- Status
I
inkaneer
Guest
My friend, you must know that not everything the Church teaches is true. For centuries the church taught that St. Christopher was a real saint. Then the church removed him from the martyrology because the story of Christopher was all a myth. He was not alone either. A lot of alleged saints were purged. However, you can still get a St. Christopher medal for your car *. Then how can we forget the infamous Galileo trial, the selling of indulgences, etc. The church is only infallible in its teaching of faith and morals and quite frankly whether Matthias is an apostle or not is similar to the caseof whether Christopher was a saint or not. It has no bearing on the salvation message.
But one of the things that Christendom is united on is the Apostolic college consisting of 12 Apostles. And in connection with that Christendom is united in saying that the twelve Apostles were not succeeded by other Apostles and that the Apostolic age ended with the death of the last Apostle which is thought to be John. The very absence of a definitive statement in scripture that clearly says Matthias is an Apostle calls his alleged apostleship into question. That cannot be said for Paul as scripture unequivically states that he is an Apostle and does so time and time again. And consider this. My position is entirely within the church’s teaching that the Bishops are in line of succession from the Apostles because Judas was not succeeded by an apostle but by a bishop. But by alleging that Judas was succeeded by another Apostle then the line of authority of the bishops is broken and Church authority ended with the death of the last apostle as the protestants claim because the Church does not teach that any other Apostle succeeded Peter or any of the other Apostles. The apostolic authority died when the last apostle died because there were no more apostles.*
I
inkaneer
Guest
Not really. The church agrees with scripture that there were 12 Apostles. I provided the scriptural documentation as well as the documentation from the Cathechism to support this. That being the case, how can the church then say there were 14 Apostles? Do you see the contradiction in what the church teaches? Of course, I never studied the new math, maybe 14=12 or is it 20?
In any event I believe that the key to this is Peter’s quoting the verse 25 of Psalm 69 when He said, Let his house [habitation] be desolate and no one occupy [live in] it. No one on the “A” side “A” for apostle] has proposed a logical reason for why Peter quotes this verse. Whereas the “B” side "B’’ for bishop] has. His house is his lineage just as Luke 1:27 said that Joseph was of the house of David. Peter is saying Judas line of succession is desolate and no one will occupy it. Now the sure way to prove me wrong is to find one bishop, just a single solitary one, in all of the 2,000 years of christianity who can show his line of succession emanating from Judas. That evidentiary proof would be the wooden stake in the heart of my argument. You find it and I will immediately admit I was wrong. But I want verifiable proof. I seriously doubt you will be successful but have at it.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Can you elaborate on this?
S
Spirithound
Guest
On whom did He establish His Church?
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
J
JM3
Guest
schism.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
i was going to give the benefit of the doubt that he meant that not every one in the chruch taught correct teachings.
P
Poco
Guest
Really. Acts 1:24-25 Any Bible. Any translation. Matthias is an Apostle. I’m done. God bless!
I
inkaneer
Guest
Like I said in a prior post:
“…the sure way to prove me wrong is to find one bishop, just a single solitary one, in all of the 2,000 years of christianity who can show his line of succession emanating from Judas. That evidentiary proof would be the wooden stake in the heart of my argument. You find it and I will immediately admit I was wrong. But I want verifiable proof. I seriously doubt you will be successful but have at it.”
If you do that then I shut up. But no one seems to want to try. Why is that? There are so many problems with the Judas-Matthias replacement idea that you guys haven’t attempted to comment on. Instead you keep making arbitrary statements saying I’m wrong. Now if you want a short list of what is wrong with the J-M replacement idea you can start with Peter calling for someone to fill the office of bishop vacated by Judas. Peter never calls for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle. So what are the apostles voting for if not a bishop??? I pointed this out in a couple of posts and you guys did the old ostrich with its head in the sand trick in hope of if you ignore it then it will go away. Well it won’t go away. It is there in the scriptures and will remain so. You have not explained Peters reference to Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas house being desolate and no one will occupy it. I presented scriptural reference where Luke used this same term in Luke 1:27 to indicate Joseph was of the lineage of David. And need I remind you that Luke not only wrote the gospel but he wrote Acts too. Now I submit to you that scripture tops your ECF’s any day of the week. Another point; I pointed out where both the church and scripture state there are 12 apostles yet you keep insisting on 14 and yet you have the gall to call me a heretic or a schismatic. Does the word hypocrits mean anything to you??? Who here is insisting on twelve Apostles YOU or ME??? So who is in line with the Church’s teaching and who is the schismatic??? Now, if you want to discuss these points and others I am willing to listen. But if you are going to pontificate and claim I am wrong without offering any explanation for your position then that is no dialogue. Now who has an explanation for Peter using Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas? Can someone show me where Peter called for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle??? I want book, chapter and verse because that is exactly what I gave you. What the ECF’s said or didn’t say does not matter unless you want to argue that they are inerrant or infallible. Do you?
“…the sure way to prove me wrong is to find one bishop, just a single solitary one, in all of the 2,000 years of christianity who can show his line of succession emanating from Judas. That evidentiary proof would be the wooden stake in the heart of my argument. You find it and I will immediately admit I was wrong. But I want verifiable proof. I seriously doubt you will be successful but have at it.”
If you do that then I shut up. But no one seems to want to try. Why is that? There are so many problems with the Judas-Matthias replacement idea that you guys haven’t attempted to comment on. Instead you keep making arbitrary statements saying I’m wrong. Now if you want a short list of what is wrong with the J-M replacement idea you can start with Peter calling for someone to fill the office of bishop vacated by Judas. Peter never calls for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle. So what are the apostles voting for if not a bishop??? I pointed this out in a couple of posts and you guys did the old ostrich with its head in the sand trick in hope of if you ignore it then it will go away. Well it won’t go away. It is there in the scriptures and will remain so. You have not explained Peters reference to Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas house being desolate and no one will occupy it. I presented scriptural reference where Luke used this same term in Luke 1:27 to indicate Joseph was of the lineage of David. And need I remind you that Luke not only wrote the gospel but he wrote Acts too. Now I submit to you that scripture tops your ECF’s any day of the week. Another point; I pointed out where both the church and scripture state there are 12 apostles yet you keep insisting on 14 and yet you have the gall to call me a heretic or a schismatic. Does the word hypocrits mean anything to you??? Who here is insisting on twelve Apostles YOU or ME??? So who is in line with the Church’s teaching and who is the schismatic??? Now, if you want to discuss these points and others I am willing to listen. But if you are going to pontificate and claim I am wrong without offering any explanation for your position then that is no dialogue. Now who has an explanation for Peter using Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas? Can someone show me where Peter called for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle??? I want book, chapter and verse because that is exactly what I gave you. What the ECF’s said or didn’t say does not matter unless you want to argue that they are inerrant or infallible. Do you?
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I doubt that anything will be provided that will measure up to disprove your theroy. You have rejected scripture that says the apostleship was given to Matthias. You reject the ECF’s. You reject the present day teaching of the Chruch on the subject. It does not have to clearly state in scripture we as Catholics do not hold that all that we need is in scripture.
This is a minor issue and not a point of salvation but the inablity and the stance against what the church teaches say that the church is wrong and ther not evething that the church teach is true can lead to problems. M. luther and Calvin come to mind.
I have saked this before what Authority did the apostles have that todays Bishops do not?
Given the meaning of the word could we not call the Bishops today apostles?
Also i just had the Thought that In the Scripture that Paul is called an Apostle it is he himself that is doing so I can not think of any passage were one of the other 12 called him an apostle , I could be wronge i do have some inkling of apostle to the gentiles and not sure if that was paul or another using it.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Sigh. Okay I’ll bite.
No Inkaneer, this would not prove the point, because Judas chose not to be an apostle, and there had to be 12 for Pentecost. You are forgetting the free will factor; i.e. Jesus can’t force someone to be an apostle, and then if they choose not to be, oh well. The slot is open for whom Jesus chooses, and then the successor to Matthias after that point will be a bishop. You haven’t dealt with the fact that Jesus was able to choose the apostle through the casting of Lots, since this was Jewish tradition to determine the will of God. Or are you suggesting that Christ can’t work through the physical? If Paul was so obviously one of the twelve, why did he have to convince the other Church’s that he was an apostle at all, as is evident in his epistles?
Yes, everybody has. “Apostole” (apostleship) is in every single translation. He is taking part in the apostleship, and taking the office. Don’t try to say the office of bishop, because etymological rules dictate that the term bishop came from “bishopric,” not the other way around. This means I’m not going to allow you to try to read the term “bishop” or “office of bishop” into what meant “office,” and LATER came to mean office of bishop.
You’re not getting it. They weren’t “voting.” They were determining the will of GOD through LOTS.
This is where it gets really funny, Inkaneer, and what caused me to lose all respect for your interpretive hermeneutic: Let his tent remain desolate is referring immediately to the field of blood that Judas bought, which was cursed, and not to his “apostleship.” This is immediately obvious after only a cursory reading of the passage in context, and so this entire elaborate argument you have constructed can go back where it came from. This is the danger of interpreting everything by yourself.
This is simply you creating a false dichotomy. The fathers referenced were stating their opinions on Scripture. So it is not Scripture vs the Fathers, as you would like to think. It is St. Augustine’s *interpretation *of Scripture vs. Inkaneer’s. It is Holy Father Benedict XVI’s interpretation of Scripture vs. Inkaneer’s. Is it any wonder everyone knows you’re wrong?
There are twelve apostles for the foundation of the New Israel just as there were twelve tribes in the Old. The resoration of the Exile is something you accused me of creating as a novel idea earlier in the thread, and when I responded that you were completely in error you wisely didn’t pursue it. Some thing to consider is that there were twelve tribes, but the Levites were counted as a thirteenth, creating a difficulty, it would seem. This is why the Fathers clarify, and in their wisdom point out that Paul is parallel to the the thirteenth of the Levites, and so will not sit on the twelve thrones, for he rightly called himself the “least of the Apostles” due to his initial persecution.
I’ll remember this the next time you ever attempt to use a Church Father after disparaging them so arrogantly. It’s not just “the Church Fathers,” Inkaneer. It’s the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Church Fathers on this issue. The Sacripture-ECF false dichotomy you have attempted to created has already been covered. Add in Liturgical tradition, Papal interpretation, the Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc etc, and you are making yourself appear to be a fool. You’re another burgeoning protestant making protestant claims about the perpiscuity of Scripture (justifying your bogus interpretation) and slipping on your own ideas down the slope of heresy, insulting your brethren in the process. “I’ll take Sacred Scripture over the Church any day.” Sound familiar? Inkaneer vs. the Church. How…epic.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Oh and I’m going to say something else, just to beat this “House of David” argument to death so I don’t see it in the future:
Judas’ “house” or “tent” and the “house” of David used in Luke 1:23 are not even the same word, and don’t carry the same connotation.
Judas’ “epaulis” has a literal meaning of “hut” or “dwelling.” Very interestingly, it is equivalent in meaning to “aule,” which means “yard” or refers to the uncovered space around a house or dwelling where the stables were, and sometimes courtyards. This term is literal and considering the meaning, gives even more weight to the already obvious fact that it refers to Judas’ field of Blood.
Oikos, meanwhile, from Luke 1:27, can refer to a house in the literal sense, but also household, both literally and in the symbolic sense such as House of David or House of Abraham. It has a larger meaning outside of the literal that implies descendants or succession, if you want to use that term.
Your entire argument is based off the fact that it is the same term. It isn’t. It’s bad exegesis of a passage given the context, and even worse exegesis given the Greek.
God Bless.
Judas’ “house” or “tent” and the “house” of David used in Luke 1:23 are not even the same word, and don’t carry the same connotation.
Judas’ “epaulis” has a literal meaning of “hut” or “dwelling.” Very interestingly, it is equivalent in meaning to “aule,” which means “yard” or refers to the uncovered space around a house or dwelling where the stables were, and sometimes courtyards. This term is literal and considering the meaning, gives even more weight to the already obvious fact that it refers to Judas’ field of Blood.
Oikos, meanwhile, from Luke 1:27, can refer to a house in the literal sense, but also household, both literally and in the symbolic sense such as House of David or House of Abraham. It has a larger meaning outside of the literal that implies descendants or succession, if you want to use that term.
Your entire argument is based off the fact that it is the same term. It isn’t. It’s bad exegesis of a passage given the context, and even worse exegesis given the Greek.
God Bless.
S
Spirithound
Guest
This is not correct. “Bishopric” is derived from “bishop” + “rice” an Old English word for “realm”.
What you have said is correct for the Greek, however.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
You are correct, and I have should have been more clear in that regard. “Bishopric” is a translation interpretation based on the later understanding of the office in the Pauline epistles. Unfortunately it was past the 20 minute time limit to clarify. (I also would like to clarify I meant Luke 1:27,not Luke 1:23 in my above post). Point duly noted however
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"Like I said in a prior post:
‘…the sure way to prove me wrong is to find one bishop, just a single solitary one, in all of the 2,000 years of christianity who can show his line of succession emanating from Judas. That evidentiary proof would be the wooden stake in the heart of my argument. You find it and I will immediately admit I was wrong. But I want verifiable proof. I seriously doubt you will be successful but have at it.’
If you do that then I shut up. But no one seems to want to try. Why is that? There are so many problems with the Judas-Matthias replacement idea that you guys haven’t attempted to comment on. Instead you keep making arbitrary statements saying I’m wrong. Now if you want a short list of what is wrong with the J-M replacement idea you can start with Peter calling for someone to fill the office of bishop vacated by Judas. Peter never calls for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle. So what are the apostles voting for if not a bishop??? I pointed this out in a couple of posts and you guys did the old ostrich with its head in the sand trick in hope of if you ignore it then it will go away. Well it won’t go away. It is there in the scriptures and will remain so. You have not explained Peters reference to Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas house being desolate and no one will occupy it. I presented scriptural reference where Luke used this same term in Luke 1:27 to indicate Joseph was of the lineage of David. And need I remind you that Luke not only wrote the gospel but he wrote Acts too. Now I submit to you that scripture tops your ECF’s any day of the week. Another point; I pointed out where both the church and scripture state there are 12 apostles yet you keep insisting on 14 and yet you have the gall to call me a heretic or a schismatic. Does the word hypocrits mean anything to you??? Who here is insisting on twelve Apostles YOU or ME??? So who is in line with the Church’s teaching and who is the schismatic??? Now, if you want to discuss these points and others I am willing to listen. But if you are going to pontificate and claim I am wrong without offering any explanation for your position then that is no dialogue. Now who has an explanation for Peter using Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas? Can someone show me where Peter called for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle??? I want book, chapter and verse because that is exactly what I gave you. What the ECF’s said or didn’t say does not matter unless you want to argue that they are inerrant or infallible. Do you?"
"105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
Then there is Jesus’ own words to Anani’as:
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;” [Acts 9;13-15 RSV]
What does Jesus say here? Jesus says, 1. He [Paul] is a chosen instrument of mine and 2. to carry my name before the Gentiles. Paul is chsen by Christ [just like the other Apostles] and Paul is sent by Christ [just like the other eleven Apostles]. Now tell me again that Paul is not an Apostle.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"Like I said in a prior post:
‘…the sure way to prove me wrong is to find one bishop, just a single solitary one, in all of the 2,000 years of christianity who can show his line of succession emanating from Judas. That evidentiary proof would be the wooden stake in the heart of my argument. You find it and I will immediately admit I was wrong. But I want verifiable proof. I seriously doubt you will be successful but have at it.’
If you do that then I shut up. But no one seems to want to try. Why is that? There are so many problems with the Judas-Matthias replacement idea that you guys haven’t attempted to comment on. Instead you keep making arbitrary statements saying I’m wrong. Now if you want a short list of what is wrong with the J-M replacement idea you can start with Peter calling for someone to fill the office of bishop vacated by Judas. Peter never calls for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle. So what are the apostles voting for if not a bishop??? I pointed this out in a couple of posts and you guys did the old ostrich with its head in the sand trick in hope of if you ignore it then it will go away. Well it won’t go away. It is there in the scriptures and will remain so. You have not explained Peters reference to Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas house being desolate and no one will occupy it. I presented scriptural reference where Luke used this same term in Luke 1:27 to indicate Joseph was of the lineage of David. And need I remind you that Luke not only wrote the gospel but he wrote Acts too. Now I submit to you that scripture tops your ECF’s any day of the week. Another point; I pointed out where both the church and scripture state there are 12 apostles yet you keep insisting on 14 and yet you have the gall to call me a heretic or a schismatic. Does the word hypocrits mean anything to you??? Who here is insisting on twelve Apostles YOU or ME??? So who is in line with the Church’s teaching and who is the schismatic??? Now, if you want to discuss these points and others I am willing to listen. But if you are going to pontificate and claim I am wrong without offering any explanation for your position then that is no dialogue. Now who has an explanation for Peter using Psalm 69:25 in referring to Judas? Can someone show me where Peter called for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle??? I want book, chapter and verse because that is exactly what I gave you. What the ECF’s said or didn’t say does not matter unless you want to argue that they are inerrant or infallible. Do you?"
Thank you for proving my point. I reposted my earlier post so you can refer to it easily and see how you do the very thing I said.
Does it matter if Paul said it or not? Its scripture and it is inerrant is it not? Are you saying that Scripture is wrong because Paul calls himself an Apostle? Heresy alert! Heresy alert! Para 105 of the Catechism:
"105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
Then there is Jesus’ own words to Anani’as:
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;” [Acts 9;13-15 RSV]
What does Jesus say here? Jesus says, 1. He [Paul] is a chosen instrument of mine and 2. to carry my name before the Gentiles. Paul is chsen by Christ [just like the other Apostles] and Paul is sent by Christ [just like the other eleven Apostles]. Now tell me again that Paul is not an Apostle.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Ink, it’s amazing that, when you make the rules, no one can refute it.
Of course, you need to tell the Pope and the Church what these rules are, so that they can clear up their mistakes.
Mental note: When I make up exegetic rules that no one else seems to agree with, I might want to examine the possibility that the problem is with me.
Of course, you need to tell the Pope and the Church what these rules are, so that they can clear up their mistakes.
Mental note: When I make up exegetic rules that no one else seems to agree with, I might want to examine the possibility that the problem is with me.
S
Spirithound
Guest
What would this matter? You’ve already stated that an Apostle cannot be descended from another Apostle.
I
inkaneer
Guest
The word used in Acts 1:20 is “habitation” [Greek *Epaulis]. It means farm or dwelling. Judas is no farmer. In Psalm 69:25 that Peter quotes in Acts 1:20 the word is Tiyrah and it means an encampment, tent camp or a walled dwelling place, The connotation is a place where humans live. This is fortified by the second part of Psalm 69:25, “…let none dwell in their tents.” there you have the words “dwell” *Yashab *meaning to abide] and tents 'ohelmeaning nomad’s tent, dwelling, home, habitation] Now in Judas time the Jews were not nomadic. They had houses. So the word habitation there does refer to a house. In Luke 1:27 the word ‘house’ is Oikos and it means literally a house or dwelling place but ican also mean stock, family, descendants of one. In Luke 1;27 it obviously means the latter since David lived 27 generations before Joseph. In addition in Acts 1:20 Peter says let his habitation be desolate. The word for desolate is Eremos and it means solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited. Did you know that Jesus used almost this same phrase in describing the Pharisees? You will find it in Matthew 23:38:
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
The words there for house is Oikos the very same one as in Luke 1:27 and the word for desolate is Eremos the very same one used by Peter in Acts 1:20. So the tie in is complete.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I am not questioning the Apostleship of Paul, I simple asked a question. ou seem to be gwtting very defenscive.Could that be because of your denial and rejection of what scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium teach. Could it be because you have set your one private interpetation above all else and made yourself your onw pope.
You have let to answer the question I asked about to authority of the Apostles and how it differs from that of the Bishops . Or how the word apostle means one sent out and how that would not apply not only to Matthias, but also to the bishops today?
- Status