Matthias, only a bishop?

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dummy
Paul was personally chosen by Jesus.

Since, the Apostles in Acts 1, were not full of the Spirit, I think they may have been acting on their flesh. Also, Peter tore two scriptures compeletely out of context in Acts 1.

Nice try, but I doubt it. Peter was exercising the Jeus-given authority to Bind and Loose.

And we see the Holy Spirit given Assent the process by beginning the Pentecost immediately after.

A third thing, Peter did the right thing and do you know why? The Apostles prayed for 9 days before making this decision and then they trusted God with the decision (by casting lots).

The authority to bind and loose was promised to Peter * but when did he receive it? Probably on Pentecost when the other Apostles received their power too. This event occurs before Pentecost. By the way it is presented by Luke it occurs during the nine days between the Ascencion and Pentecost but exactly when is not clear. So to link this with Pentecost occurring immediately after is not warranted as scripture does not say that. In fact Acts 2:1 says, “1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.” That sort of implies or can be inferred to say that they were not in one place before Pentecost. So scripture is not clear enough to say that Pentecost occurred immediately after Matthias’ election.*

 

[NotWorthy]

I really don’t see where the Holy Spirit needs anyone to “fill in the hole”. What’s more I do think that Jesus, who picked the original twelve Apostles, had someone else in mind to “fill the hole”. So like the original twelve who were called By Jesus to be apostles Jesus called him and sent him and his name was Paul.

That’s a poor argument, Ink. Jesus didn’t NEED to be born of Mary. Nor did he NEED to die on the Cross.

No, of course the Holy Spirit didn’t NEED anyone to fill the hole. But He waited patiently for the 12 to be made whole again.

If you’d just look at any of the Church Fathers that you’ve ignored over the past few pages, you’d see that.

 

[NotWorthy]

Incorrect. I never said “numbered with” was synonymous with enrolled. What I said was other translations have it as numbered with [KJV & DR]. The RSV says “enrolled”. I also said in another post that the Greek word that is translated as “enrolled” or “numbered with” is the word Sugkatapsephizo. That word means literally to 1. be depositing a ballot in the urn (i.e. by voting for) 2. to assign one a place among or 3. to vote one a place among. And that is a long, long way from saying that Matthias becomes an Apostle.

You are incredible ink.

“2. to assign one a place among or 3. to vote one a place among” means that one becomes one of a group. When the group is the Apostles, it makes brother Matthias an Apostle.

Again I say not so. You see you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. You are spinning Professor Hahn’s words to match your thinking. The critical part of this is the words “the replacement of one Apostle with another” Another what? Another Apostle? Another person? Please list the primary source for this “quote” of Dr. Hahn. Is it available on line? Oh Yeah, one more thing, even though, like Dr. Hahn, I am a citizen of the Steeler Nation, I really don’t like to watch football on TV.

Really?!? To replace ONE with ANOTHER WHAT? Another Apostle.

And I thought I listed Dr. Hahn’s quote. It comes from the Ignatius Study Bible that he and Curtis Mitch authored. You can find it in any reputable Catholic Book store, but I don’t think its online.

 

[NotWorthy]

Like I said. If it was so important to have twelve Apostles for the “ushering in of the New Covenant Church at Pentecost” Then why didn’t Jesus appoint one? Matthias was not selected until right after Jesus’ Ascencion. Yet Jesus walked the face of the earth for 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascencion. If there needed to be 12 Apostles on Pentecost who better to pick an Apostle than Jesus who picked the other Apostles? Did you ever think that Jesus would indeed pick the twelfth Apostle and that Apostle would be Paul?

Reread Chapters 16 and 18, brother. Jesus knew exactly what He was doing especially in reference to those two chapter.

 

[NotWorthy]

You are possibly forgetting that what John sees in Revelation 21:14 is the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven [an event which has not happened yet] and not the Church immediately post Pentecost. In addition Rev 21:14 is not the only reference to there being just 12 Apostles. Beginning in Revelation 4:4 there is repeated references to 24 elders. These 24 has been interpreted by the church as the 12 OT patriarchs and the 12 Apostles of the NT. Paragraph 1138 of the Catechism calls them, “the servants of the Old and New Covenants (the twenty-four elders),”

Then Jesus own words in Mt 19:28 wherein He says to the Apostles:

“…Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

So we can’t have more than 12 Apostles unless we play heavenly musical thrones. So the bottom line is we are stuck with the number 12 for the number of Apostles and we have Paul who is clearly called an Apostle repeatedly by inerrant scripture and Matthias who is never called an Apostle by scripture. Take your pick.

You seem to forget that the city was built on a foundation. That Foundation is the 12 Apostles. Now, either that Foundation was incomplete for some 15 or so years or it wasn’t. Jesus taught that the wise man builds his house on a solid foundation. That foundation was laid before Paul became an Apostle.

 

[Poco]

In doing my research I did ponder this passage as on the surface it does seem to say what you say. So allow me to address this right now. The issue is verse 25 which says: " 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship (emphasis mine) from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." It’s that word “apostleship” that you are hanging your hat on. Well let’s look at that verse. The verse as quoted is from the RSV so let’s compare it with other translations. I will embolden key parts:

First the RSV:

“25 **to take the place in this ministry and apostleship **from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”

Second the KJV:

25 "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. "

Third the Douay-Rheims:

“25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.”

Three translations with three different renderings of the same verse. In the RSV it appears that Matthias is **taking the place **of Judas but in the KJV Matthias is only **taking a part **of Judas’ ministry and apostleship. While in the DR Matthias is not taking the place of Judas nor only taking a part of Judas’ ministry or apostleship but is taking the place of Judas’ ministry and apostleship.

Three translations with three different renderings. The point is that apparently educated translators are not agreed on exactly what this verse means and that should be a clear signal to everyone not to become dogmatic on it. So hang your hat on which translation you like but know full well that there are different translations and yours is far from being dogmatic.

Earlier in this thread you (Ink) tried to impress us with your translations of the original Greek. Now you are nitpicking on various English translations! Along with the previous D-R and RSV-CE verses I’ve cited, I’ll add the following: (only citing Acts 1:25)

to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. NRSV

That he may take the room of this ministration and Apostleship, from which Judas hath gone astray, to go to his own place. 1599 Geneva Bible

They all say the same thing. Matthias was an Apostle. Your argument has become quite lame! :crutches:

 

[NotWorthy]

The authority to bind and loose was promised to Peter * but when did he receive it? Probably on Pentecost when the other Apostles received their power too. This event occurs before Pentecost. By the way it is presented by Luke it occurs during the nine days between the Ascencion and Pentecost but exactly when is not clear. So to link this with Pentecost occurring immediately* after is not warranted as scripture does not say that. In fact Acts 2:1 says, “1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.” That sort of implies or can be inferred to say that they were not in one place before Pentecost. So scripture is not clear enough to say that Pentecost occurred immediately after Matthias’ election.Very good point, Ink, very good point!

But the inspired author chose to list these events in sequence - Peter determines that we need another Apostle, and then BAM! Enter the Holy Spirit. There’s a reason that Luke did this.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I really don’t see where the Holy Spirit needs anyone to “fill in the hole”. What’s more I do think that Jesus, who picked the original twelve Apostles, had someone else in mind to “fill the hole”. So like the original twelve who were called By Jesus to be apostles Jesus called him and sent him and his name was Paul.

That’s a poor argument, Ink. Jesus didn’t NEED to be born of Mary. Nor did he NEED to die on the Cross.

No, of course the Holy Spirit didn’t NEED anyone to fill the hole. But He waited patiently for the 12 to be made whole again.

If you’d just look at any of the Church Fathers that you’ve ignored over the past few pages, you’d see that.

Not really. While it is true that Jesus didn’t have to do a lot of things that He did do It is also true that the things that were done were done “in the fullness of time.” God does things on His own schedule not yours or the ECF’s. God’s written Word [Holy Scripture] is clear that Jesus called Paul for Apostleship. The Church calls Paul the “Apostle to the Gentiles.” Now maybe, in your haste to canonize the ECF’s as inerrant, you can somehow totally ignore scripture in the process but I can’t.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The authority to bind and loose was promised to Peter * but when did he receive it? Probably on Pentecost when the other Apostles received their power too. This event occurs before Pentecost. By the way it is presented by Luke it occurs during the nine days between the Ascencion and Pentecost but exactly when is not clear. So to link this with Pentecost occurring immediately after is not warranted as scripture does not say that. In fact Acts 2:1 says, “1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.” That sort of implies or can be inferred to say that they were not in one place before Pentecost. So scripture is not clear enough to say that Pentecost occurred immediately after Matthias’ election.

Very good point, Ink, very good point!

But the inspired author chose to list these events in sequence - Peter determines that we need another Apostle, and then BAM! Enter the Holy Spirit. There’s a reason that Luke did this.

No! on three counts. First, Peter does not determine that we need another Apostle. Scripture quotes Peter as using the term episkope and that term means “office of bishop”. Peter is saying we need to fill the office of bishop that Judas vacated. Peter does not use the word apostolos or any variation of it. You are contradicting scripture by your claim. Second, while scripture records these events happening in chronological sequence there is no indication that other events did not intervene. Luke does state that they spent the nine intervening days in prayer. All we can draw from scripture is that at some point in the nine days between the Ascencion and Pentecost they voted for Matthias. Third, there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit was involved in this election. We know that the Apostles prayed for the Holy Spirit envolvement BUT as you, yourself, admit the Holy Spirit was not given until Pentecost. So you are claiming that the Apostles were given the guidance of the Holy Spirit before the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles. Now that is not to say that they might have possibly been guided, after all, God is sovereign, but to draw that conclusion from the scripture is not warranted. But there is more. Even if the Holy Spiroit was involved in the selection of Judas that does not make him an Apostle. You still have the problem that Peter only called for someone to occupy the office of bishop not apostle.*

 

[NotWorthy]

I really don’t see where the Holy Spirit needs anyone to “fill in the hole”. What’s more I do think that Jesus, who picked the original twelve Apostles, had someone else in mind to “fill the hole”. So like the original twelve who were called By Jesus to be apostles Jesus called him and sent him and his name was Paul.

I still say your reasoning is faulty. You see, first you acknowledge that Peter correctly assigned Matthias as “Bishop”. Now you claim that Peter stepped out of line… he should have waited for the Holy Spirit.

That smacks of grasping at straws.

Not really. While it is true that Jesus didn’t have to do a lot of things that He did do It is also true that the things that were done were done “in the fullness of time.” God does things on His own schedule not yours or the ECF’s. God’s written Word [Holy Scripture] is clear that Jesus called Paul for Apostleship. The Church calls Paul the “Apostle to the Gentiles.” Now maybe, in your haste to canonize the ECF’s as inerrant, you can somehow totally ignore scripture in the process but I can’t.

Face it, Ink. If your reasoning is so clear, why haven’t you convinced one single person?

And I don’t see anyone at all denying that St. Paul is not an Apostle. He’s just not one of “The Twelve”, which Scripture clearly says.

Ink, you’re beginning to embarrass yourself with these accusations of “canonizing the ECF’s as inerrant”. Picking is picking, but your only belittling yourself, brother.

 

[NotWorthy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The authority to bind and loose was promised to Peter * but when did he receive it? Probably on Pentecost when the other Apostles received their power too. This event occurs before Pentecost. By the way it is presented by Luke it occurs during the nine days between the Ascencion and Pentecost but exactly when is not clear. So to link this with Pentecost occurring immediately after is not warranted as scripture does not say that. In fact Acts 2:1 says, “1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.” That sort of implies or can be inferred to say that they were not in one place before Pentecost. So scripture is not clear enough to say that Pentecost occurred immediately after Matthias’ election.

No! on three counts. First, Peter does not determine that we need another Apostle. Scripture quotes Peter as using the term episkope* and that term means “office of bishop”. Peter is saying we need to fill the office of bishop that Judas vacated. Peter does not use the word apostolos or any variation of it. You are contradicting scripture by your claim. Second, while scripture records these events happening in chronological sequence there is no indication that other events did not intervene. Luke does state that they spent the nine intervening days in prayer. All we can draw from scripture is that at some point in the nine days between the Ascencion and Pentecost they voted for Matthias. Third, there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit was involved in this election. We know that the Apostles prayed for the Holy Spirit envolvement BUT as you, yourself, admit the Holy Spirit was not given until Pentecost. So you are claiming that the Apostles were given the guidance of the Holy Spirit before the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles. Now that is not to say that they might have possibly been guided, after all, God is sovereign, but to draw that conclusion from the scripture is not warranted. But there is more. Even if the Holy Spiroit was involved in the selection of Judas that does not make him an Apostle. You still have the problem that Peter only called for someone to occupy the office of bishop not apostle.Hmmm… Peter never received the Holy Spirit prior to the Pentecost? He was a priest. He had authority to forgive sins. He is told “You ARE Rock…” Not “You WILL BE Rock”. He is told “what YOU BIND on Earth…” Not, “What you WILL BIND on Earth…”.

I think Scripture is on my side there, brother.

 

[inkaneer]

Earlier in this thread you (Ink) tried to impress us with your translations of the original Greek. Now you are nitpicking on various English translations! Along with the previous D-R and RSV-CE verses I’ve cited, I’ll add the following: (only citing Acts 1:25)

They all say the same thing. Matthias was an Apostle. Your argument has become quite lame! :crutches:

Well you added two more translations with different wording from the three I used. So that is five translations and I bet if we looked we could find more too. So the point I made is entirely valid. And that was that if translators trained in Koine Greek cannot agree on exactly what this verse means then to formulate a doctrine or a dogma as you have done by stating that this verse proves Matthias was an apostle is akin to building your house on shifting sand and is a form of proof texting.

 

[inkaneer]

Hmmm… Peter never received the Holy Spirit prior to the Pentecost? He was a priest. He had authority to forgive sins. He is told “You ARE Rock…” Not “You WILL BE Rock”. He is told “what YOU BIND on Earth…” Not, “What you WILL BIND on Earth…”.

I think Scripture is on my side there, brother.

I think not. For immediately after Jesus promises these things to Peter [Mt 16;18-19], Jesus then has to rebuke Peter calling him “Satan” [Mt 16:22-23]:

"22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

So much for the binding and loosening power before Pentecost. Oh, and one more thing. In Mt 16:18-19 Jesus promises one more thing. He promises to establish His Church:

“18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

And when did He establish His Church???

Can you say P E N T E C O S T?

 

[NotWorthy]

I think not. For immediately after Jesus promises these things to Peter [Mt 16;18-19], Jesus then has to rebuke Peter calling him “Satan” [Mt 16:22-23]:

"22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

So much for the binding an loosening power before Pentecost.

What did Peter bind? What did he loose?

Did you think Jesus had no clue that Peter would utter these words of distress?

 

[Poco]

Well you added two more translations with different wording from the three I used. So that is five translations and I bet if we looked we could find more too.

Probably so. And just like the previous five they would all show Matthias was an Apostle.

So the point I made is entirely valid. And that was that if translators trained in Koine Greek cannot agree on exactly what this verse means then to formulate a doctrine or a dogma as you have done by stating that this verse proves Matthias was an apostle is akin to building your house on shifting sand and is a form of proof texting.

The point you made is insipid. Your nitpicking of words like “place” or “part” are ludicrous! All of them said basically the same thing. Matthias is an Apostle. You were the one translating Greek for the rest of us. So, maybe you can correctly translate Acts 1:24-25 so the rest of us can properly understand the Scriptures. Obviously the editors of the Douay-Rheims, RSV-CE, Geneva Bible et.al. are not up to your scholarly standards. Please let me know when you have the correct translations available.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Everyone,

inkaneer has become his own Pope and magistarium. Despite what Scripture and the Chruch teach his own interpetation of what the Scripture says is correct. We all are but blind poorly catetcized sheep. To continue is futile as he is only more and more determined to show us wrong no moatter what is presented to him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Everyone,

inkaneer has become his own Pope and magistarium. Despite what Scripture and the Chruch teach his own interpetation of what the Scripture says is correct. We all are but blind poorly catetcized sheep. To continue is futile as he is only more and more determined to show us wrong no moatter what is presented to him.

Ahhh, but it is a good discussion, wouldn’t you say.

Just remember, Inkaneer is not professing something that is heretical. He’s merely expressing his opinion. And if it helps others to learn more about their faith, what is the harm.

I don’t see how this discussion can lead one away from the Faith, so I don’t see any harm in it, as long as we all can realize that we are all brothers and sisters in the faith!

But I do think that converting our dear brother to the Truth is as easy as making the sun come up in the south, wouldn’t you agree!

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Well you added two more translations with different wording from the three I used. So that is five translations and I bet if we looked we could find more too.

Probably so. And just like the previous five they would all show Matthias was an Apostle.

Not really. But if you want to be dogmatic on one verse that Bible translation experts cannot agree on then that’s your perogative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So the point I made is entirely valid. And that was that if translators trained in Koine Greek cannot agree on exactly what this verse means then to formulate a doctrine or a dogma as you have done by stating that this verse proves Matthias was an apostle is akin to building your house on shifting sand and is a form of proof texting.

The point you made is insipid. Your nitpicking of words like “place” or “part” are ludicrous! All of them said basically the same thing. Matthias is an Apostle. You were the one translating Greek for the rest of us. So, maybe you can correctly translate Acts 1:24-25 so the rest of us can properly understand the Scriptures. Obviously the editors of the Douay-Rheims, RSV-CE, Geneva Bible et.al. are not up to your scholarly standards. Please let me know when you have the correct translations available.

Well for something that is allegedly insipid [lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge] you sure seem to be interested, stimulated and challenged by it. And verse 25 does not say Matthias was an Apostle. The word apostleship has a generic meaning as well as a specific meaning. You are being very arbitrary in applying the meaning you want rather having the scriptures explain themselves. In any event unlike you I am not assigning any dogmatic position based on one verse that bible experts can’t agree on… If you want to then you are free to do so in which case we can agree to disagree. That sums up my comments on verse 25. I’ll allow you to have the last word.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Ahhh, but it is a good discussion, wouldn’t you say.

Just remember, Inkaneer is not professing something that is heretical. He’s merely expressing his opinion. And if it helps others to learn more about their faith, what is the harm.

I don’t see how this discussion can lead one away from the Faith, so I don’t see any harm in it, as long as we all can realize that we are all brothers and sisters in the faith!

But I do think that converting our dear brother to the Truth is as easy as making the sun come up in the south, wouldn’t you agree!

Dear friend, I do agree that it may not be a herecy. And if he was still expressing it as opinion I would have not problems. It is a good discussin as It brought scriptural knowledge that I did not have or had forgtten, My problem is that he has gone from expressing a oppinion and asking a question to dening what the Chruch and Pope say as truth.

Granted that this is a very small matter and I really at the time of the events in question do not see that there is a difference in being an Apostle or Bishop. In my mind at the time there were 12 and now there over 5000. As has been noted the word apostle means one sent out or one sent. Is that not what the Bishops are sent out to proclaim and minister the the people. I really feel that more is being given to the word apostel than was ever intended. The way it appears to me is that we are all called to be diciples and some of those are called to apostleship or sent out.

 

[inkaneer]

Ahhh, but it is a good discussion, wouldn’t you say.

Just remember, Inkaneer is not professing something that is heretical. He’s merely expressing his opinion. And if it helps others to learn more about their faith, what is the harm.

I don’t see how this discussion can lead one away from the Faith, so I don’t see any harm in it, as long as we all can realize that we are all brothers and sisters in the faith!

But I do think that converting our dear brother to the Truth is as easy as making the sun come up in the south, wouldn’t you agree!

Well if you travel far enough North the sun can come up in the South. In fact it can come up in the South and set in the South in the same day but you have to be standing in the right spot.