If there are twelve apostles why did Jesus appoint Saul?

[minkymurph]

With the twelve apostles already spreading the Gospel why did Jesus appoint Saul/Paul to be his messenger to the Roman Empire? Acts chapter 9:1-19

On reflection I would now say because Jesus can appoint as many Apostles as he chooses.

If one limits the number of Apostles to 12, one would have to ask why Jesus is constrained to a magic number of 12? What is so significant about the number 12? Because 13 is unlucky and the reason it is unlucky is because there were 13 at the Last Supper?

There is a role for everyone in the Church, and I can see no valid reason to limit the Apostolic ministry to 12. Perhaps someone else can, and if they can perhaps they will enlighten me. As far as I know, one reason why some limit the number of Apostles to 12 was in order to refute Apostolic Succession. That is why in a previous post I stated I understood this notion of limiting the number of Apostles to 12 as a Protestant belief. I do not say that in order to be offensive to Protestants nor in an attempt to appear superior to them. Merely to state the catholic position by contrast, as Apostolic Succession is fundamental to Catholicism.

 

[ezeekl]

On reflection I would now say because Jesus can appoint as many Apostles as he chooses.

If one limits the number of Apostles to 12, one would have to ask why Jesus is constrained to a magic number of 12? What is so significant about the number 12? Because 13 is unlucky and the reason it is unlucky is because there were 13 at the Last Supper?

There is a role for everyone in the Church, and I can see no valid reason to limit the Apostolic ministry to 12. Perhaps someone else can, and if they can perhaps they will enlighten me. As far as I know, one reason why some limit the number of Apostles to 12 was in order to refute Apostolic Succession. That is why in a previous post I stated I understood this notion of limiting the number of Apostles to 12 as a Protestant belief. I do not say that in order to be offensive to Protestants nor in an attempt to appear superior to them. Merely to state the catholic position by contrast, as Apostolic Succession is fundamental to Catholicism.

Well I don’t know how to make my position any clearer to you. I am sorry.

 

[minkymurph]

Well I don’t know how to make my position any clearer to you. I am sorry.

There is no need to apologise. You did make your position clear and in that in my view, you articulated your views clearly and I could follow your line of reasoning.

To me personally, that is important. It is not particularly relevant to me whether I personally agree with another’s conclusions. I am more interested in how they arrived at the conclusion rather than what the conclusion actually is. That is why during a debate I attempt to pose what could be construed as controversial questions. I am interested in how the person has reasoned on the point in issue and how they construct their argument rather than what their conclusion is.

What I would say to you is in my opinion, your line of reasoning displays certain weaknesses. That is an observation rather than a criticism as the best argument in the world is weak to an extent in certain areas. I don’t think the irrefutable argument exists.

One weakness I observe in you line of reasoning is the lack of authoritative sources to support what you state. Posters on CAF are often very quick to cite an authoritative source in support of what they write. It surprised me you did not, unless I missed it. Apostolic Succession is fundamental to Catholicism and as such, I would have thought there must be an authoritative source on the topic we are discussing. In the absence of an authoritative source, one has to conclude what you are offering is your opinion. That does not in itself mean your opinion is wrong, and you are entitled to an opinion. However, no one can be compelled to accept what is simply another’s opinion irrespective of who holds it and no matter how solid we think our personal opinion is, it remains our personal opinion and we have to accept it is the prerogative of others to disagree irrespective of the the fact it may be well presented.

I believe Matthias was an Apostle. The reason I believe that is because that is what I was always taught, which is why I have no great inclination to change my view. If in your opinion those who taught me were in error, you need an authoritative source supporting what you state.

 

[bcuster]

Matthias was the one that replaced Judas in the book of Acts.

 

[petra22]

Mathias was the one selected to take Judas’s place. He was the twelfth apostle, Saint Peter was following the directions from Jesus. “You have the keys of the kingdom” “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” “Feed my lambs and feed my sheep.”

Saint Paul was the special apostle, often self-proclaimed, especially for the gentiles. He was so important to the early church. So important that he had an encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus. His call was miraculous! And he worked tirelessly.

Isn’t there room for everyone? And what are we if we as Catholic Christians are to spread the word? Wasn’t Jesus telling all of us to go and preach the good news to all people??? Can we be apostles? disciples??

 

[ezeekl]

Mathias was the one selected to take Judas’s place. He was the twelfth apostle, Saint Peter was following the directions from Jesus. “You have the keys of the kingdom” “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” “Feed my lambs and feed my sheep.”

Saint Paul was the special apostle, often self-proclaimed, especially for the gentiles. He was so important to the early church. So important that he had an encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus. His call was miraculous! And he worked tirelessly.

Isn’t there room for everyone? And what are we if we as Catholic Christians are to spread the word? Wasn’t Jesus telling all of us to go and preach the good news to all people??? Can we be apostles? disciples??

Again we go back to the specific and generic meaning of the word ‘Apostle’. There are apostles today in the generic sense of the word. For the word means, ‘one who is sent’. It is Greek in origin but today, in the western church, we use the word, ‘missionary’ derived from the Latin word *mittere * meaning, ‘to send forth’ So the 70 disciples were missionaries in the generic sense.

But the word Apostle has a specific sense also and that refers to the small inner circle of followers that Jesus personally called and who He personally sent. Judas was called but he was never sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent by Jesus. Paul was both called and sent by Jesus. Please refer to Acts 9 for this. These then are the twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ and there are only twelve, not thirteen, not fourteen, not 72 or 70 nor any other number. Twelve was the number of stewards in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom. Of these twelve one was selected to be the chief steward and was empowered to act in the name of the king and who possessed the keys to the kingdom. That was the foreshadowing of the New Testament kingdom of Jesus Christ which perfected the OT one. Twelve stewards with one chief steward empowered with the keys of the kingdom.

Christianity has always taught that there were twelve apostles. Every christian denomination today preaches twelve apostles.

 

[minkymurph]

Again we go back to the specific and generic meaning of the word ‘Apostle’. There are apostles today in the generic sense of the word. For the word means, ‘one who is sent’. It is Greek in origin but today, in the western church, we use the word, ‘missionary’ derived from the Latin word *mittere * meaning, ‘to send forth’ So the 70 disciples were missionaries in the generic sense.

But the word Apostle has a specific sense also and that refers to the small inner circle of followers that Jesus personally called and who He personally sent. Judas was called but he was never sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent by Jesus. Paul was both called and sent by Jesus. Please refer to Acts 9 for this. These then are the twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ and there are only twelve, not thirteen, not fourteen, not 72 or 70 nor any other number. Twelve was the number of stewards in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom. Of these twelve one was selected to be the chief steward and was empowered to act in the name of the king and who possessed the keys to the kingdom. That was the foreshadowing of the New Testament kingdom of Jesus Christ which perfected the OT one. Twelve stewards with one chief steward empowered with the keys of the kingdom.

Christianity has always taught that there were twelve apostles. Every christian denomination today preaches twelve apostles.

You provide no authoritative source for what you state.

I don’t thin anyone here would deny Paul was called and sent. Why do you think Matthias was not called, and why do,you think he was not sent?

Your whole argument appears to hinge on the specific and the generic meaning of the term Apostle. Why do you think understanding the specific and the generic meaning of the term Apostle is so important?

 

[ezeekl]

You provide no authoritative source for what you state.

I don’t thin anyone here would deny Paul was called and sent. Why do you think Matthias was not called, and why do,you think he was not sent?

Your whole argument appears to hinge on the specific and the generic meaning of the term Apostle. Why do you think understanding the specific and the generic meaning of the term Apostle is so important?

My source is scripture.

Show me in scripture where Matthias is called and sent by Jesus Christ. Book, chapter and verse if you please.

Because they are important if we are to understand the issue.

 

[Moonbug]

I have asked myself in he past why Jesus and Paul never met face to face in this life. Only God knows the answer to that, but I believe one reason was because he was different from the rest. He was a scholar of the Old Law who had studied under the well known Gamaliel , a Pharisee, teacher, and member of the Sanhedrin. Paul was from an upper class family that had gained respect in the Roman Empire by having Roman citizenship conferred upon it.

The 12 Apostles were all from peasant stock, farmers, fishermen, etc… They would not have blended well. But after the crucifixion, the paradigm had changed. Saul was a Zealot for the Old Law and considered Jesus’ teachings the worse kind of heresy. He was present at the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, and held the cloaks of the men who threw the stones. He obtained a commission from the temple to go with a band of rough men from town to town and arrest all Christians they could find and bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.

He developed a reputation as a brutal prosecutor of the Christians. So when Christ knocked him off his horse while on his way to Damascus to arrest more Christians and instantly converted him into a believer, it was a shock not only to the priests at the temple, but to the Christians who were scared to death of him.

And what more irony can one ask for? Christ turned the worst enemy of the Christians into perhaps his greatest Apostle, certainly the most learned and the most theologically proficient of all the Apostles. God moves in mysterious ways…

 

[tvknight415]

Compare this man with the weak, faithless Peter who failed every test Jesus had put to him in the past. Makes one wonder why Peter was chosen as the first Pope, almost as if God wanted to show the Church that it could be run by fools and still survive.

My priest when I went through RCIA I think explained this as good as anyone I’ve ever heard…

The chain (of popes through history) is only as strong as its weakest link (Peter).

 

[Moonbug]

Oh poo! That is not a good analogy. The popes down through history were not “a chain of popes,” Each and every pope was distinct to the times he faced. If you know the history of the papacy then you know we have had some real humdingers. However, Peter was not one of them. In fact he was the greatest all round pope because he was personally chosen by Christ himself. Now, are you saying that Jesus Christ didn’t know what he was doing when he chose him? Peter had three of the greatest qualities a pope could have. One, he had the ability to hear two sides of a story and change his mind and admit when he was wrong. Second, he had great humility, and third, he was taught the gospel by Christ himself.

We only see the momentary indecisions of Peter because the are emphasized in the New Testament, and held up as an example that even the greatest of the Apostles could be wrong, but he always righted his decisions. If you dig into the lives of the popes throughout history, you’d be horrified at their mistakes.

 

[petra22]

My source is scripture.

Show me in scripture where Matthias is called and sent by Jesus Christ. Book, chapter and verse if you please.

Because they are important if we are to understand the issue.

Just my opinion, but I think you are trying to swallow a camel and choke on a gnat.
Why the big deal over the word apostle? I agree with the answerer who said Jesus chose poor, rough men who were with him from the beginning–one of the requirements for the selection of Mathias… Paul wasn’t with Him from the beginning… but Paul was a special agent of the Lord after His resurrection.

 

[ezeekl]

My priest when I went through RCIA I think explained this as good as anyone I’ve ever heard…

The chain (of popes through history) is only as strong as its weakest link (Peter).

Take a good look at Peter before the Ascencion and after, especially after Pentecost and you will see a big difference. Before, Peter is a stumbling, bumbling fool [for lack of an more appropriate word] but after he is the man, the go to guy in charge. That is so apparent in Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem. Scripture says that there was much debate. We can imagine men in small circles arguing the pros and cons. Then Peter stands up and begins to speak and the place falls silent. No more debate, no more arguing, the boss is speaking. They all knew it. The issue was resolved. James then formulates it.

 

[minkymurph]

My source is scripture.

Show me in scripture where Matthias is called and sent by Jesus Christ. Book, chapter and verse if you please.

Because they are important if we are to understand the issue.

We are both aware there is no scripture that states categorically and irrefutably in black and white Mathias was the twelfth Apostle. One would also have difficulty sourcing a scripture that states categorically Jesus was the Incarnate God, and the bread and wine are changed during the consecration. Should we reject these teachings on that basis?

By contrast, neither is there a scripture that states categorically and irrefutably in black and white he was not. You say your source is scripture. In relation to the event you are correct but as Catholic, I do not believe in sola scriptura. Further to this, the assertion the author of Acts intend to convey to readers by the manner in which he used the term Apostle Mathias was not an Apostle, with respect, in the absence of an authoritative source in support I have only your word for this. That does not in itself mean you are wrong, but would it not be imprudent for I, or anyone, who has little understanding of the use of Greek and Latin terms in a literary sense to disregard anything else I have read or been taught, and simply believe you?

I provided a link to New Advent. You rejected this evidence on the ground the Catholic encyclopedia is not infallible, in addition to the fact you were of the opinion it did not say what I thought it said. I will not address the second point. The first point is perfectly true, the Catholic encyclopedia is not infallible. However, we know who compiled the Catholic encyclopedia and to what extent they are schooled. As such, it is worthy of consideration. I provided another link to an article on CAF but to my knowledge, you have not as yet commented on this.

As I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, let us then consider how by Tradition the Church has interpreted the event described in Acts 1:15-26.

With regard to Mathias, the Lion Handbook of the Bible, edited by several Catholic scholars, has this to say:

The twelfth apostle (p.645)
As far as we know, this is the last time the apostles use the time-honoured method of casting lots. It is not just a ‘lucky dip’ - the decision is made after much prayer. The 12 apostles parallel the 12 tribes of Israel, do the number must be made up. The twelfth man must have been with Christ throughout his earthly ministry, and have seen him after the resurrection.

As Catholic, I believe we are all called and sent. We are not all called as Apostles, but we are all called to baptism and we are all sent into the world to preach the gospel. By Tradition and in conjunction with scripture, it is believed Mathias was one of the 70 Jesus sent out, spent time with Christ, was among those who witnessed the Ascension, and was chosen to replace Judas. It is true he is not named specifically. What can be said is the evidence suggests the Church recognizes Mathias as the twelfth Apostle. I will not waste time and words by quoting chapter and verse of the bible in relation to these events as I am of the opinion they are not in dispute.

We then come to Paul. This is what the Lion Handbook has to say.

Acts 9:10-11 (p.649)

Up to this point the gospel has been preached only to Jews, converts to Judaism, (proselytes) and Samaritans (who observed the law of Moses). Now God steps in to make it plain that the message is for everyone (34-35)

This pretty much speaks for itself. Paul was called to make it clear the message of the gospel was for everyone.

In conclusion, I cannot provide with a book, chapter and verse from the bible that states unequivocally Mathias was called and sent. If by your interpretation you conclude the manner in which the author of Acts, traditionally believed to be Luke, uses the term Apostle is irrefutable evidence Mathias was not called and sent and was not an Apostle, that is your prerogative. What cannot be disputed is the evidence suggests the Church regards Mathias as an Apostle, regards him as having been called and sent, and the reasons for their conclusions in regard to this issue have been stated. The assertion the author of Acts, was using the term ‘Apostle’ in an alternative sense would not sufficient to refute either the position of the Church in regard to Mathias, nor their reasons for holding this postion.

 

[minkymurph]

I would also like to add that taking what can be termed a ‘black letter’ approach - that is focusing on the actual text to the exclusion of other factors, to scripture is problematic in three ways:

1. It cannot sufficiently take into account the intentions of the parties who are engaging in the act or event in question.
2. It cannot sufficiently take into account how an objective observer would perceive the act of event.

 

[ezeekl]

We are both aware there is no scripture that states categorically and irrefutably in black and white Mathias was the twelfth Apostle. One would also have difficulty sourcing a scripture that states categorically Jesus was the
Incarnate God, and the bread and wine are changed during the consecration. Should we reject these teachings on that basis?

REALLY!!! Ever read the beginning of John’s gospel about Jesus being “the incarnate God”

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Or how about Mathew 26:26 about "the bread and wine are changed during the consecration:

Matthew 26:26 - "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”’

Or Mark 14:22:

"And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”

By contrast, neither is there a scripture that states categorically and irrefutably in black and white he was not. You say your source is scripture. In relation to the event you are correct but as Catholic, I do not believe in sola scriptura. Further to this, the assertion the author of Acts intend to convey to readers by the manner in which he used the term Apostle Mathias was not an Apostle, with respect, in the absence of an authoritative source in support I have only your word for this. That does not in itself mean you are wrong, but would it not be imprudent for I, or anyone, who has little understanding of the use of Greek and Latin terms in a literary sense to disregard anything else I have read or been taught, and simply believe you?

Yes, my source is scripture and no, I am not a sola scripturist either. But, since the Church has not made any definitive teaching on the subject then what do we go with? Scripture or some whim. I have backed up my assertions with the words of Peter himself and I may add that I am not alone in this either. But since you are admitting that you do not understand Greek themn maybe you should begin a self help program to be better at it.

I provided a link to New Advent. You rejected this evidence on the ground the Catholic encyclopedia is not infallible, in addition to the fact you were of the opinion it did not say what I thought it said. I will not address the second point. The first point is perfectly true, the Catholic encyclopedia is not infallible. However, we know who compiled the Catholic encyclopedia and to what extent they are schooled. As such, it is worthy of consideration. I provided another link to an article on CAF but to my knowledge, you have not as yet commented on this.

Yes, I rejected New Advent for the stated reason as well as it not saying what you wanted it to say. As foir the CAF article it too is not infallible. "Nuff said.

 

[ezeekl]

As I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, let us then consider how by Tradition the Church has interpreted the event described in Acts 1:15-26. With regard to Mathias, the Lion Handbook of the Bible, edited by several Catholic scholars, has this to say:

The twelfth apostle (p.645)
As far as we know, this is the last time the apostles use the time-honoured method of casting lots. It is not just a ‘lucky dip’ - the decision is made after much prayer. The 12 apostles parallel the 12 tribes of Israel, do the number must be made up. The twelfth man must have been with Christ throughout his earthly ministry, and have seen him after the resurrection.

As Catholic, I believe we are all called and sent. We are not all called as Apostles, but we are all called to baptism and we are all sent into the world to preach the gospel. By Tradition and in conjunction with scripture, it is believed Mathias was one of the 70 Jesus sent out, spent time with Christ, was among those who witnessed the Ascension, and was chosen to replace Judas. It is true he is not named specifically. What can be said is the evidence suggests the Church recognizes Mathias as the twelfth Apostle. I will not waste time and words by quoting chapter and verse of the bible in relation to these events as I am of the opinion they are not in dispute.

I’m sorry but where did this source of yours say Matthias was an Apostle?

We then come to Paul. This is what the Lion Handbook has to say.

Acts 9:10-11 (p.649)

Up to this point the gospel has been preached only to Jews, converts to Judaism, (proselytes) and Samaritans (who observed the law of Moses). Now God steps in to make it plain that the message is for everyone (34-35)

This pretty much speaks for itself. Paul was called to make it clear the message of the gospel was for everyone.

True but where does Paul say Matthias was an Apostle of Jesus Christ? Maybe it is in Romans 1:1 :

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.”

No that is not it. How about Romans 11:13:

“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry”

No, that is not it either. How about Galatians 1:1?

“Paul an apostle – not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead”

I guess not.

In conclusion, I cannot provide with a book, chapter and verse from the bible that states unequivocally Mathias was called and sent.

You can’t for Matthias but I can for Paul.

Gallatians 1:1 is the bottom line for this debate:

""Paul an apostle – not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"

If by your interpretation you conclude the manner in which the author of Acts, traditionally believed to be Luke, uses the term Apostle is irrefutable evidence Mathias was not called and sent and was not an Apostle, that is your prerogative. What cannot be disputed is the evidence suggests the Church regards Mathias as an Apostle, regards him as having been called and sent, and the reasons for their conclusions in regard to this issue have been stated. The assertion the author of Acts, was using the term ‘Apostle’ in an alternative sense would not sufficient to refute either the position of the Church in regard to Mathias, nor their reasons for holding this postion.

Total nonsense.

 

[minkymurph]

REALLY!!! Ever read the beginning of John’s gospel about Jesus being “the incarnate God”
ezeekl;11282112:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

And where here does it say in black and white, ‘Jesus was the Incarnate God?’ My point is the actual word ‘Incarnation’ is not used. The fact that the actual word ‘Incarnate’ is not written does not mean Jesus was not the Incarnate God.

Or how about Mathew 26:26 about "the bread and wine are changed during the consecration:

Matthew 26:26 - "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”’

Or Mark 14:22:

"And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”

I don’t see the actual word, ‘Transubstantiation’ here. By the fact the actual word Transubstantiation is not used here, does that mean we should not believe it happens?

Yes, my source is scripture and no, I am not a sola scripturist either. But, since the Church has not made any definitive teaching on the subject then what do we go with? Scripture or some whim. I have backed up my assertions with the words of Peter himself and I may add that I am not alone in this either. But since you are admitting that you do not understand Greek themn maybe you should begin a self help program to be better at it.

Maybe you should tell me where to start - by telling me where you found the information regarding the specific and generic term of the word ‘Apostle,’ and how you came to the conclusion Catholics use the term in the Greek sense in spite of the fact Latin is the language of the Church, and how you came to the conclusion Luke was using it in the generic sense. Did someone tell you this? Did you read it somewhere? Did you come to this conclusion as a consequence of your studies in Greek and Latin and if so, are you willing to share this information with others?

Yes, I rejected New Advent for the stated reason as well as it not saying what you wanted it to say. As foir the CAF article it too is not infallible. "Nuff said.

And your source in regard to the specific and generic use of the term is infallible?

What about the Lion Handbook? Is your source in regard to the above more authoritative?

 

[minkymurph]

I’m sorry but where did this source of yours say Matthias was an Apostle?

I gave the sources and the sources. If you are of the opinion they assert or suggest Mathias was not an Apostle, it is up to you to say why.

True but where does Paul say Matthias was an Apostle of Jesus Christ? Maybe it is in Romans 1:1 :

Does Paul not refer to Barnabas as an Apostle in the book of Acts? I could look for the chapter and verse but I am not going to all the work. At least not until you can tell me where you got your information in relation to the translation of the Greek word ‘Apostle’ into Latin, and the manner in which Luke uses it in the book of Acts.

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.”

No that is not it. How about Romans 11:13:

“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry”

No, that is not it either. How about Galatians 1:1?

“Paul an apostle – not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead”

I guess not.

You can’t for Matthias but I can for Paul.

People are free to guess whatever they want.

I am not arguing for Mathias and against Paul. You are obviously arguing for Paul. My intention is to present evidence in regard to to what Tradition and Catholic biblical scholars have written on Mathias. I stated I did not have a strong opinion one way or the other. One reason why I am coming down on the side of Mathias is you have yet to state where you got your information concerning the specific and generic use of the term Apostle. As such, I have only your word for it. Certainly you can criticize my ‘admission,’ in my view it was not an ‘admission’ it was simply a fact, that I am not a scholar of Greek or Latin, and suggest I educate myself in this regard. Who educated you? Did you educate yourself? How do I know you have a greater knowledge of Greek and Latin than those who taught me what they know of Greek and Latin, whose scholarship in this regard is known to me, and who are of the opinion Mathias was an Apostle?

What I am doing is weighing up what evidence is available in an attempt to objectively evaluate the issue. Anything I have written is not of my own orientation and the references | have provided are evidence of that. If it transpires Mathias was not an Apostle it would be no big deal to me. By what you have written one could deduce it would be a big deal for you if it turns out he was.

Total nonsense.

Now this is what I term the ‘easy option’ debate strategy. The reason I term it the ‘easy option’ strategy is anyone can say, ‘Your wrong and your talking nonsense,’ it serves to put the onus back on the person presenting evidence rather than contest the issue if that person is naive enough to bite and become defensive. In addition, it doesn’t exactly require a great deal of thought or articulation does it? It is also a loaded statement, in that it is loaded with a degree of emotion in spite of the fact no exclamation mark is used. It could also be construed you dismissing it as nonsense because you can’t think of anything to write that would refute it.

Of course you are entitled to think it is nonsense. However, if I may use the example of the court, how convinced do you think a jury would be if council for the defense stood up and said, ‘My client is innocent because council for the prosecution is talking nonsense?’ Or, council for the prosecution states, ‘the defendant is guilty because defense is talking nonsense?’

Obviously this is something that is of great significance to you. In which case, you will have no difficulty citing an authoritative source(s) that gave you your understanding of Greek and Latin.

 

[PRmerger]

I gave the sources and the sources. If you are of the opinion they assert or suggest Mathias was not an Apostle, it is up to you to say why.

People are free to guess whatever they want.

I am not arguing for Mathias and against Paul. You are obviously arguing for Paul. My intention is to present evidence in regard to to what Tradition and Catholic biblical scholars have written on Mathias. I stated I did not have a strong opinion one way or the other. One reason why I am coming down on the side of Mathias is you have yet to state where you got your information concerning the specific and generic use of the term Apostle. As such, I have only your word for it. Certainly you can criticize my ‘admission,’ in my view it was not an ‘admission’ it was simply a fact, that I am not a scholar of Greek or Latin, and suggest I educate myself in this regard. Who educated you? Did you educate yourself? How do I know you have a greater knowledge of Greek and Latin than those who taught me what they know of Greek and Latin, whose scholarship in this regard is known to me, and who are of the opinion Mathias was an Apostle?

What I am doing is weighing up what evidence is available in an attempt to objectively evaluate the issue. Anything I have written is not of my own orientation and the references | have provided are evidence of that. If it transpires Mathias was not an Apostle it would be no big deal to me. By what you have written one could deduce it would be a big deal for you if it turns out he was.

Now this is what I term the ‘easy option’ debate strategy. The reason I term it the ‘easy option’ strategy is anyone can say, ‘Your wrong and your talking nonsense,’ it serves to put the onus back on the person presenting evidence rather than contest the issue if that person is naive enough to bite and become defensive. In addition, it doesn’t exactly require a great deal of thought or articulation does it? It is also a loaded statement, in that it is loaded with a degree of emotion in spite of the fact no exclamation mark is used. It could also be construed you dismissing it as nonsense because you can’t think of anything to write that would refute it.

Of course you are entitled to think it is nonsense. However, if I may use the example of the court, how convinced do you think a jury would be if council for the defense stood up and said, ‘My client is innocent because council for the prosecution is talking nonsense?’ Or, council for the prosecution states, ‘the defendant is guilty because defense is talking nonsense?’

Obviously this is something that is of great significance to you. In which case, you will have no difficulty citing an authoritative source(s) that gave you your understanding of Greek and Latin.

Very well argued, minkymurph!

What say you, ezeekl?