Matthias and Barnabas

[NotWorthy]

But in both cases he does not call them Apostles. Plus you have Peter’s words saying thy must have asomeone take over Judas’ bishoprick. They are eleven bishops before Matthias election and twelve bishops after Matthias election. In addition if you have Matthias as an Apostle then Paul becomes the thirteenth Apostle and according to Revelation 21:14 that is one too many. There is just no way to ‘shoehorn’ in your interpretation of Luke words to mean Matthias was an Apostle.

Dearest Ink, what does “numbered among the eleven” if not “one of the Apostles”? You claim that my idea is a shoe-horn, and yet I clearly showed you that Luke calls them “The Eleven” and then “The Twelve”. What in the world does look mean? “Eleven” what? Apostles!

If you say that Matthias was merely a bishop and not an Apostle, let me ask you, why does Peter say Judas’ replacement had to be someone who was with Jesus during his entire ministry. Bishops don’t need this. And besides, I don’t think Paul was a witness during that time.

There were, indeed, thirteen Apostles. And this number is not exactly unique in Scripture. If you count the Levites, weren’t there 13 tribes that crossed into the Promised Land? I know this does not corellate with the 13 Apostles, but it does show a precedent for 13.

 

[NotWorthy]

There is just no way to ‘shoehorn’ in your interpretation of Luke words to mean Matthias was an Apostle.

Evidently the Catholic Encyclopedia is just as guilty of “shoehorning” this interpretation.

St. Matthias - Apostle.

The Greek Matthias (or, in some manuscripts, Maththias), is a name derived from Mattathias, Hebrew Mattithiah, signifying “gift of Yahweh.” Matthias was one of the seventy disciples of Jesus, and had been with Him from His baptism by John to the Ascension (Acts 1:21-22). It is related (Acts 1:15-26) that in the days following the Ascension, Peter proposed to the assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate. Two disciples, Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias were selected, and lots were drawn, with the result in favour of Matthias, who thus became associated with the eleven Apostles. Zeller has declared this narrative unhistoric, on the plea that the Apostles were in Galilee after the death of Jesus. As a matter of fact they did return to Galilee, but the Acts of the Apostles clearly state that about the feast of Pentecost they went back to Jerusalem.

 

[NotWorthy]

Inkaneer,

Here is what the Ignatius Bible says about it:

The replacement of one apostle with another is a pattern repeated in the episcopal succession of bishops from the first century to the present.

And the Navarre says,

St. Luke usually applies the term “apostles” only to the Twelve, or the Eleven plus Peter, who appears as head of the apostolic college. Except in Acts 14:14, Luke never describes St. Paul as an apostle - not because he minimizes Paul’s role, but because he reserves to the Twelve the specific function of being witnesses to our Lord’s life on earth.

It would seem that Matthias is considered an apostle by people far smarter than me!

 

[inkaneer]

Dearest Ink, what does “numbered among the eleven” if not “one of the Apostles”? You claim that my idea is a shoe-horn, and yet I clearly showed you that Luke calls them “The Eleven” and then “The Twelve”. What in the world does look mean? “Eleven” what? Apostles!

If you say that Matthias was merely a bishop and not an Apostle, let me ask you, why does Peter say Judas’ replacement had to be someone who was with Jesus during his entire ministry. Bishops don’t need this. And besides, I don’t think Paul was a witness during that time.

There were, indeed, thirteen Apostles. And this number is not exactly unique in Scripture. If you count the Levites, weren’t there 13 tribes that crossed into the Promised Land? I know this does not corellate with the 13 Apostles, but it does show a precedent for 13.

 

[inkaneer]

Dearest Ink, what does “numbered among the eleven” if not “one of the Apostles”? You claim that my idea is a shoe-horn, and yet I clearly showed you that Luke calls them “The Eleven” and then “The Twelve”. What in the world does look mean? “Eleven” what? Apostles!

Yes a shoehorn. Not only are you reading the word ‘Apostles’ into those statements which isn’t there but you are totally ignoring other scripture that contradicts your position. First of all, Peter says someone has to take over Judas’ bishoprick. He does not say Judas’ apostleship. Second You ignore Rev 21:14 which limits the Apostles to 12. Third, when Luke calls them the eleven then the twelve he does not distinguish eleven or twelve what. Fourth, In Acts 1:28 Luke says Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles. If Matthias was an Apostle there would then be twelve but Luke says there still is eleven Apostles even with Matthias.

If you say that Matthias was merely a bishop and not an Apostle, let me ask you, why does Peter say Judas’ replacement had to be someone who was with Jesus during his entire ministry. Bishops don’t need this. And besides, I don’t think Paul was a witness during that time.

No, Bishops don’t need this but then, neither do Apostles. Apostles though do need to be sent. Judas wasn’t sent. Judas’ replacement, Matthias, wasn’t sent. But Paul was sent. As you point out, Paul was not a witness during that time but scripture calls him an Apostle because he was sent. As for Peter’s qualification that Judas’ replacement had to be someone who was with Jesus during his entire ministry there was good reason for that. How were the Apostles going to train a replacement? Today we have seminaries. But back then you learned from a master or teacher. It was how training was done.

There were, indeed, thirteen Apostles. And this number is not exactly unique in Scripture. If you count the Levites, weren’t there 13 tribes that crossed into the Promised Land? I know this does not corellate with the 13 Apostles, but it does show a precedent for 13.

Yeah, there were thirteen people at the Last Supper also. So what? Besides Rev 21:14 says there were only twelve Apostles. Now I submit that if you disagree with that then your argument is not with me but with the author of Holy Scripture. So go argue with the Holy Spirit. Somehow I don’t think you will win that debate.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes a shoehorn. Not only are you reading the word ‘Apostles’ into those statements which isn’t there but you are totally ignoring other scripture that contradicts your position. First of all, Peter says someone has to take over Judas’ bishoprick. He does not say Judas’ apostleship. Second You ignore Rev 21:14 which limits the Apostles to 12. Third, when Luke calls them the eleven then the twelve he does not distinguish eleven or twelve what. Fourth, In Acts 1:28 Luke says Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles. If Matthias was an Apostle there would then be twelve but Luke says there still is eleven Apostles even with Matthias.

No, Bishops don’t need this but then, neither do Apostles. Apostles though do need to be sent. Judas wasn’t sent. Judas’ replacement, Matthias, wasn’t sent. But Paul was sent. As you point out, Paul was not a witness during that time but scripture calls him an Apostle because he was sent. As for Peter’s qualification that Judas’ replacement had to be someone who was with Jesus during his entire ministry there was good reason for that. How were the Apostles going to train a replacement? Today we have seminaries. But back then you learned from a master or teacher. It was how training was done.

Yeah, there were thirteen people at the Last Supper also. So what? Besides Rev 21:14 says there were only twelve Apostles. Now I submit that if you disagree with that then your argument is not with me but with the author of Holy Scripture. So go argue with the Holy Spirit. Somehow I don’t think you will win that debate.

Ink, I can understand that you don’t agree with me. But do you disagree with Catholic scholarship?

 

[inkaneer]

Ink, I can understand that you don’t agree with me. But do you disagree with Catholic scholarship?

These three facts remain. 1. Matthias was never sent which is the basic requirement for an Apostle. 2. Scripture says Paul was an Apostle. 3. Rev 21:14 limits the Apostles to twelve.

 

[NotWorthy]

These three facts remain. 1. Matthias was never sent which is the basic requirement for an Apostle. 2. Scripture says Paul was an Apostle. 3. Rev 21:14 limits the Apostles to twelve.

1. It seems that Mathias was sent, for he was “numbered among the Apostles”. In other words, he WAS an Apostle.
2. Scripture also lists Barnabus as an Apostle (Acts 14:14). So, you are stuck in a condundrum with
3. Rev 21:14 which does not list which 12 are the 12 Apostles of the Lamb. It also doesn’t say that Paul is specifically 1 of the 12.

In my opinion, the 12 names who are the foundation are the 12 Apostles who were there when the Foundation was revealed and the Church began - at Pentecost.

 

[kkoleon]

I’ve heard this doubt about the validity of Peter’s selection by more than one Protestant, so your old roots may be showing, my brother!

There’s two things that make me think this is a false assumption.
A) Paul calls the Apostles in Jerusalem “The Twelve”. Luke, who was a traveling companion of Paul (and I would assume shared the same thoughts on the Apostles) called the Apostles “The Eleven” prior to the selection of Matthias and then “The Twelve” after that.
B) Secondly, the Spirit descends upon the twelve IMMEDIATELY after the selection of Matthias. It seems the Holy Spirit confirmed the selection and then ushered in the new age!

c) it assumes that the church “pillar and foundation of truth” made an error at the very beggining. how could they be in error and be infallable writers of the NT sriptures at a later time?

 

[patrick457]

1. It seems that Mathias was sent, for he was “numbered among the Apostles”. In other words, he WAS an Apostle.
2. Scripture also lists Barnabus as an Apostle (Acts 14:14). So, you are stuck in a condundrum with
3. Rev 21:14 which does not list which 12 are the 12 Apostles of the Lamb. It also doesn’t say that Paul is specifically 1 of the 12.

In my opinion, the 12 names who are the foundation are the 12 Apostles who were there when the Foundation was revealed and the Church began - at Pentecost.

Good explanation! After all, the word apostolos simply meant a delegate, someone sent forth with orders. The New Testament itself does not limit this title for the Twelve (though the title is indeed more commonly used for them); heck, Jesus is even called ‘the apostle and high priest of our confession’ in Hebrews 3:1!

Let’s do a checklist of the people granted the title of ‘apostle’ within the NT (based on appearances of the Greek word):

• Jesus (Hebrews 3:1)
• The Twelve, both collectively and individually (Mark 3:14, 6:30; Luke 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10; Acts 1:2; 2:37, 42, 43; 4:33, 35, 37; 5:2, 12, 18, 40; 6:6; 8:14; 5:29; 8:18; 9:27; 11:1; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 1 Corinthians 9:5; 15:7; Galatians 1:17, 19; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 21:14)
• Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14)
• Paul (Acts 14:4, 14; Romans 1:1; 11:13; 1 Corinthians 1:1, 15:9; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:1, 11; 2:7; Titus 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1)
• “Our brothers” who are “apostles of the churches, a glory to Christ” (2 Corinthians 8:23)
• Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7)
• Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25)
• False apostles (Revelation 2:2)
• “Super-apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5, 13; 12:11)

So, we’ll end up with at least 18 specific ‘apostles’ (19 if you count Matthias “numbered among the apostles”), and countless more if you include the unnamed ‘brothers’ and the pseudo-apostles!

 

[inkaneer]

1. It seems that Mathias was sent, for he was “numbered among the Apostles”. In other words, he WAS an Apostle.

Acts 1:28 says Matthias was “numbered with the eleven Apostles” If he was the twelfth Apostle he should have been numbered with the twelve Apostles. Being numbered with them and being one of them are not the same.

1. Scripture also lists Barnabus as an Apostle (Acts 14:14). So, you are stuck in a condundrum with.
2. Rev 21:14 which does not list which 12 are the 12 Apostles of the Lamb. It also doesn’t say that Paul is specifically 1 of the 12.

In my opinion

, the 12 names who are the foundation are the 12 Apostles who were there when the Foundation was revealed and the Church began - at Pentecost.

When we speak of “The Apostles” we refer to those men who were sent by Jesus Christ at the great Commission. Other people like Barnabus have been sent but not by Christ. The Eastern Churches often refer to these men as ‘minor apostles’.

As for Revelatio 21:14 it does not say who those Apostles are but it does limit them to the number twelve. Paul is definitely an Apostle because infallible scripture says he is. That means Matthias is out. Nowhere does scripture make the statement about Matthias being an Apostle as it does with Paul. Now is Holy Scripture wrong or are you?

 

[NotWorthy]

Acts 1:28 says Matthias was “numbered with the eleven Apostles” If he was the twelfth Apostle he should have been numbered with the twelve Apostles. Being numbered with them and being one of them are not the same.

You seem to really be grasping at straws, my brother. To be “numbered with” means to “be one of”. He couldn’t be numbered with the 12 because there weren’t 12. He was the 12th.

When we speak of “The Apostles” we refer to those men who were sent by Jesus Christ at the great Commission. Other people like Barnabus have been sent but not by Christ. The Eastern Churches often refer to these men as ‘minor apostles’.

Where do you come up with this “When we speak of apostles…”? They have ALL been sent, whether it was by Christ or the Holy Spirit, I really don’t see that this matters?

As for Revelatio 21:14 it does not say who those Apostles are but it does limit them to the number twelve. Paul is definitely an Apostle because infallible scripture says he is. That means Matthias is out. Nowhere does scripture make the statement about Matthias being an Apostle as it does with Paul. Now is Holy Scripture wrong or are you?

Paul NEVER listed himself among the Twelve. Only Matthias was listed among the Twelve.

And it’s not “Me against Holy Scripture”. As other patient posters have noted, numerous others are listed as Apostles. They don’t know of this “When we speak of” caveat that you are throwing out, either. But, any time that “The Twelve” are mentioned after Judas’ replacement, the list seems to indicate Matthias, not Paul, for Paul never refers to himself as among the Twelve.

 

[inkaneer]

You seem to really be grasping at straws, my brother. To be “numbered with” means to “be one of”. He couldn’t be numbered with the 12 because there weren’t 12. He was the 12th.

HUH??? You wrote:

“He couldn’t be numbered with the 12 because there weren’t 12. He was the 12th.”

If he was the 12th then why weren’t there 12? You logic escapes me

Where do you come up with this “When we speak of apostles…”? They have ALL been sent, whether it was by Christ or the Holy Spirit, I really don’t see that this matters?

I get it from the same place as Revelation 21:14 gets it. Everyone has the duty to evangelize but not everyone is an Apostle that will have his name on the 12 layers of stones for the wall of the New Jerusalem.

Paul NEVER listed himself among the Twelve. Only Matthias was listed among the Twelve.

Matthias wasn’t ever listed with the Apostles. Scripture only says he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. That could mean anything. If I had eleven apples and one orange the orange is numbered with the eleven apples but that doesn’t make it an apple. If Matthias was listed with the Apostles scripture would call him an Apostle but it never does. But Scripture specifically calls Paul an Apostle. Scripture does not specifically call Matthias an Apostle. As for Paul never listing himself among the twelve I disagree. Paul writes in 1Co 9:5:

" Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" [1Corinthians 9:5]

There Paul is making the same claim as the other Apostles. Paul makes the same claim of being an Apostle of Jesus Christ in 2Co 1:1 as Peter does in 1Pe 1:1. Also Paul in Ro 1:1 and Tit 1:1 says he is a “servant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ” which Peter also says of himself in 2Pe 1:1. So Paul does count himself with the other Apostles. Matthias never does.

And it’s not “Me against Holy Scripture”. As other patient posters have noted, numerous others are listed as Apostles. They don’t know of this “When we speak of” caveat that you are throwing out, either. But, any time that “The Twelve” are mentioned after Judas’ replacement, the list seems to indicate Matthias, not Paul, for Paul never refers to himself as among the Twelve.

But the scriptures you cite never say TWELVE APOSTLES. It only says “THE TWELVE.” TWELVE WHAT? Twelve men? Twelve bishops? Twelve leaders? Twelve who received the Holy Spirit? You are reading something into the scriptures that is not there. You are adding to the word of God. Luther did the same thing. You’re not in great company there, you know.

 

[NotWorthy]

HUH??? You wrote:

“He couldn’t be numbered with the 12 because there weren’t 12. He was the 12th.”

If he was the 12th then why weren’t there 12? You logic escapes me

But there WERE Twelve. Prior to Matthias’ elevation, they are called “The Eleven”. Afterwards, they are called “The Twelve”. Why? Because Matthias was numbered among them.

11 + 1 = 12.

 

[NotWorthy]

I get it from the same place as Revelation 21:14 gets it. Everyone has the duty to evangelize but not everyone is an Apostle that will have his name on the 12 layers of stones for the wall of the New Jerusalem.

Matthias wasn’t ever listed with the Apostles. Scripture only says he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. That could mean anything. If I had eleven apples and one orange the orange is numbered with the eleven apples but that doesn’t make it an apple. If Matthias was listed with the Apostles scripture would call him an Apostle but it never does. But Scripture specifically calls Paul an Apostle.** Scripture does not specifically call Matthias an Apostle**. As for Paul never listing himself among the twelve I disagree. Paul writes in 1Co 9:5:

The CHURCH calls Matthias an Apostle. Hence, I don’t understand your point.

And I don’t see where Paul lists himself among the group known as “The Twelve”. He says he’s an Apostle. Good!!! I, and the Church, agree with this statement. But no one claims that he is a member of “The Twelve”.

 

[NotWorthy]

But the scriptures you cite never say TWELVE APOSTLES. It only says “THE TWELVE.” TWELVE WHAT? Twelve men? Twelve bishops? Twelve leaders? Twelve who received the Holy Spirit? You are reading something into the scriptures that is not there. You are adding to the word of God. Luther did the same thing. You’re not in great company there, you know.

Hmmmm… I’m in the same class as Martin Luther?!? All the while, I’ve cited 3 very Orthodox Catholic sources (Catholic Encyclopedia, Ignatius, and Navarre)?

Good Day, Ink.

 

[inkaneer]

Hmmmm… I’m in the same class as Martin Luther?!? All the while, I’ve cited 3 very Orthodox Catholic sources (Catholic Encyclopedia, Ignatius, and Navarre)?

Good Day, Ink.

Yeah, and not a single one of them is an infallible reference. On the other hand, I quoted from the Holy Scripture without adding to it as you did. Now are you telling me that your sources are better than mine? That’s what is coming across to me.

Anyway we are now repeating ourselves which is a sign to me that its time to quit because we are talking past each other. I’ll let you have the last word. My point has been made already.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yeah, and not a single one of them is an infallible reference. On the other hand, I quoted from the Holy Scripture without adding to it as you did. Now are you telling me that your sources are better than mine? That’s what is coming across to me.

Anyway we are now repeating ourselves which is a sign to me that its time to quit because we are talking past each other. I’ll let you have the last word. My point has been made already.

Ink, I understand that you don’t like me. But in your crass accusation that I am “in league with Martin Luther”, you are also accusing the editors of the Ignatius Study Bible (translate Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch), the editors of the Navarre Study Bible (considered one of the most Orthodox of Catholic Study Bibles) and the Catholic Encyclopedia (a compendium of Catholic Teaching) of being in league with Martin Luther. These are all very good teachers of the Catholic Faith, and I would believe them long before I’d believe you. That means more to me than your flippant accusation.

I understand that you’ve included Sacred Scripture, but you have also added your opinion to the Scripture, for no where does Paul (or the rest of Scripture) claim that the Twelve Apostles of the Foundation of the Church includes St. Paul. If one were to go with this belief, then one would have to conclude that the foundation of the Church was incomplete for roughly seven to 20 years after Pentecost (until St. Paul converted and began preaching). In other word, the very beginning of the Church included an incomplete foundation.

Now, I’m not done with this thread to anyone else who wishes to address the issue, for I understand that discussions can be productive. And Ink, if you wish to continue this thread in a productive fashion, I’ll continue to discuss this topic with you once you’ve apologized for your rash judgment of me.

Until then, Good Day.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Acts 1:24-25 says “And they prayed and said, ‘Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place. And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.’”

I don’t understand how anyone can be arguing that Matthias was not chosen to be one of the 12 apostles - it says that’s exactly what he was chosen for, to take the office of Judas - the place in this apostleship. I suspect it’s at root a protestant argument meant to somehow derail the whole idea of Apostolic Succession.

 

[inkaneer]

Acts 1:24-25 says “And they prayed and said, ‘Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place. And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.’”

I don’t understand how anyone can be arguing that Matthias was not chosen to be one of the 12 apostles - it says that’s exactly what he was chosen for, to take the office of Judas - the place in this apostleship. I suspect it’s at root a protestant argument meant to somehow derail the whole idea of Apostolic Succession.

Actually it is the other position, that of Matthias being an Apostle that derails the idea of Apostolic Succession. For if Matthias is an Apostle then Judas had to be an Apostle. For Judas’s successor can’t succeed to something that Judas wasn’t. So you have one Apostle following another. So the question then becomes what Apostle succeeded Peter??? And the answer is NONE. No Apostle succeeded Peter and the protestants have a real good argument that Apostolic Succession came to a grinding halt when the last Apostle died. Remember that in scripture the only succession mentioned is that of Judas/Matthias. Peter’s successor was a bishop but is never mentioned in scripture. So if the scripture sets the precedent that one Apostle is succeeded by another Apostle and no Apostle succeeded Peter then Apostolic Succession stops. BUT if Judas’ successor was a bishop then Apostolic Succession through the line of bishops, which is what the church teaches, is scripturally based and the protestants have no leg to stand on.