A
adrift
Guest
Another thread is being derailed by this question. inkaneer believes he was not. Let his arguments continue here.
- Status
A
adrift
Guest
Where does scripture state that Judas left before the institution of the Last Supper?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
He was an apostle.
Acts 1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
See also Catholic Encyclopedia.
Acts 1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
See also Catholic Encyclopedia.
J
Julian0404
Guest
Matthais was selected by the Apostels to “replace” Judas. This was done before the arrival of the HOLY SPIRIT in Pentecost. The HOLY SPIRIT came upon all the Apostles, incuding Matthais demonstrating that GOD had approved of and accepted not only Matthais, but the process of electing new Apostles and passing on the authority within the sign of “Apostolic”, which 1 of 4 signs for the true church.
I
inkaneer
Guest
I have put forth a reasonable and logical explanation for my position. In the process I have used supporting evidence from scripture as well as the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Everything I posted fits together. I gave logical reasons why, for instance, does Peter quote a single verse from two different Psalms to describe Judas. I showed why Judas did not have the same authority as the eleven Apostles and why scripture only says he and Matthias were only numbered with them. Not a single person has provided any evidence that what I presented was in error. Give me your interpretation of why Peter quotes the Psalms that he does. Tell me your reason that Peter says let another take his office of bishop. I’ll listen. Instead all I hear is the clanging of empty barrels telling me I am wrong Let someone here pull together all of Acts 1:15-26 into a logical and reasonable and cohesive theory that contradicts what I proposed. No one has. Instead I get responses like, “he is running rampant with false statements about the Church” which is a lie. I never made any false statements about the church. Show me where I did this. Or I read idiotic responses that tell me to prove someone never existed which is a classic case of total ignorance of logic.2tim.2:14 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
16 Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
17 and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae’us and Phile’tus,
I guess C.S. Lewis must have read the above .
Good Job All
Peace
onenow1
First Pope >>2Peter 1:14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
The one thing I have learned about studying scripture is that everything in scripture is there for a reason. We just have to know the reason. I learned this from no less a professor than Dr. Scott Hahn who is professor of Theology at Steubenville University in Steubenville Ohio and also a theology professor at St. Vincent College and Seminary in Latrobe, PA He also has a program on EWTN on Monday evenings at 9:00pm. You guys probably are watching football at that time.
Why for instance is the wedding at Cana in the scriptures? Of what significance, if any, is it? Does it mattter one iota if what seemingly is only a sidebar in the Gospels is even in there? What difference is it if this was Jesus first miracle or his second or third? Does it matter if His first miracle was in Cana or Nazareth or even Jerusalem? Does the Gospel message change if the tale of the wedding at Cana is removed? So what is the significance? But I know there is a reason for it being there. The Holy Spirit was not just adding some unrelated human interest story to the Gospels. The wedding feast at Cana is very significant and even vital to Catholic doctrine. So here is the test. Tell me the significance of this story. If you don’t know just say so and I will give my answer and you can check it out.
P
Patrick_Joshua
Guest
The church teaches he was one of the twelve apostles, who replaced Judas.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
In her calendar, the Church honors 14 apostles, including Matthias.
Paul and Barnabas being the other 2 beyond 12.
tee
Paul and Barnabas being the other 2 beyond 12.
tee
C
callmeChris
Guest
Matthias was the one who took Judas’ place. Read Acts 1:20-26
J
JM3
Guest
Matthew, Mark and John all suggest that Judas left after he was identified and before the institution of the Last Supper. Luke does not indentify him until the betrayal. Luke 22:21 does not necessarily mean that Judas is there at that specific time.
R
RosaryFan
Guest
Matthias was the replacement for Judas, so yes, he was an apostle.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
He was an apostle.
Acts 1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
See also Catholic Encyclopedia.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Around the year 200, Tertullian (AD 160-220) penned his famous work, The Demurrer Against the Heretics. There he wrote the following:
“The Apostles - a title which means ‘those who have been sent forth’ - immediately chose by lot Matthias as the twelfth, in the place of Judas, on the authority of a prophecy which is one of the psalms of David” (Tertullian, *The Demurrer Against the Heretics, *20:4).
So, in addition to Paul who recognized the existence of 12 apostles other than himself, we have the witness of an Early Church Father who taught clearly that Matthias was the twelfth apostle.
“The Apostles - a title which means ‘those who have been sent forth’ - immediately chose by lot Matthias as the twelfth, in the place of Judas, on the authority of a prophecy which is one of the psalms of David” (Tertullian, *The Demurrer Against the Heretics, *20:4).
So, in addition to Paul who recognized the existence of 12 apostles other than himself, we have the witness of an Early Church Father who taught clearly that Matthias was the twelfth apostle.
I
inkaneer
Guest
There is no one verse that says this but if you study the events of the last Supper in John 13 and Matthew 26 it becomes apparent. In John 13:26 -27 we read:
"26 Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”
Then in verse 30 we read:
“30 So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.”
Notice John says that Jesus commands Judas to whatever he is to do quickly and Judas went out immediately, But John does not record the institution of the Eucharist. So we have to find collaborating information in the other gospels.
Now in Matthew we have a slightly different version of the dipping of the morsel in the dish. But Matthew says that after this occurred is when Jesus instituted the Eucharist. How long we do not know but if as John says Jesus told Judas to go and do what he had to do quickly and Judas left immediately then he was gone before Jesus instituted the . Remember Jesus gives the bread to all to eat and the scripture says that Satan had already entered the heart of Judas So would Jesus give the Eucharist to someone He knew was in mortal sin?
Mark’s gospel coincides with Matthew as far as the chronological order of the events. However, Luke’s gospel seemingly contradicts Matthew and Mark. While Luke does not relate the dipping of the morsel it does give the institution of the Eucharist in Luke 22:19-20 But then in verse 21-22 Luke records Jesus as saying:
“21 But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” [RSV]
Two questions arise here. First, if Judas is already gone how then can his hand still be on the table? The second is, if scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is inerrant why then is there an apparent contradiction between Luke’s account and that of Matthew and Mark? I do not know the answer to these questions but I am studying them. At present I think that what appears to be a contradiction is, in reality, not one at all. What Luke wrote could be some type of idiom or what we would call a saying that should not be taken literally. There could be other reasons too. I chose to go with what two of the evangelist say and research the third.
I
inkaneer
Guest
But was Judas an Apostle? He was called by Christ to be one but was he really an Apostle? Peter in Acts 1 says of Judas that he had a part of the ministry of the Apostles. He also says Judas was numbered with the Apostles. Acts 1 says the same of Matthias, that he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. But what does Peter mean when he says that Judas was only numbered with them and had only a part of the ministry.? Does it mean that Judas was part of the Apostles or does it mean Judas did not have the full authority of the Apostles and therefore was numbered with them but was not an Apostle? Which is it?
I say Judas was called to be an apostle and received part of the education and training to be an apostle but cut short his education and training by committing suicide. He was not empowered as the Apostles were. He committed suicide about the time of Jesus’ crucifixion but the Apostles were not empowered to forgive sin until shortly before Jesus’ Ascencion when Judas was already dead for about forty days. In addition Judas was not present when the Eucharist was instituted [See my prior post on this].
So If Matthias succeeds Judas as an Apostle as is claimed [meaning that he takes over Judas authority] then Matthias cannot forgive sin and cannot celebrate the Eucharist. That is no Apostle.
I have posted extensively on this on the thread entitled “First Pope” and I wish I knew how to transfer those posts over to this thread but I don’t know if that is possible. So If anyone wants to read more about what I wrote on this please read the postings on the *First Pope * thread. Thank you.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Yes, Good Ole Tertullian. Unfortunately, Randy, Tertullian is not infallible nor is his writings inerrant. In fact, he was never canonized as a saint by the Church. Tertullian was just somebody who came out of paganism went through the church and then lapsed into heresy. Good Ole Tertullian.
I
inkaneer
Guest
You must be using one of the newer bible translations because that is a bad translation of the scriptural verse. Other older versions say Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles. If you read Acts 1:17 before this you will see where Peter says the very same thing about Judas. That he was numbered as an Apostle. In reality the Greek would that is used in verse 1:26 is the word sugkatapsephizo This word means “to vote.” So Matthias was voted to be with the eleven Apostles But that does not say He was an Apostle. Before Matthias’s selection there are eleven Apostles. Verse 1:26 tells us that after Matthias is selected there is still eleven Apostles and Matthias is with them but it doesn’t say He was one of them because then Verse 1:26 would have to say there were Twelve Apostles not eleven. There is a lot more to this than just one scripture verse. I have posted extensively on another thread he entitled First Pope I would suggest anyone wanting to join this discussion to please read my posts on that thread. Here is the link:He was an apostle.
Acts 1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
See also Catholic Encyclopedia.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501600
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, as has already been pointed out to you elsewhere. To review:
Benedict XVI (General Audience, 2006)
"…the Evangelists insist on the status as an Apostle that Judas held in all regards: he is repeatedly called “one of the twelve” (Mt 26: 14, 47; Mk 14: 10, 20; Jn 6: 71) or “of the number of the twelve” (Lk 22: 3).
"Moreover, on two occasions, Jesus, addressing the Apostles and speaking precisely of Judas, indicates him as “one of you” (Mt 26: 21; Mk 14: 18; Jn 6: 70; 13: 21). And Peter will say of Judas that “he was numbered among us and allotted his share in this ministry” (Acts 1: 17).
“He is therefore a figure belonging to the group of those whom Jesus had chosen as strict companions and collaborators.”
Tertullian (200 AD)
“The Apostles - a title which means ‘those who have been sent forth’ - immediately chose by lot Matthias as the twelfth, in the place of Judas, on the authority of a prophecy which is one of the psalms of David” (Tertullian, *The Demurrer Against the Heretics, *20:4).
Scripture declares Matthias to be an apostle, Tertullian confirms the early Church’s understanding, and Benedict XVI re-affirms the ancient understanding.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Randy, I responded to this previously on the other thread, First Pope. I do no intend to rehash what has already been refuted. Quoting a heretic like Tertullian is not beneficial to your cause. Besides in the quote you give above even Tertullian doesn’t call Matthias an apostle. All he says is that Matthias was one of the twelve. Twelve what? I do not deny that Matthias was a bishop as were all of the Apostles and as a bishop was one of the Twelve people in the heirarchy of the early church. But Peter states in Acts 1 that Judas only had part of the ministry of the Apostles. I also have pointed out that Judas was not empowered to consecrate the Eucharist. He was not present when Jesus empowered the eleven to consecrate the Eucharist nor was he empowered to forgive sins because he was already dead. If Matthias inherits Judas’ ministry without the power to consecrate the Eucharist or to forgive sin all he can do is preach and then he is no better than any protestant minister.
A
adrift
Guest
What should be noted is that the Apostles believed that Judas’ should be replaced.
They presented two canidates and prayed for the one that Jesus chose.
It is called the Apostolic Ministry.
The Greek word used is sugkatapsephizo which has the meaning of to assign one a place among, to vote one a place among.
What was the point of this election. It says to replace Judas not to ordain Matthias a bishop. In fact, it says nothing of him being a bishop but him joining the apostic ministry.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles
No one [except myself] has made any comment on what Peter says when he quotes one verse from each of two psalms. What is the reason behind Peter taking these verses out of their context. For that is what he apparently does. He takes, "Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it: from verse 25 of Psalm 69 and combines it with “His office let another take.” from verse 8 of Psalm 109. If this isn’t chop quoting the scriptures then what is? But is Peter chop quoting? Or is he relating two parts of the scriptures to two different things. I say Peter is not chop quoting. Peter is relating these verses of scripture to two different things. When he Quotes Psalm 109:8,“His office let another take.” He is referring to Judas’ office of bishop. The Greek word that The scripture writer uses here for office is episkope That word is also used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to bishop or office of bishop. Our word episcopal is derived from it. If Peter meant to refer to another taking over Judas’ apostleship we would see a form of the the Greek word apostolos used not episkope. So Psalm 109:8 refers to Judas’ office of bishop. When Peter quotes Psalm 69:25, "“Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it” he is referring to Judas’ Apostleship. It is desolate and no one can take it over because Judas did not receive the full authority of an Apostle . No one can receive from Judas what Judas never had. Now if someone else has a better explanation for Peter’s apparent chop quoting scripture then please present it.
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles
If the eleven Apostles just “replace Judas not to ordain Matthias a bishop” as you claim then Matthias can not be an Apostle. If Matthias receives Judas’ mantle without being ordained a bishop then Matthias cannot consecrate the Eucharist nor can he forgive sins because Judas never possessed that authority and Matthias cannot receive what Judas never had. Matthias has to receive that power from the other Apostles who select and consecrate bishops thereby empowering him to celebrate the Eucharist and to forgive sin.
No one [except myself] has made any comment on what Peter says when he quotes one verse from each of two psalms. What is the reason behind Peter taking these verses out of their context. For that is what he apparently does. He takes, "Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it: from verse 25 of Psalm 69 and combines it with “His office let another take.” from verse 8 of Psalm 109. If this isn’t chop quoting the scriptures then what is? But is Peter chop quoting? Or is he relating two parts of the scriptures to two different things. I say Peter is not chop quoting. Peter is relating these verses of scripture to two different things. When he Quotes Psalm 109:8,“His office let another take.” He is referring to Judas’ office of bishop. The Greek word that The scripture writer uses here for office is episkope That word is also used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to bishop or office of bishop. Our word episcopal is derived from it. If Peter meant to refer to another taking over Judas’ apostleship we would see a form of the the Greek word apostolos used not episkope. So Psalm 109:8 refers to Judas’ office of bishop. When Peter quotes Psalm 69:25, "“Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it” he is referring to Judas’ Apostleship. It is desolate and no one can take it over because Judas did not receive the full authority of an Apostle . No one can receive from Judas what Judas never had. Now if someone else has a better explanation for Peter’s apparent chop quoting scripture then please present it.
- Status