or Acts 2:14. The numbers add up.
But if Matthias is not an apostle, then Acts 1:26 makes no sense because Matthias was not actually added to the Eleven AND Acts 2:24 makes no sense because Peter only stood up with “the Ten” and not “the Eleven”.
Which is it, cottice?
C
cottice
Guest
But that is my point. The numbers do not add up. Not if you throw Rev 21:14 into the mix. Then you have too many Apostles. You are forcing an interpretation onto Acts 1:26 and Acts 2:14 that contradicts Rev 21:14. You can’t do that. Rev 21:14 sets the number of Apostles at 12. You got at least 13 and more if you want to go with Barnabas and the others. So who is right here Randy, the scriptures or you?
But Acts 1:26 and Acts 2:14 do make sense. Acts 1:26 makes no claim that Matthias is an Apostle. It only says he was counted with the eleven Apostles. That falls far short of saying he was an apostle. As a bishop Matthias would have enjoyed a position of authority similiar to that enjoyed by the other apostles and their successors. That is why Luke said he was counted with the eleven Apostles without saying he was one of the twelve. In Acts 2:14 Luke never mentions the word Apostle. He merely says Peter stood with the eleven. Eleven what? Eleven leaders of the church? Eleven bishops? Now if Luke said that Peter stood with the other eleven Apostles (which he did not say) then you would have a point. But then you would still have to explain Rev 21:14. Like I said before Luke seems to go out of his way to not call Matthias an Apostle. And I think that it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit guiding him that way. Now I ask you to again explain your position in light of Rev 21:14. How can you maintain there are thirteen apostles when Rev 21:14 says twelve. My position maintains the integrity of the scriptures. Yours does violence to the scriptures.
U
Usagi
Guest
cottice,
As you know, I can’t agree with you on this one.
We all agree that there were exactly twelve Apostles (using your capitalization to differentiate) as well as numerous others called apostles (but not of the twelve).
As long as we can make that distinction, no one is messing with the numbers in Revelation.
The only point of disagreement is whether the new twelfth Apostle that directly replaced Judas is Matthias or Paul.
You, standing with your reading of Scripture, insist that Matthias was numbered with the Apostles but not actually one of them.
We, standing with the Church throughout history and her reading of the Scriptures, say that Matthias was an Apostle of the Twelve and Paul was one of the numerous other apostles (the most prominent one by far, held as equal in honor to Peter by Christians who came later).
I think you are stretching it to claim that Luke’s use of “the Eleven” and “the Twelve” is referring to some other group than the Apostles just because he does not use the noun. If a group is sufficiently well-known by its number that it doesn’t need its actual title to be used (like “the Fab Four” for the Beatles), then it must be a previously established group, not an arbitrary arrangement that happens to include that number of people. So when Luke speaks of the Eleven or the Twelve, even without the word “Apostles,” I feel I am safe in believing that he means the Apostles.
As you know, I can’t agree with you on this one.
We all agree that there were exactly twelve Apostles (using your capitalization to differentiate) as well as numerous others called apostles (but not of the twelve).
As long as we can make that distinction, no one is messing with the numbers in Revelation.
The only point of disagreement is whether the new twelfth Apostle that directly replaced Judas is Matthias or Paul.
You, standing with your reading of Scripture, insist that Matthias was numbered with the Apostles but not actually one of them.
We, standing with the Church throughout history and her reading of the Scriptures, say that Matthias was an Apostle of the Twelve and Paul was one of the numerous other apostles (the most prominent one by far, held as equal in honor to Peter by Christians who came later).
I think you are stretching it to claim that Luke’s use of “the Eleven” and “the Twelve” is referring to some other group than the Apostles just because he does not use the noun. If a group is sufficiently well-known by its number that it doesn’t need its actual title to be used (like “the Fab Four” for the Beatles), then it must be a previously established group, not an arbitrary arrangement that happens to include that number of people. So when Luke speaks of the Eleven or the Twelve, even without the word “Apostles,” I feel I am safe in believing that he means the Apostles.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, folks, what do you think?
cottice as argued against Matthias being an Apostle and says that Paul was number 12.
I have argued that Matthias was elected as the 12th Apostle replacing Judas Iscariot.
What say you?
cottice as argued against Matthias being an Apostle and says that Paul was number 12.
I have argued that Matthias was elected as the 12th Apostle replacing Judas Iscariot.
What say you?
S
steve_b
Guest
seems crystal clear Acts 1:26Well, folks, what do you think?
cottice as argued against Matthias being an Apostle and says that Paul was number 12.
I have argued that Matthias was elected as the 12th Apostle replacing Judas Iscariot.
What say you?
This is before Saul is even on the apostles radar screen as a future apostle…
C
cottice
Guest
I don’t think so. First of all, if you look back in the posts some people were arguing for there being more than twelve Apostles. They included Barnabas, Paul Matthias and somepne included the 70 disciples. Very early on I argued that we should differentiate between the generic meaning of apostle and the specific meaning of Apostle. But no one wanted to hear of it. People clung to Acts 1:24 like a leaded life preserver. But Revelation 21:14 seals the deal. There are only twelve Apostles, not thirteen, not fourteen, not any other number. Just twelve. I have shown where Paul was called by and sent by and where Paul was called an Apostle of Jesus Christ, not once but several times in scripture. Scripture does not call Matthias an Apostle not like it does Paul.
And for the record, I am not saying, you said “… that Luke’s Luke’s use of “the Eleven” and “the Twelve” is referring to some other group than the Apostles just because he does not use the noun.” No it is not some other group. It is the same individuals. Eleven Apostles and one bishop. These constituted the heirarchy of the church, the leadership, that the disciples looked up to and followed. Therefore Matthias as a bishop, was counted among the leadership along with the eleven Apostles. In Acts 2:24 Luke says Peter stood with the eleven. Other made fun of me saying eleven what? It was a legitimate question because Luke never says eleven Apostles. No Peter stood with ten Apostles and one bishop who comprised the leadership of the church.
Now I will ask you to look at Rev 21:14 also. There are twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem [the church] and on those twelve foundations are written the names of the twelve Apostles. That along with the ten or more times scripture calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ invalidates every argument for Matthias’ apostleship.
C
cottice
Guest
I really hate to muddy the alleged “crystal clearness” nere but please look at Rev 21:14 and tell us how there can be more that 12 apostles? For you see, Scripture calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ about ten or so times. So you have the eleven + Matthias + Paul = twelve. Is this the new math I have heard about? I say eleven + Matthias + Paul = thirteen and that contradicts Rev 21:14 and therefore is one apostle too many. Now , how “crystal clear” is that?
C
cottice
Guest
Sorry, I am not impressed. See my responses on another thread regarding what the Catechism says. I think the catechism is more authoratative than Jimmy Akin.
- Status