Matthias, only a bishop?

[Spirithound]

Looks like spomeone wants to take this thread off topic. I wonder why? Could it be they got too many Apostles and not enough foundation or thrones???

And today we call Mary Magdalene the Apostle to the Apostles, and St. Faustina is the Apostle of Divine Mercy. I have no problem saying St. Paul is not on one of the 12 thrones of the Apostles.

 

[NotWorthy]

And today we call Mary Magdalene the Apostle to the Apostles, and St. Faustina is the Apostle of Divine Mercy. I have no problem saying St. Paul is not on one of the 12 thrones of the Apostles.

Exactly! And there were Twelve who were there when the Church was born (at Pentecost). That day the Foundation of the Church was laid. Those are the Twelve Apostles who are found in the Foundation in Revelation!

 

[davidv]

Exactly! And there were Twelve who were there when the Church was born (at Pentecost). That day the Foundation of the Church was laid. Those are the Twelve Apostles who are found in the Foundation in Revelation!

And there were these “twelve”, prior to Paul’s conversion.

2So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, "It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. 3 Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,4 whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."5 The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. 7 The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts (NAB) 6)

Who was the twelveth, if not Matthias?

 

[NotWorthy]

And there were these “twelve”, prior to Paul’s conversion.
Who was the twelveth, if not Matthias?

Wow! How did I miss that one? Thanks, brother!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Looks like spomeone wants to take this thread off topic. I wonder why? Could it be they got too many Apostles and not enough foundation or thrones???

just showing how 12 can sometimes be 14 unless you want to also deny that any on the list are a tribe of Israel. This is relivent as the 12 apostles correspond to the 12 Tribes. Looks like someone wants to avoid that. I wonder why?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You know you should read whatever links you are going to use before posting them. It might save you some embarassment. I went to the link ypou posted and read this:

“The Bible contains about two dozen listings of the twelve sons of Jacob and/or tribes of Israel. Some of these are in very brief lists, while others are spread out over several paragraphs or chapters that discuss the distribution of the land or name certain representatives of each tribe, one after another. **Surprisingly, however, each and every listing is slightly different from all the others, either in the order of the names mentioned or even in the specific names used **”

Now the important thing is that while the Bible is not consistent in the names of the twelve tribes it is entirely consistent in saying that there are twelve tribes. No mention of thirteen tribes or fourteen tribes is there? No one is disagreeing with the Scriptures that there are 12 tribes. But you are disagreeing with the scriptures as well as the Church that there are twelve apostles.

I did read it. You realy should to. Do you know why to list differs? Not Talking about the order but which tribes are named. Give you a hint on a couple of them, 2 are to sons of Joseph, they comprise the half tribes. Levi is not always counted as they did not receive a area of land.but were dispured through out. Now that gives us 13, 12 with land and 1 without. Think about that for a moment and I will get back to you on why the tribe of Dan is not listed in Revelations with the others. You may want to look into why a couple of times 14 are listed.

 

[NotWorthy]

You know you should read whatever links you are going to use before posting them. It might save you some embarassment. I went to the link ypou posted and read this:

“The Bible contains about two dozen listings of the twelve sons of Jacob and/or tribes of Israel. Some of these are in very brief lists, while others are spread out over several paragraphs or chapters that discuss the distribution of the land or name certain representatives of each tribe, one after another. **Surprisingly, however, each and every listing is slightly different from all the others, either in the order of the names mentioned or even in the specific names used **”

Now the important thing is that while the Bible is not consistent in the names of the twelve tribes it is entirely consistent in saying that there are twelve tribes. No mention of thirteen tribes or fourteen tribes is there? No one is disagreeing with the Scriptures that there are 12 tribes. But you are disagreeing with the scriptures as well as the Church that there are twelve apostles.

Ink, do you REALLY not understand the 12 tribes of Israel and why their names are changed from time to time?

oneGodoneChurch has it right. God loved the number 12 among His children and made sure that there were always 12 tribes; to the point that, after Levi was separated from the tribes and made into a priesthood, God separated the tribe of Joseph into two tribes, those of Joseph’s children - Ephraim and Manasseh.

All so that God would keep Israel’s tribes/Jacob’s children to Twelve.

Now how that is significant to Peter insuring that there were 12 Apostles… I’m not sure.

 

[bo_leggs]

Where does Scripture say there are still 11? Paul refers to the Twelve and does not included himself with them, although he calls himself an Apostle.

Yes, Paul was an Apostle, but he wasn’t one of the Twelve. Those were the original Twelve less Judas (making it the Eleven) plus Matthias (in the place of Judas) making it still the Twelve. It’s not that hard to figure out. The Twelve was a specific group that did not include Paul.

 

[bo_leggs]

Sorry NotWorthy, I misdirected my comment. It should have been directed to inkaneer. Does inkaneer consider Matthias somehow different than the others? After all, they were all disciples of Jesus who were with him from the beginning. Maybe inkaneer is a lobster and we should throw him out.

 

[bo_leggs]

Acts 1:26 says Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles. This is after the election. If he was an Apostles he would be #12 and he would then be numbered among the 12 apostles. As for Paul, we went through this before. Paul says THE TWELVE. The Twelve what? Like I said the Holy Spirit seems to go out of His way to not call Matthias an apostle. If only the Holy Spirit would have inspired Paul to write The Twelve Apostles. But He didn’t. The Holy Spirit had no problem linking the eleven to the word apostles in Acts 1:26 but all of a sudden in in Acts 2:14 The Holy Spirit drops the word apostle and only says:

“But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them…”

Peter is standing with eleven men whom the Holy Spirit does not call apostles. We know ten of the eleven are. I don’t think this is just coincidence that the Holy Spirit does not call them Apostles in either Paul’s writing or Luke’s. I don’t think the Holy Spirit does things randomly so as to be a coincidence. God is in control and He doesn’t work troiugh random chance or coincidence. That is how I see it.

Why are you being such a bonehead? I can’t believe that you are Catholic as you list yourself and not comprehend the truth. It is clear that there were 11 Apostles after Judas hung himself. They cast lots and Matthias was selected to replace Judas as Apostle. That makes Twelve, THE TWELVE. Also, Acts 2:14 says Peter was standing with the eleven, not the Eleven. That means he was standing with the other eleven Apostles. It is not hard to discern what is being said. Again, why are you being such a blockhead? Maybe you need to go back to the Greek rather than relying on an English translation. Or maybe you should listen to what has been said here and by the Church and by the Church Fathers and by the Church Councils and by the popes throughout Church history. All are in agreement, Matthias was the twelfth Apostle. Why are you being such a blockhead? Are you going to tell us next that you don’t have to be baptized to go to Heaven? What other heresy or conflict are you going to come up with? Why, after all the evidence shown to support the fact that Matthias was an Apostle, the twelfth Apostle, do you continue to insist that he was not?

 

[po18guy]

This thread is to discuss whether Matthias is really an Apostle .

Sorry to jump in so late, but… seems to me that you are reading an awful lot into scripture here. Matthias “was enrolled with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). Judas was given power over spirits and power to heal - thus was a full Apostle (Matthew 10:1, Mark 6:7). Jesus called Judas (and the twelve) “Apostles” (Luke 6:13) To claim otherwise seems to me to doubt the authority of the Church to appoint successors - in other words: protestant. In your scenario, with no Church authority and no bible, have you not attacked the very foundation of Christianity? Are the Mormons then correct? Are you a stealth Mormon? Stealth sola scripturist?

 

[NotWorthy]

Why are you being such a bonehead? I can’t believe that you are Catholic as you list yourself and not comprehend the truth.

C’mon, bo leggs. We can still do this with at least a little charity, couldn’t we?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Ink, do you REALLY not understand the 12 tribes of Israel and why their names are changed from time to time?

oneGodoneChurch has it right. God loved the number 12 among His children and made sure that there were always 12 tribes; to the point that, after Levi was separated from the tribes and made into a priesthood, God separated the tribe of Joseph into two tribes, those of Joseph’s children - Ephraim and Manasseh.

All so that God would keep Israel’s tribes/Jacob’s children to Twelve.

Now how that is significant to Peter insuring that there were 12 Apostles… I’m not sure.

I believe it shows that being in the original number does not gauruntee contineing in it and that not being in the orignal number does not remove you from being numbered. Also as is shown with Ephraim and Manasseh that 2 can share the place of one.

 

[NHInsider]

Am I to understand that you are referring to the Passage in Rev 21:10-14?

The church has always interpreted this as being the 12 OT patriarchs and the 12 NT Apostles. But you got fourteen. Must be that new math.

Quite the point. The vision speaks of the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes. But we have this Matthias/Paul issue WRT the apostles. And - WDYK - we have two glitches WRT the tribes - the fact that the Levites, clearly descended from a Patriarch, are not numbered among the Tribes when the lands are divided, and the fact, at the same point in history, the tribe of Joseph is divided ino the “half-tribes” of Ephraim and Mannaseh. So, if Revelation is literal, which are the 12 tribes? (sons of Jacob) or (Sons of Jacob - Levi and - Joseph + Ephraim and Mannaseh), 13 tribes (sons of Jacob - Joseph + Ephraim and Mannaseh) or 15 tribes (Sons of Jacob - Joseph + Ephraim and Mannesah)? or, possibly, 16 tribes (Sons of Jacob + Ephraim and Mannesah)? If you insist on a literal reading WRT the 12 foundation stones, then you must also have an explanation WRT the gates, right?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Quite the point. The vision speaks of the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes. But we have this Matthias/Paul issue WRT the apostles. And - WDYK - we have two glitches WRT the tribes - the fact that the Levites, clearly descended from a Patriarch, are not numbered among the Tribes when the lands are divided, and the fact, at the same point in history, the tribe of Joseph is divided ino the “half-tribes” of Ephraim and Mannaseh. So, if Revelation is literal, which are the 12 tribes? (sons of Jacob) or (Sons of Jacob - Levi and - Joseph + Ephraim and Mannaseh), 13 tribes (sons of Jacob - Joseph + Ephraim and Mannaseh) or 15 tribes (Sons of Jacob - Joseph + Ephraim and Mannesah)? or, possibly, 16 tribes (Sons of Jacob + Ephraim and Mannesah)? If you insist on a literal reading WRT the 12 foundation stones, then you must also have an explanation WRT the gates, right?

I think he left us.

 

[inkaneer]

Why are you being such a bonehead? I can’t believe that you are Catholic as you list yourself and not comprehend the truth. It is clear that there were 11 Apostles after Judas hung himself. They cast lots and Matthias was selected to replace Judas as Apostle. That makes Twelve, THE TWELVE. Also, Acts 2:14 says Peter was standing with the eleven, not the Eleven. That means he was standing with the other eleven Apostles. It is not hard to discern what is being said. Again, why are you being such a blockhead? Maybe you need to go back to the Greek rather than relying on an English translation. Or maybe you should listen to what has been said here and by the Church and by the Church Fathers and by the Church Councils and by the popes throughout Church history. All are in agreement, Matthias was the twelfth Apostle. Why are you being such a blockhead? Are you going to tell us next that you don’t have to be baptized to go to Heaven? What other heresy or conflict are you going to come up with? Why, after all the evidence shown to support the fact that Matthias was an Apostle, the twelfth Apostle, do you continue to insist that he was not?

I went over this before, a coiuple of times if I recall correctly. I do not intend on repeating myself over and over to anyone who does not take the time to read all of the posts.

 

[inkaneer]

So, maybe I was unclear.

How can a bishop succeed an Apostle who was not an Apostle? Bishops can only succeed bishops or Apostles, and YOU claim that Judas was not an Apostle, only a Novitiate (your words).

Also, what diocese belonged to Matthias? Bishops were chosen to represent the Church in a city (later called diocese).

“How can a bishop succeed an Apostle who was not an Apostle? Bishops can only succeed bishops or Apostles…” The same way an Apostle, like Paul, can consecratre a Bishop like Timothy or Titus. I maintain that Matthias received nothing from Judas but instead received his authority from Peter or possibly the entire number of the eleven Apostles when he was consecrated bishop. His election to the episcopcy vacated by Judas was not any different than anyone today being elevated to the episcopcy by the pope.

 

[NotWorthy]

“How can a bishop succeed an Apostle who was not an Apostle? Bishops can only succeed bishops or Apostles…” The same way an Apostle, like Paul, can consecratre a Bishop like Timothy or Titus.

No, its not the same way. Paul was a bona fide Apostle. By YOUR words, Judas was not. There is no same way, but this point of yours is irrelevant.

I maintain that Matthias received nothing from Judas but instead received his authority from Peter or possibly the entire number of the eleven Apostles when he was consecrated bishop. His election to the episcopcy vacated by Judas was not any different than anyone today being elevated to the episcopcy by the pope.

… except that anyone elevated to the episcopacy by the pope has a diocese. Where was Matthias’ diocese?

 

[inkaneer]

No, its not the same way. Paul was a bona fide Apostle. By YOUR words, Judas was not. There is no same way, but this point of yours is irrelevant.

Oh it’s relevant, very much so. Matthias was made a bishop, not by Judas, but by the other eleven Apostles. So his line of succession is not from Judas but from a bonafide apostle.

… except that anyone elevated to the episcopacy by the pope has a diocese. Where was Matthias’ diocese?

Where was Peter’s or Andrew’s or John’s? Remember all this occurred before Pentecost. The Church empowered by the Holy Spirit did not exist before Pentecost.

 

[NotWorthy]

Oh it’s relevant, very much so. Matthias was made a bishop, not by Judas, but by the other eleven Apostles. So his line of succession is not from Judas but from a bonafide apostle.

No, his line of succession is from Judas. “Let His office another take”.

Where was Peter’s or Andrew’s or John’s? Remember all this occurred before Pentecost. The Church empowered by the Holy Spirit did not exist before Pentecost.Uh, Ink? Peter, Andrew, and John were first and foremost Apostles. They only became bishops when they settled. Peter, for instance was bishop of Antioch and of Rome, but only when he settled in Antioch and Rome.

Matthias wouldn’t need to be a bishop until he had a dicoese to …uh… bishop?