T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Yes, we do notice. The point Bill Pick was making in listing “criteria” was not to list criteria to be an apostle, but criteria to be one of the Twelve, as he said.
Lds claim that it is absolutely essential that the true church of christ have today twelve apostles
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
Moving the goal posts a bit, there, aren’t you?
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
Our claim is that the ‘true church’ should have apostles. We do not claim that they have to be one of the original twelve, so arguing that any apostle called after the original twelve is not one of the original twelve is, well… moving the goal posts.
We have shown that not all the apostles of the NT were of the original twelve (Paul, Mattias, Apollos, for instance…) and you come up with this rather odd notion that since modern apostles are not of the original twelve, then this alone disqualifies them from being apostles–even though many of the apostles mentioned in the NT were also not of the original twelve. Yet they were, indeed, apostles.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Actually that is false, and what we were saying had nothing to do with being one of the “original” Twelve, but simply being one of the Twelve. The view that Bill Pick was demonstrating, and which I also believe, is that criteria was set forth to be one of the Twelve. There were other apostles besides the Twelve, but these others were never part of the Twelve. The “odd notion” that we have is not that modern apostles are not of the original Twelve, but that they do not fulfill the criteria given to be one of the Twelve, which was used in selecting Saint Matthias as the replacement of Judas. Of course, Mormons seem to dismiss this criteria as not universal.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Paul did not meet that criteria, nor has it been demonstrated that a few of the other men referred to as ‘apostle’ met that criteria, if that criteria is that they knew and witnessed the mortal ministry of Christ.
E
Erich
Guest
The Bible only mentions the deaths of two apostles, James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD and Judas Iscariot who committed suicide shortly after the death of Christ. The details of the deaths of three of the apostles (John the Beloved, Bartholomew and Simon the Canaanite) are not known at all, either by tradition or early historians. The deaths of the other seven apostles are known by tradition or the writings of early Christian historians. According to traditions and the Bible, eight of the Apostles died as Martyrs. At least two of the Apostles, Peter and Andrew were crucified.
But, looking at CADRE - Dating the New Testament, one sees among other things the following quotes:
Judas’ replacement by Matthias was noteworthy enough to be mentioned in Scripture, as was the death of the apostle James (though his replacement is not named… you’re only assuming it was Paul). If “only 12 apostles at any one time, chosen by lot from among the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place)” is the “pattern that was to continue”, then that pattern should have been more clearly established in Scripture. Timothy is named as an apostle, yet 2 Tim. 1:6, 14 tells us “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands… guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
. Why did Jesus choose only twelve men? Because this number was to represent the New Israel in contrast to the Old Israel which was made up of twelve tribes.
. Now as to succession: why was it necessary to replace Judas? Simply because of the idea just given above. Judas was replaced because of his desertion and not because he died. At the time of his death all the others were still living. Notice - once James of Zebedee died (Acts 12:2) there was no attempt to replace him with a successor. The Twelve were looked upon as the founders of the New Israel and that is all. The thought of replacing them with another set of twelve is an idea unknown to the New Testament, or history.
. Matthias was chosen for the replacement of Judas because he could fulfill the two requirements mentioned in Acts 1: 21-22. Had Judas been replaced precisely because of his death, then each of the Apostles as they died would have had to be replaced with a successor. Yet nowhere in the New Testament is there evidence of such a plan. The Twelve died one by one until John was the last to succumb, and while he was living he has given no testimony either in his Gospel or in any writing outside Scripture to the existence of replacements for the entire group. Successors they would have, but not another Twelve.
The Mormon reply is that Jesus appeared in the Americas after His Ascension and set up His Church a second time with another Twelve Apostles with the right of succession. This is only a theory and lacks all valid historical evidence
. Now as to succession: why was it necessary to replace Judas? Simply because of the idea just given above. Judas was replaced because of his desertion and not because he died. At the time of his death all the others were still living. Notice - once James of Zebedee died (Acts 12:2) there was no attempt to replace him with a successor. The Twelve were looked upon as the founders of the New Israel and that is all. The thought of replacing them with another set of twelve is an idea unknown to the New Testament, or history.
. Matthias was chosen for the replacement of Judas because he could fulfill the two requirements mentioned in Acts 1: 21-22. Had Judas been replaced precisely because of his death, then each of the Apostles as they died would have had to be replaced with a successor. Yet nowhere in the New Testament is there evidence of such a plan. The Twelve died one by one until John was the last to succumb, and while he was living he has given no testimony either in his Gospel or in any writing outside Scripture to the existence of replacements for the entire group. Successors they would have, but not another Twelve.
The Mormon reply is that Jesus appeared in the Americas after His Ascension and set up His Church a second time with another Twelve Apostles with the right of succession. This is only a theory and lacks all valid historical evidence
P
ParkerD
Guest
Erich,
I agree that “that pattern should have been more clearly established in Scripture.” If only you had been there to have been the historian or the scriptorian to have kept every pertinent detail in the records that were going to be found and made into scripture.
But if you’ll read Acts 12:2, then Acts 13:2 and v. 46, then Acts 14:4 and v. 14, you will find that after James had been killed, two new apostles were ordained and sent on missions: Barnabas and Paul. They were apostles to the Gentiles. They were identified as apostles in Acts 14.
It is not out of a line of reasonableness to come to a conclusion that another apostle besides James had also been killed or had otherwise died by the time Barnabas and Paul were called as apostles. Herod was in a “hunting” mood after he had had James killed. He went after Peter. He may have gone after another apostle also. Every detail is just not written down, or we would have the details of the deaths of each and every one of the original twelve apostles.
If Paul had ever wanted it to be known that he was not “one of the twelve apostles”, it is reasonable to conclude that he would have written in a way that made a distinction about his calling as compared with the calling of the twelve apostles. He made no such distinction–he was humble about his calling, but he acknowledged that he had been called as an apostle to bear witness of Jesus Christ and His divine mission on earth.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Yes exactly, Paul did not meet that criteria, nor did a few others called apostle. That’s the point, the difference between apostles, and apostles of the Twelve (and not being one of the “originals”, but just being one of the Twelve, as Saint Matthias was added (and Barsabbas was also a choice).
D
dianaiad
Guest
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Here is the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant view:
-The criteria set forth to be one of the Twelve was made explicit when Saint Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, where we see the “field” narrowed down to Saint Matthias and Barsabbas. We see this as the criteria set forth. From what I understand, Mormons do not see this criteria as necessarily universal criteria.
-There were other apostles besides the Twelve. All of the Twelve we apostles, but not all apostles were part of the Twelve. Mormons claim that the Twelve was not supposed to end, and that it was restored and continues today. In Catholic thought, no one can be part of the Twelve today because no one meets the criteria that we believe was made explicit with the selection of Saint Matthias. So going back to the reason I posted, Bill Pick was not speaking on just criteria to be one of the original Twelve, but criteria to be one of the Twelve in general, since obviously St. Matthias was not an original.
D
Della
Guest
Sacred Tradition began with Adam, was carried on by Noah, then Abraham, and Moses, before the Incarnation. Jesus gave his Apostles all they needed to preach and teach the truth and the authority to pass it on to their successors. And we have those successors with us today–the bishops of the Catholic Church. Jesus’ teachings have not changed and the Church hasn’t changed them since receiving them from him. The Church has defined doctrines as dogmas, which is what we mean by the development of doctrine, but it hasn’t changed existing truth nor created “new” ones. I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed.
We have history as witness that this is true. Plain, ordinary history.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Except of course that’s how you have the Bible (sans a few other inspired texts). But then, it does make sense, since it’s accepted “as far as it is translated correctly”.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Correction. We do not claim that ‘the original twelve’ was supposed to continue. We claim that the office of apostle is supposed to be a part of the church. We do not separate the groups…the original twelve are no more important than those apostles called to augment or replace them. Paul was not a ‘lesser’ apostle, in other words. He was just as much an apostle as Peter, or Matthew…or Mattias.
Therefore your claim is a bit of a strawman.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes, thanks to you we have the bible. Thank you very much for protecting it, compiling it and keeping it.
But you are equating the scripture with Tradition, and I don’t think that’s what you want to do, is it?
Or did I hit a ‘truth button’ when I wrote that God’s word, the scriptures, seem to hold a lesser place in the hierarchy than Tradition does?
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Note that I did not say that Mormons believe that the “original twelve” were supposed to continue.
Was Paul part of the Twelve?
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Tradition and Scripture are equal, and obviously Scripture came from Tradition. The Bible didn’t just fall out of the sky, ready made and compiled.And at least in Catholic thought, “God’s word” is Scripture AND Tradition. Scripture is God’s written word.
This is an argument we have with Protestants (or at least the evangelical brand) all the time.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
what makes an apostle an apostle? What made the Twelve different from other apostles? Do we need a Quorum of Twelve Apostles today? Why?
D
dianaiad
Guest
it is a most interesting idea, actually. Until I came on this board I wasn’t aware of the fact that Catholics hold their Sacred Tradition to be equal to scripture. It does provide a little irony to the whole criticism of continuing prophecy thing, though.
And at least in Catholic thought, “God’s word” is Scripture AND Tradition. Scripture is God’s written word.
This is an argument we have with Protestants (or at least the evangelical brand) all the time.
- Status