Matthias, only a bishop?

[inkaneer]

Why do you object to calling Matthias an apostle?

Because it was not the intent of Peter for Matthias to be an apostle. Peter only called for someone to occupy the office of Bishop Look at Acts 1:20 and look at the Greek word that is translated as “office”. It is episkope That very same Greek word is used in 1Ti 3:1 and is translated as “office of Bishop” In Acts 1:20 Peter quotes one verse from two entirely different Psalms and applies both to Judas. Acts 1:20 reads as follows in the RSV:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His **office **let another take.’

In the Douay-Rheims the same verse reads:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.”

Notice the Douay-Rhiems has a much more accurate rendering of the Greek word episkope

But there is more. The first part od verse 20, “For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein.” is verse 25 from Psalm 69. Why does Peter apply this to Judas? What is desolate about Judas habitation? This becomes clear when you realize that his habitation is not only where he lives, that is, his house but it also his lineage. Look at Verse 27 in Luke 1:

“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary.”

Joseph was of the house of David. David was Joseph’s ancestor. That makes Joseph in the line of succession from David. But Judas house [his habitation] Peter says will be desolate and no one will occupy it. He is talking about Judas’ Apostlehood and no one will occupy it [no one will succeed him]. Peter then calls for someone to occupy the office of bishop that was vacant. The call is for the bishopric not for the apostleship. That is so clear in the scriptures once you get to understand the real meaning of the words. ** In 2,000 years of Catholicism there is not one Bishop who traces his Apsotolic Succession from Judas. It is indeed desolate.**

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Because it was not the intent of Peter for Matthias to be an apostle. Peter only called for someone to occupy the office of Bishop Look at Acts 1:20 and look at the Greek word that is translated as “office”. It is episkope That very same Greek word is used in 1Ti 3:1 and is translated as “office of Bishop” In Acts 1:20 Peter quotes one verse from two entirely different Psalms and applies both to Judas. Acts 1:20 reads as follows in the RSV:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His **office **let another take.’

In the Douay-Rheims the same verse reads:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.”

Notice the Douay-Rhiems has a much more accurate rendering of the Greek word episkope

But there is more. The first part od verse 20, “For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein.” is verse 25 from Psalm 69. Why does Peter apply this to Judas? What is desolate about Judas habitation? This becomes clear when you realize that his habitation is not only where he lives, that is, his house but it also his lineage. Look at Verse 27 in Luke 1:

“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary.”

Joseph was of the house of David. David was Joseph’s ancestor. That makes Joseph in the line of succession from David. But Judas house [his habitation] Peter says will be desolate and no one will occupy it. He is talking about Judas’ Apostlehood and no one will occupy it [no one will succeed him]. Peter then calls for someone to occupy the office of bishop that was vacant. The call is for the bishopric not for the apostleship. That is so clear in the scriptures once you get to understand the real meaning of the words. ** In 2,000 years of Catholicism there is not one Bishop who traces his Apsotolic Succession from Judas. It is indeed desolate.**

:banghead::banghead::banghead: You know that you are in disagreement with the Church. According to the Church Matthis was an Apostle.

 

[JM3]

But at no time is the word apostles applied to the twelve.

Where do you see the term Twelve Apostles.

:whacky:

 

[inkaneer]

:banghead::banghead::banghead: You know that you are in disagreement with the Church. According to the Church Matthis was an Apostle.

The church has never made a dogmatic statement regarding Matthias as an apostle. And I don’t think the Church ever will. The reason is simple. Both the Church and scripture teaches there were 12 Apostles. Both the Church and scripture claim Paul was an apostle. Now you cannot teach that and still say there were 13 or 14 apostles and claim to be guided into the truth. I do not think the issue has ever been raised to the point where serious consideration has been given to the matter.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But at no time is the word apostles applied to the twelve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Where do you see the term Twelve Apostles.

:whacky:

Read what is in the scriptures. Don’t add to them. If the Holy Spirit wanted Luke to write **twelve Apostles **Luke would have done so. Luke didn’t and I can only conclude that the Holy Spirit had a good reason why He didn’t want him to.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But at no time is the word apostles applied to the twelve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Where do you see the term Twelve Apostles.

Read what is in the scriptures. Don’t add to them. If the Holy Spirit wanted Luke to write **twelve Apostles **Luke would have done so. Luke didn’t and I can only conclude that the Holy Spirit had a good reason why He didn’t want him to.

Maybe … (wait for it… wait for it …) it was understood when saying THE TWELVE it ment … ( hear it comes…) APOSTLES…

And again as other have asked why do you have such a problem with Matthis being an Apostle?

 

[inkaneer]

In Catholic Scripture Study - an online Catholic Bible Study it reads

Quote:
In Acts, Peter is presented again and again as the leader of the Church after Jesus ascended. Of the two present in Acts 1 who fulfilled the necessity to have been “of our company and who witnessed the resurrection,” Matthias was the one chosen by lot and so was added to the eleven Apostles.

---

But it stops short of calling him an apostle. Sure he was added to, numbered with counted with, enrolled with} whatever translation you choose but it doe not say He is an Apostle. Now does the Holy Spirit have a problem with the word “apostle” that he won;t allow Luke to call him that??? I don’t think so because He calls Paul an Apostle no less than 13 times.

 

[NoelFitz]

I like this discussion as it is totally confusing and has no answer or a simple one, as I wrote previously* It all depends on what you mean by apostle.*

However please let me add to the confusion by quoting the Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary:

In addition to evidencing a bewildering range of applications of the title of apostle, the NT and the early patristic literature also attempt to define it. Since scholarship is still divided on many of the questions, the following definitions must be seen as part of the argument and not as final answers.
The basic definition given by Origen (Jo. 32.17, ed. Preuschen 1903: 453, line 17) is simple: “Everyone who is sent by someone is an apostle of the one who sent him.” The concept involves legal and administrative aspects and is basic to all types of representatives, envoys, and ambassadors. In the area of Christian religion, the term “apostle” can refer to a messenger, human or divine, sent by God or Christ to reveal messages or to reveal the message of the gospel (David Noel Freedman, vol. 1, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 309).

Certain quotations from the NT can also make the issue more enigmatic

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;b 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him (New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 10:2–4).

And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ac 1:26).

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord (New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 1 Co 9:1–2).

 

[inkaneer]

Maybe … (wait for it… wait for it …) it was understood when saying THE TWELVE it ment … ( hear it comes…) APOSTLES…

And again as other have asked why do you have such a problem with Matthis being an Apostle?

Have you read everything I have posted here? Maybe you have a better explanation as to why Peter only calls for someone to occupy the office of bishop vacated by Judas but not his apostlehood. Maybe you have a better explanation for why Peter says that Judas’ house will be desolate and no one will live in it. Maybe you can explain how Matthias can succeed to something Judas never had, that being the authority to consecrate the Eucharist and the authority to forgive sins. If you insist on Matthias receiving this from Judas then Matthias is no better than any protestant minister today because Judas was never so empowered. Maybe you can explain to everyone how the Church can teach there were twelve Apostles then claim a total of 14. Maybe you can explain how scripture is in error when it claims there were 12 apostles. I would like to read your explanations for these so please post them for all of our benefit. Thank you.

 

[NotWorthy]

But it stops short of calling him an apostle. Sure he was added to, [numbered with counted with, enrolled with} whatever translation you choose but it doe not say He is an Apostle. Now does the Holy Spirit have a problem with the word “apostle” that he won;t allow Luke to call him that??? I don’t think so because He calls Paul an Apostle no less than 13 times.

So, if I am enrolled in my Church, I’m not Catholic unless and until my Church calls me Catholic?

I’m sorry, Ink, but you’re getting no traction with me.
[/QUOTE]

 

[NotWorthy]

Have you read everything I have posted here? Maybe you have a better explanation as to why Peter only calls for someone to occupy the office of bishop vacated by Judas but not his apostlehood. Maybe you have a better explanation for why Peter says that Judas’ house will be desolate and no one will live in it. Maybe you can explain how Matthias can succeed to something Judas never had, that being the authority to consecrate the Eucharist and the authority to forgive sins. If you insist on Matthias receiving this from Judas then Matthias is no better than any protestant minister today because Judas was never so empowered. Maybe you can explain to everyone how the Church can teach there were twelve Apostles then claim a total of 14. Maybe you can explain how scripture is in error when it claims there were 12 apostles. I would like to read your explanations for these so please post them for all of our benefit. Thank you.

Ink, why did Matthias HAVE TO WITNESS Jesus’ ministry? No other bishops had to do this.

 

[inkaneer]

I like this discussion as it is totally confusing and has no answer or a simple one, as I wrote previously* It all depends on what you mean by apostle.*

Well let’s unconfuse it. We are speaking of the disciples of Jesus who were called to be Apostles and who were sent by Jesus. Twelve were called by Jesus but only eleven were sent by Jesus. These are the same men who scripture calls ** “the twelve apostles of the Lamb,”** [See Revelation 21:14]

However please let me add to the confusion by quoting the Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary:

Quote:
In addition to evidencing a bewildering range of applications of the title of apostle, the NT and the early patristic literature also attempt to define it. Since scholarship is still divided on many of the questions, the following definitions must be seen as part of the argument and not as final answers.
The basic definition given by Origen (Jo. 32.17, ed. Preuschen 1903: 453, line 17) is simple: “Everyone who is sent by someone is an apostle of the one who sent him.” The concept involves legal and administrative aspects and is basic to all types of representatives, envoys, and ambassadors. In the area of Christian religion, the term “apostle” can refer to a messenger, human or divine, sent by God or Christ to reveal messages or to reveal the message of the gospel (David Noel Freedman, vol. 1, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 309).

Yes notice the part, **"Everyone who is sent by someone is an apostle of the one who sent him.” The concept involves legal and administrative aspects and is basic to all types of representatives, envoys, and ambassadors. In the area of Christian religion, the term “apostle” can refer to a messenger, human or divine, sent by God or Christ to reveal messages or to reveal the message of the gospel’’ **

This leave out both Judas and Matthias as apostles of Jesus Christ as neither of them were sent by Jesus. Scripture clearly states only eleven were sent by Jesus:

16 Now the **eleven disciples **went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
[Mt 28:16-20 RSV]

Certain quotations from the NT can also make the issue more enigmatic

Quote:
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;b 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him (New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 10:2–4).

Yes this is the first and last time Judas is called an apostle. That he was selected by Jesus to be an apostle is not in doubt. But did he finish the race? Was he sent out into the world to preach the gospel and to baptize the nations. No, he committed suicide and never received the authority that the other eleven did. He could not consecrate the Eucharist and he could not forgive or retain sins. He was selected to be an apostle but since he was not sent he was not an Apostle. For that is what the word apostle means according to your own quote above which I will repeat here:

**"Everyone who is sent by someone is an apostle of the one who sent him.” The concept involves legal and administrative aspects and is basic to all types of representatives, envoys, and ambassadors. In the area of Christian religion, the term “apostle” can refer to a messenger, human or divine, sent by God or Christ to reveal messages or to reveal the message of the gospel’’ **

 

[NotWorthy]

Have you read everything I have posted here? Maybe you have a better explanation as to why Peter only calls for someone to occupy the office of bishop vacated by Judas but not his apostlehood. Maybe you have a better explanation for why Peter says that Judas’ house will be desolate and no one will live in it. Maybe you can explain how Matthias can succeed to something Judas never had, that being the authority to consecrate the Eucharist and the authority to forgive sins. If you insist on Matthias receiving this from Judas then Matthias is no better than any protestant minister today because Judas was never so empowered. Maybe you can explain to everyone how the Church can teach there were twelve Apostles then claim a total of 14. Maybe you can explain how scripture is in error when it claims there were 12 apostles. I would like to read your explanations for these so please post them for all of our benefit. Thank you.

Judas was called an Apostle.

You see, here’s the flaw in your logic.

You claim that:
a) Matthias is NOT an Apostle because he’s never called one.
b) Judas is NOT an Apostle EVEN THOUGH he’s called one.

That dog don’t hunt, Ink. It just keeps chasing its tail.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well let’s unconfuse it. We are speaking of the disciples of Jesus who were called to be Apostles and who were sent by Jesus. Twelve were called by Jesus but only eleven were sent by Jesus. These are the same men who scripture calls ** “the twelve apostles of the Lamb,”** [See Revelation 21:14]

Read again Matthew 10:1-5.

 

[inkaneer]

And again as other have asked why do you have such a problem with Matthis being an Apostle?

Because he wasn’t one. How’s that? Now if you say he was then I ask you why do you **not **have a problem accepting a contradiction in church teaching? You can’t have the Catechism saying there are twelve apostles:

869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

865 The Church is ultimately one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in her deepest and ultimate identity, because it is in her that “the Kingdom of heaven,” the “Reign of God,” already exists and will be fulfilled at the end of time. The kingdom has come in the person of Christ and grows mysteriously in the hearts of those incorporated into him, until its full eschatological manifestation. Then all those he has redeemed and made “holy and blameless before him in love,” will be gathered together as the one People of God, the “Bride of the Lamb,” “the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God.” For "the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

and calling Paul an Apostle:

**“1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him:” **

"1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."

And claim Matthias was also an Apostle. You got too many apostles and that is a major contradiction. So tell me how do you explain this contradiction?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=inkaneer;7326292]Have you read everything I have posted here? Maybe you have a better explanation as to why Peter only calls for someone to occupy the office of bishop vacated by Judas but not his apostlehood.

Perhaps because they are one and the same.

Maybe you have a better explanation for why Peter says that Judas’ house will be desolate and no one will live in it.

Becasue his house is gone by way of his betrayal.

Maybe you can explain how Matthias can succeed to something Judas never had, that being the authority to consecrate the Eucharist and the authority to forgive sins.

But Judas was an apostle and had all the authority that the other s had.

If you insist on Matthias receiving this from Judas then Matthias is no better than any protestant minister today because Judas was never so empowered.

He recived nothing from Judas, He recived it from Peter and the other apostles.

Maybe you can explain to everyone how the Church can teach there were twelve Apostles then claim a total of 14. Maybe you can explain how scripture is in error when it claims there were 12 apostles.

The same way I can explain that there are only 12 tribes of Israel but depending on what what list and when the list was made you can come up with 14 tribes.

I would like to read your explanations for these so please post them for all of our benefit. Thank you

I hope that helps. your welcome.

 

[NotWorthy]

Inkaneer, I’ve asked this before, but you may have missed it.

Was the Church’s foundation incomplete until Paul was converted? Or was the Church’s foundation completed at Pentecost?

 

[quasimodo]

After we get this settled, lets work out the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, and the proper end of a soft boiled egg to break in the morning.

 

[NotWorthy]

After we get this settled, lets work out the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, and the proper end of a soft boiled egg to break in the morning.

Those who know, know that it is 25 angels!

 

[inkaneer]

Perhaps because they are one and the same.

I answered this. Did you see the relationship of house to lineage?

Becasue his house is gone by way of his betrayal.

Does it matter if his physical house was here or gone? What bearing does this have on the gospel?

But Judas was an apostle and had all the authority that the other s had.

No Judas died before the apostles received the authority to forgive sin.

He recived nothing from Judas, He recived it from Peter and the other apostles.

Then he is not an apostle of the Lamb [that’s Jesus you know]. He may be sentby Peter or the othe apostles but then he is an apostle [missionary] of Peter not Jesus. Paul sent Titus and Timothy but they aren’t apostles either.