If the church was in hiding ...

[ParkerD]

The problem is that you believe you think sincerely and independent of any former teaching (including the writtings of Joseph Smith?) but those who diagree with you don’t think sicerely and are not independent; you prayed about the Biblical prophesies and read them, but those that disagree with you never prayed about Biblical prophesies and never read them, that is why the Holy Spirit never teach them and you have to step in. You become “vicarius spiritus sancti”.

placido

Placido,
If you are saying that you have honestly and sincerely prayed about the Biblical prophesies I have quoted in this thread, asking what their meaning is, and have received the complete assurance from the Holy Spirit that you absolutely have the correct understanding of the prophesies without the slightest shadow of doubt, and could testify of that to others with unmistakeable honesty from the depth of your heart and soul, then I would say you should stop reading anything I might write here because the Holy Spirit you follow is not the Holy Spirit I follow, and you might as well stay with the kind of “voice of the Holy Spirit” in your life that makes you happy. Happiness, joy, complete inner peace–these will be unmistakeably present in the heart of such a person. Only you know your own heart–I don’t at all.

The reason I have “stepped in” is because of your original question, and finding that you have evidently been taught and have believed that the Holy Spirit can never be withdrawn from leaders in the church, which leads to the belief that as they made changes they were always following the Holy Spirit and that anyone who disagreed was automatically by definition a heretic. This belief gave them complete power to change whatever suited them, and to label as heretics anyone who disagreed, inserting fear into the question also be saying heretics were condemned eternally.

 

[ParkerD]

Brother Parker, why is it that you never admit being wrong? Can’t you see you are wrong when you say New Testament bishops stayed put in one place?
Titus was a bishop. You can’t deny this. Titus visited every town in his area to ordain priests. You can’t deny this. You know tha what Titus did is exactly what bishops do today.

Yes, the elders (presbyters, priests) do just that, overseeing parishes and doing missionary work.

Yes. That is what bishops do.

But Titus was himself a bishop and he went to every town in his area. You can not deny that. So, bishops did not stay put.
And tell me: does your church have bishops like the New testament Church or do you have “the President of the Church” who is assisted by two counsellors? Why are you not opposed to this “change”?

placido

Placido,
When I read Titus, since he was asked to “ordain elders in every city, as (Paul) had appointed thee” (v. 5) and since Paul then describes the qualifications of a bishop (not of Titus), then it sounds to me like Titus had a higher authority than that of a bishop, and that Paul being an apostle had a higher authority than either Titus or a bishop.

At no point in the New Testament is it implied that bishops have the same authority as apostles. Even if bishops traveled (which I doubt since they were supposed to be married and to have children who were themselves good examples to others), then that doesn’t mean they had the authority of an apostle.

In answer to your question about the Mormon church, bishops serve for a period of time in a local area, and those bishops are later “released” from that calling and not one of them receives any compensation for their service. There are thousands of Mormon bishops currently serving in their particular location in the world, to oversee the members in each location, and they are called from among the members living in that location.

Perhaps Titus was a “seventy”, an office that is not talked about very much but Christ had established in the church as the next level below that of apostle.

 

[ParkerD]

This pattern…

Contradicts this verse
Revelation 12

1. No mention of St. Michael (the most awesome Saint in my opinion btw)?

6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. 7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

The woman flees into the wilderness and then a war in heaven starts. So, if this is the case (and since we know the war in heaven was at the beginning of time) we can guess one thing. This whole vision is not in chronological order.

1. Now you have yourself in a pickle. If Mary wasn’t alone when she fled and the whole Church was taken with her then how is it that the remnant of her seed (the Woman that is, whom you claim is the Church) be the rest of the Children of Israel that were still on earth? So wait, Israel is a child of the Church? I thought Israel came before the Church was established. So obviously this interpretation of yours (which i assume is your own private one) does not work out.
2. This statement of yours…
   The war with the saints happened, and the dragon was overcoming them because he had been allowed to do that. He was prevailing.

Contradicts this statement of Christ’s…

Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will **build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. **(forget the part about Peter for now)

Obviously your interpretation of this part of Revelations does not work. Try again.

And if it follows that “And it was given unto him (the beast who was given power by the dragon) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” means the Church is overcome by Satan then it must be that Mathew 16:18 and Revelations 13:7 contradict each other.

Since the bible does not contradict itself it must follow that either one or the other is figurative. Now given that Matthew is a book that describes the life of Christ and is not know to be very figurative and Revelations is a vision which is full of symbolism and mystery I think it would be alot more appropriate for Revelations 13:7 to be figurative. As such, what does it mean to “overcome the Saints” Does that mean physical death? More likely this may be talking about physical persecution. Who had the power to persecute and rule over the earth? The Roman emperor Nero at the time. There is alot of figurative talk and I, like the rest of the Church, tend to steer away from pointing to a passage in Revelations and saying “therefore this will happen, or this happened”.

1. Then what about the battle of Armageddon? That happens before the Millenium too. Once again, it is never a good idea to point to passages in Revelations and try to make something of them. Revelations is a ticking time bomb and before you know it you will end up apostisizing.
2. Then who is comming to fight him at the battle of armageddon. And once again Matthew 16:18 contradicts that interpretation.
3. Again, stay away Revelations is tricky. And between Revelations 14:6 and 22 alot happens. What about these parts?

Questioner,
I hadn’t mentioned Michael because the battle he fought was a war in heaven before the mortal period of earth’s history. But I agree he was a very important warrior for God.

I agree that the battle of Armageddon is prophesied to happen, and will happen before the Millenium will fully happen.

I agree that Israel (the children of Israel) came "before the (New Testament) Church was established. But the righteous Jews did belong to a church recognized by God (the old covenant) and by John, and since the righteous Jews became members of the new church but this new church “fulfilled” the need for the old church, those righteous Jews could be seen by John as that from among them, Christ was born, and also from among them, would be “remnants” meaning posterity who would be involved in a “spiritual war” with the dragon. I agree that Revelation 12:6 seems to be out of sequence, and the 1,260 days period mentioned definitely does not match Revelation 12:14 of “time, and times, and half a time”.

 

[ParkerD]

Abraham was confronted. But since you too believe that God confronts people when it suites his purposes, then how come he didn’t do so to save the Church leaders by confronting them? Wouldn’t it have fulfilled his purposes by confronting his Church before it would die and save it from corruption? Wouldn’t it fulfill his purposes to fulfill the promise his son Christ made to His Church by saying “and the gates of hell will not overcome it”? As he confronts people when it fulfills his purposes, then does not mean he planned to have the Church disappear? Are you meaning to tell me that God would guide mankind since Abraham and then He himself set up a Church on earth that would fail and then poof…his influence through the Spirit leaves the earth for 1700 years? Why not avoid it if all it called for was to confront Linus or some other elders and say “you must follow John”? Why not confront after so many years of confronting through prophets, some of whom were at first unwilling like Jonah (proving that God even confronts those unwilling to follow him sometimes) Can you honestly answer these questions?

And to think…I tried to be nice.

Thank you for your continued responses on this thread brother Parker.

Questioner,
I think you have asked good questions here. I think the wisest thing to do would be to ask God in prayer whether Linus or John should have been considered the leader of the church after Peter died. Then, when the Holy Spirit answers, you would have your answer. I think God could either confront, or not. His logic would not necessarily be our logic, in fact would definitely not match our logic about whom He would confront and whom He may not confront but “let things be as man chooses them to be.”

 

[ParkerD]

It is practically still in hiding. Where I am it is unheard of. Only a few of us who frequent the internet are aware of its existence. If Mormons are the true and pure church, and the true and pure gospel has to reach all four corners of the world before the second coming, then the second coming is many, many, many years away.

placido

Placido,
That is true enough. The Mormon church does exist in most places in the world, but the second coming is no doubt many, many, many years away.

 

[ParkerD]

Simply not true. Bishops today go everywhere, from place to place, fly here fly there. Bishops do not simply stay put. Today’s Bishops are more inclined to do so because they have a number of other clergymen that are able to help them out in other places, and so can send them in their stead. However, despite how much Bishops move around today (and you have to take into consideration that one diocese today can sometimes be larger than most of the apostles even traveled) Bishops during the time of the early Church were even more active (as in they walked instead of taking cars) and some were martyred during evangelism.

Not just that, but I hope you realize that most of the apostles after years evangelism settled in certain locations themselves, and stayed put. Peter in Rome, John in Jerusalem, Mark in Egypt, Thomas in India, Andrew in Armenia. The rest (except John) were martyred while acting as overseer (bishop) of locations they were visiting.

Questioner,
I disagree with regard to the apostles being referred to as a “bishop”. That is not in the New Testament. The apostles were apostles, and it was a specific calling. After James died, Paul seems to have been chosen to take his place and he begins to be referred to as an apostle after that. After Peter died, the apostles were still referred to as apostles and it is never stated that the bishops now had more authority than the living apostles at that time. John’s writing implies the exact opposite–that he had the most authority as a living apostle.

 

[placido]

Placido,
That is true enough. The Mormon church does exist in most places in the world, but the second coming is no doubt many, many, many years away.

Matthew 24:36 - “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” … Sorry man, Jesus should have said “but of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father and Parker alone”.
Apparently you cannot stop entertaining us with your contradictory remarks. You told us the restoration of the church in 1829 precedes the second coming. Now you turn around and tell us the end is still many, many years away.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Matthew 24:36 - “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” … Sorry man, Jesus should have said “but of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father and Parker alone”.
Apparently you cannot stop entertaining us with your contradictory remarks. You told us the restoration of the church in 1829 precedes the second coming. Now you turn around and tell us the end is still many, many years away.

placido

Placido,
The events that precede the Second Coming are prophesied events. One can look for them, and compare what has happened with what is still yet to happen. I have no idea of the exact timetable, neither do you. But as you alluded to earlier, the gospel will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, meaning all, before the Second Coming.

 

[placido]

Placido,
If you are saying that you have honestly and sincerely prayed about the Biblical prophesies I have quoted in this thread, asking what their meaning is, and have received the complete assurance from the Holy Spirit that you absolutely have the correct understanding of the prophesies without the slightest shadow of doubt, and could testify of that to others with unmistakeable honesty from the depth of your heart and soul, then I would say you should stop reading anything I might write here because the Holy Spirit you follow is not the Holy Spirit I follow, and you might as well stay with the kind of “voice of the Holy Spirit” in your life that makes you happy.

You are right. I do not follow a “holy spirit” that guides people to believe that Jesus said John should never experience physical death; or a “holy spirit” that guides people to believe that the church – the light of the world - was in hiding for more than 1 700 years contrary to what Jesus said.
But, instead of me stopping reading what you write, why not the other way round: you stop writing because I can not stop reading contributions to a thread I started.

Happiness, joy, complete inner peace–these will be unmistakeably present in the heart of such a person. Only you know your own heart–I don’t at all.

Believe you me: I have seen many happy pagans and many happy atheists. Happiness and complete inner peace are not the signs of knowing the truth.

The reason I have “stepped in” is because of your original question, and finding that you have evidently been taught and have believed that the Holy Spirit can never be withdrawn from leaders in the church, which leads to the belief that as they made changes they were always following the Holy Spirit and that anyone who disagreed was automatically by definition a heretic.

But there is a big difference between individual leaders and the collective leadership of the church. We know that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit will remain forever, guiding the church into the whole truth. And we also know that someone needed an excuse to claim the authority of the church for himself. He had to come up with the blasphemous theory of the alleged withdrawal of the Holy Spirit. That makes Christ a liar … but Joseph Smith doesn’t care, as long as he gets his way.

This belief gave them complete power to change whatever suited them, and to label as heretics anyone who disagreed, inserting fear into the question also be saying heretics were condemned eternally.

Jesus said: “He that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me” (John 10:16). Add to that Matthew 18:17-18 and it becomes clear for any one with eyes to see.

When I read Titus, since he was asked to “ordain elders in every city, as (Paul) had appointed thee” (v. 5) and since Paul then describes the qualifications of a bishop (not of Titus), then it sounds to me like Titus had a higher authority than that of a bishop, and that Paul being an apostle had a higher authority than either Titus or a bishop.

It is now up to you to identify that “higher authority” between apostle and bishop. Can you?

At no point in the New Testament is it implied that bishops have the same authority as apostles. Even if bishops traveled (which I doubt since they were supposed to be married and to have children who were themselves good examples to others), then that doesn’t mean they had the authority of an apostle.

Oh, is marriage a hindrance to travel? Married people can’t travel, you say?
That being the case, then the Catholic Church is so right in having celibate bishops so that they can travel freely.

In answer to your question about the Mormon church, bishops serve for a period of time in a local area, and those bishops are later “released” from that calling and not one of them receives any compensation for their service.
There are thousands of Mormon bishops currently serving in their particular location in the world, to oversee the members in each location, and they are called from among the members living in that location.

And the overall head of the LDS church is “The President” assisted by two counselors, right? Did the pure New Testament church (as you call it) have a president or have you in the meantime introduced the much detested changes?

Perhaps Titus was a “seventy”, an office that is not talked about very much but Christ had established in the church as the next level below that of apostle.

You don’t know, but you are so sure he can not have been a bishop. I will appreciate it if you shed more light on when Jesus established this obscure level of leadership you just mentioned.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
The events that precede the Second Coming are prophesied events. One can look for them, and compare what has happened with what is still yet to happen. I have no idea of the exact timetable, neither do you. But as you alluded to earlier, the gospel will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, meaning all, before the Second Coming.

For your information: the gospel was preached in all the world while your church was in hiding. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.
And before I forget: I was told that ever since the church “came out of hiding” it is now being led by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles. May I know why 12 and not 11 or 13? And may I also know whether John “the immortal” is among them. If not, why not?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

You are right. I do not follow a “holy spirit” that guides people to believe that Jesus said John should never experience physical death; or a “holy spirit” that guides people to believe that the church – the light of the world - was in hiding for more than 1 700 years contrary to what Jesus said.
But, instead of me stopping reading what you write, why not the other way round: you stop writing because I can not stop reading contributions to a thread I started.

Believe you me: I have seen many happy pagans and many happy atheists. Happiness and complete inner peace are not the signs of knowing the truth.

But there is a big difference between individual leaders and the collective leadership of the church. We know that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit will remain forever, guiding the church into the whole truth. And we also know that someone needed an excuse to claim the authority of the church for himself. He had to come up with the blasphemous theory of the alleged withdrawal of the Holy Spirit. That makes Christ a liar … but Joseph Smith doesn’t care, as long as he gets his way.

Jesus said: “He that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me” (John 10:16). Add to that Matthew 18:17-18 and it becomes clear for any one with eyes to see.

It is now up to you to identify that “higher authority” between apostle and bishop. Can you?

Oh, is marriage a hindrance to travel? Married people can’t travel, you say?
That being the case, then the Catholic Church is so right in having celibate bishops so that they can travel freely.

And the overall head of the LDS church is “The President” assisted by two counselors, right? Did the pure New Testament church (as you call it) have a president or have you in the meantime introduced the much detested changes?

You don’t know, but you are so sure he can not have been a bishop. I will appreciate it if you shed more light on when Jesus established this obscure level of leadership you just mentioned.

placido

Placido,
I don’t think atheists have full inner peace or complete happiness. (Having never “been there”, I can only say what I’ve observed in others as to how they interacted and what seemed to be inside of their heart based on that interaction.)

If everyone stops asking me other questions, I’ll certainly stop responding on this thread, with a sense of relief but also a feeling of appreciation for having participated amidst mutual conviviality and communication among those who have been writing in. (Thanks, all.)

The LDS church has a “president”, yes, because it was established in the United States and needed to follow the laws of corporate organization within the United States, for legal status as a non-profit corporation. There are also twelve apostles, one of their functions being to try and have the gospel preached “in all the world, as a witness to all nations”.

The office of “seventy” was established by Christ, as attested by Luke in Luke 10:1-17 which follows Luke’s description in Luke 9 of Christ having given power and authority to the twelve apostles. Luke says “After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also…” (10:1).

 

[ParkerD]

For your information: the gospel was preached in all the world while your church was in hiding. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.
And before I forget: I was told that ever since the church “came out of hiding” it is now being led by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles. May I know why 12 and not 11 or 13? And may I also know whether John “the immortal” is among them. If not, why not?

placido

Placido,
John’s body was changed to a condition whereby he was no longer subject to aging, but that also made him no longer a “mortal person” although not yet resurrected. It would not make sense for him to be among the twelve called apostles today, since that would be an obvious sign and would make it too easy for people to believe without prayer and without their own personal witness from the Holy Spirit. Because he is no longer a mortal person, although he can visit whom he chooses and does that to help people come to Christ and be healed in their personal lives, his role is not to be one of the living mortal apostles.

Why twelve apostles is a question that should be asked of Christ, not me. It makes sense to me, and I could explain why I think that council system is important, but then I would be providing only a personal perspective. Have a good day.

 

[placido]

Placido,
John’s body was changed to a condition whereby he was no longer subject to aging, but that also made him no longer a “mortal person” although not yet resurrected.

Wow … John is not dead and John has not yet resurrected. Sounds very funny. How can someone who never died resurrect?

It would not make sense for him to be among the twelve called apostles today, since that would be an obvious sign and would make it too easy for people to believe without prayer and without their own personal witness from the Holy Spirit.
Because he is no longer a mortal person, although he can visit whom he chooses and does that to help people come to Christ and be healed in their personal lives, his role is not to be one of the living mortal apostles.

I am embarrassed in finding out so late that, in fact, you are here only to entertain us, not for serious discussion.
On one thing we agree though: the “holy spirit” that led you to atribute to Jesus what was in fact said by rumor-mongers is not the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Gospel writers.

Why twelve apostles is a question that should be asked of Christ, not me. It makes sense to me, and I could explain why I think that council system is important, but then I would be providing only a personal perspective. Have a good day.

I asked about the council system because it represents “change” and you detest change. The church of the New Testament had no Council System comprising of the First Presidency plus the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Wow … John is not dead and John has not yet resurrected. Sounds very funny. How can someone who never died resurrect?

I am embarrassed in finding out so late that, in fact, you are here only to entertain us, not for serious discussion.
On one thing we agree though: the “holy spirit” that led you to atribute to Jesus what was in fact said by rumor-mongers is not the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Gospel writers.

I asked about the council system because it represents “change” and you detest change. The church of the New Testament had no Council System comprising of the First Presidency plus the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

placido

Placido,
John will experience “death” prior to his resurrection. In the meantime, Christ did say “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” If that concept is entertaining to you, OK.

As to your final point, that is something you can go ahead and hang your hat on if you would like. I am comfortable with that particular change in council organization of the church as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. That’s because I have a confirming witness received for myself from the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for your thoughts, Placido. I wish all the best for you and that happiness really does define and spiritually enrich your life.

 

[placido]

Placido,
John will experience “death” prior to his resurrection. In the meantime, Christ did say “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” If that concept is entertaining to you, OK.

Scripture clearly says Jesus DID NOT SAY John won’t die; rumor-mongers said so. You follow the rumor-mongers, I follow Jesus who never said John won’t die.

As to your final point, that is something you can go ahead and hang your hat on if you would like. I am comfortable with that particular change in council organization of the church as being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I see, “change” is only bad if it makes Parker uncomfortable, but if “change” makes Parker comfortable, it is welcome. That is hyprocrisy my brother.

That’s because I have a confirming witness received for myself from the Holy Spirit.

The same strange “holy spirit” that led you to atribute to Jesus what was in fact said by rumor-mongers?

Thanks for your thoughts, Placido. I wish all the best for you and that happiness really does define and spiritually enrich your life.

Thanks for your wishes.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
I don’t think atheists have full inner peace or complete happiness. (Having never “been there”, I can only say what I’ve observed in others as to how they interacted and what seemed to be inside of their heart based on that interaction.)

They may not have inner peace as you define it, but your definition is of no consequence to them. They believe they have inner peace and that is that.

The LDS church has a “president”, yes, because it was established in the United States and needed to follow the laws of corporate organization within the United States, for legal status as a non-profit corporation. There are also twelve apostles, one of their functions being to try and have the gospel preached “in all the world, as a witness to all nations”.

I do understand all that. The problem is, if it were any other church you would have cried foul, alleging deviation from pure gospel.

The office of “seventy” was established by Christ, as attested by Luke in Luke 10:1-17 which follows Luke’s description in Luke 9 of Christ having given power and authority to the twelve apostles. Luke says “After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also…” (10:1).

Ah, the “seventy” is no longer the number of people appointed, it is new level of leadership, lower than that of an apostle but higher than that of a bishop … it has to be so because Parker says so.
And how do you know Titus was one of them? … yes, I know, “it has to be so because Parker says so”.

placido

 

[Bill_Pick]

Wow … John is not dead and John has not yet resurrected. Sounds very funny. How can someone who never died resurrect?

I am embarrassed in finding out so late that, in fact, you are here only to entertain us, not for serious discussion.
On one thing we agree though: the “holy spirit” that led you to atribute to Jesus what was in fact said by rumor-mongers is not the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Gospel writers.

I asked about the council system because it represents “change” and you detest change. The church of the New Testament had no Council System comprising of the First Presidency plus the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

placido

placido, you know how confued Parker get do you think may be talking about the Presidency he may be talking about Geo Washington

 

[ParkerD]

Scripture clearly says Jesus DID NOT SAY John won’t die; rumor-mongers said so. You follow the rumor-mongers, I follow Jesus who never said John won’t die.

I see, “change” is only bad if it makes Parker uncomfortable, but if “change” makes Parker comfortable, it is welcome. That is hyprocrisy my brother.

The same strange “holy spirit” that led you to attribute to Jesus what was in fact said by rumor-mongers? NOT SO,

Thanks for your wishes.

placido

Placido,
I didn’t say that Jesus said John wouldn’t die. I said that He said John would tarry on earth until the Second Coming of Christ. What do you think “tarry till I come” means? (a sincere question–not a rhetorical one)

One can distinguish a doctrinal change from a change due to expanded needs in the church with respect to leadership roles. Two leading councils is a good idea for a “check and balance system”, so when the Holy Spirit has confirmed that having two leading councils is right, I can accept that.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Placido,
I didn’t say that Jesus said John wouldn’t die. I said that He said John would tarry on earth until the Second Coming of Christ. What do you think “tarry till I come” means? (a sincere question–not a rhetorical one)

One can distinguish a doctrinal change from a change due to expanded needs in the church with respect to leadership roles. Two leading councils is a good idea for a “check and balance system”, so when the Holy Spirit has confirmed that having two leading councils is right, I can accept that.

Dave Little off thread but how did it go with John 1"1 on the other board

 

[ParkerD]

Ah, the “seventy” is no longer the number of people appointed, it is new level of leadership, lower than that of an apostle but higher than that of a bishop … it has to be so because Parker says so.
And how do you know Titus was one of them? … yes, I know, “it has to be so because Parker says so”.

placido

Placido,
I didn’t say Titus was a seventy, I said he might have been a seventy. The epistle shows that he had less authority than Paul and more authority than bishops, so whatever that office was, then whatever it was called is what it was. The words “other seventy also” would be worded “seventy others also” if it was talking strictly about the number of “others” called.

If you read 1 Corinthians 15:5 you find the words “then of the twelve” meaning the twelve apostles. Paul referred to them as “the twelve”. It would not be unheard of that an office of “the seventy” could have been a part of the organization, or some other title of which there were seventy of the brethren called and given authority. Luke seems to write as though it was a known office that his readers would be familiar with.