Matthias, only a bishop?

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
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”.

Judas had no line of succession. Peter said let it be desolate and no one occupy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
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?

What is your source for this idea that the apostles “only became bishops when they settled”? The Apostles performed the same duties as the bishops. They were overseers. Already in Acts 6 we see the start of the Apostles overseeing the operations of the church with the creation of the diaconate. They were bishops in charge of the church long befpore any of them had a diocese. Also not all bishops are in charge of a diocese. There are auxilliary bishops and bishops of “Titular Episcopal Sees”, which are dioceses which once existed in the countries surrounding the Mediterranean but are now defunct.

 

[inkaneer]

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?

Actually I found the answer to your question in Scripture. Look in Rev 7:4-8 where in it says:

"4 And I heard the number of them that were signed. An hundred forty-four thousand were signed, of every tribe of the children of Israel. 5 Of the tribe of Juda, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Ruben, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Gad, twelve thousand signed: 6 Of the tribe of Aser, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Nephthali, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Manasses, twelve thousand signed: 7 Of the tribe of Simeon, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Issachar, twelve thousand signed: 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Joseph, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand signed.’’ [Rev 7:4-8 RSV]

Notice that is twelve tribes of the children of Israel. Notice also that Rev 21:12 uses this same term “twelve tribes of the children of Israel” when speaking of the names on the gates.

“And it had a wall great and high, having twelve gates, and in the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel”. [Rev 21:12 RSV]

That answers your question.

 

[beth40n2]

1. Acts 1:21-23 - ‘So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when He was taken up from us’

St. Paul does not fit this description.

1. Acts 15:25 - St. Paul is not listed as an Apostle, nor is he treated as one during the Council of Jerusalem.

I agree!!!
When Judas killed himself, he was replaced by Matthias who had been with our Lord and the other apostles.

Paul had a conversion, but had never been with Jesus.

 

[NotWorthy]

What is your source for this idea that the apostles “only became bishops when they settled”? The Apostles performed the same duties as the bishops. They were overseers. Already in Acts 6 we see the start of the Apostles overseeing the operations of the church with the creation of the diaconate. They were bishops in charge of the church long befpore any of them had a diocese. Also not all bishops are in charge of a diocese. There are auxilliary bishops and bishops of “Titular Episcopal Sees”, which are dioceses which once existed in the countries surrounding the Mediterranean but are now defunct.

But you see, they still have sees. There was only 1 see during this time - Jerusalem. There was no need for a bishop, for there were no “titular episcopal sees” for “dioceses which once existed”.

Hence, no bishop.

 

[NotWorthy]

What is your source for this idea that the apostles “only became bishops when they settled”?

Well, I don’t see them being called “bishop” until we see James, the Bishop of Jerusalem. John would later be recognized as Bishop of Ephasus. Peter is called what? Bishop of Antioch, because he stayed there for an extended period of time, and then Rome, for the same reason. BTW, is Paul considered the bishop of any city?

So, I would consider Scripture and Tradition as my sources.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually I found the answer to your question in Scripture. Look in Rev 7:4-8 where in it says:

"4 And I heard the number of them that were signed. An hundred forty-four thousand were signed, of every tribe of the children of Israel. 5 Of the tribe of Juda, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Ruben, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Gad, twelve thousand signed: 6 Of the tribe of Aser, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Nephthali, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Manasses, twelve thousand signed: 7 Of the tribe of Simeon, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Issachar, twelve thousand signed: 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Joseph, twelve thousand signed: Of the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand signed.’’ [Rev 7:4-8 RSV]

Notice that is twelve tribes of the children of Israel. Notice also that Rev 21:12 uses this same term “twelve tribes of the children of Israel” when speaking of the names on the gates.

“And it had a wall great and high, having twelve gates, and in the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel”. [Rev 21:12 RSV]

That answers your question.

You did happen to notice that Dan is not in that number, Another has taken the palce of Dan.

 

[NotWorthy]

You did happen to notice that Dan is not in that number, Another has taken the palce of Dan.

Ok, now I’m confused. Nobody took the place of Dan. Did Dan perhaps have two names?

Ah, I see. Dan is not listed, but Menasseh is, even though Menasseh is the son of Joseph, hence, his tribe shouldn’t be listed with Joseph.

Now I’m really confused.

 

[NotWorthy]

Not that it matters so much to the discussion, but I found this on AgapeBibleStudy.com, regarding Dan missing from the list of Revelation.

The names are manipulated to make 12 in a curious fashion. The tribe of Dan is omitted and the half tribes of Joseph, which were Manasseh and Ephraim, are manipulated so that Ephraim is omitted and both Joseph and his son Manasseh are listed as tribes. Scholars have puzzled over the order of the tribes in this list. Obviously Judah is named first instead of the firstborn, Reuben, (even though he was the 4th son of Israel) because that is the tribe of Jesus Christ. But why that particular order for the others? The fathers of the Church mention a tradition that the Antichrist will come from the tribe of Dan and so that may be why his name is omitted. He seems to have been a rather unsavory character and Scripture has very little good to say about him or his tribe. On his deathbed his father Jacob/Israel pronounced these words for Dan: Gen 49:17 “May Dan be a snake on the road, a viper on the path*…”* This passage may be the origin of the tradition that the Antichrist would come from Dan. Or Dan may have been omitted because his tribe had no descendents. Many scholars simply assume the order after Judah is without any plan but given the biblical writers’ attention to detail, especially St. John, this seems unlikely.

 

[adrift]

2
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.

1. Barnabas, Silas, Timothy and Appolos are referred to as apostles that are not one of the 12.
2. Paul and Barnabas go to the Apostles. They are not referred to as being part of the 12. It doesn’t say that they should go up to the other Apostles.
3. Paul is never listed as nor referred to as one of the 12.
4. Jesus does not call him an Apostle.

One other comment. The word part has different meanings. In the context that it is being discussed it means:

3: one’s share or allotted task (as in an action) : duty <one must do one’s part>

Come join us and be part of a winning team.

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. "

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JM3

1. Acts 1:21-23 - ‘So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when He was taken up from us’

St. Paul does not fit this description.

1. Acts 15:25 - St. Paul is not listed as an Apostle, nor is he treated as one during the Council of Jerusalem.

I agree!!!
When Judas killed himself, he was replaced by Matthias who had been with our Lord and the other apostles.

Paul had a conversion, but had never been with Jesus.

Once again I dealt with this before. Nowhere is the word apostle defined as “…one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when He was taken up from us’” In fact that definition does not fit Judas as Judas killed himself before "the day when He was taken up from us’’. And if Judas is no Apostle then Matthias cannot succeed to something that Judas was not.

An Apostle is “one who is sent” That is what the word apostolos means. But specifically we are speaking of those 12 who were known as the apostles of the Lamb or the apostles of Jesus Christ. These men have to have two qualifications to be considered apostles of Jesus. First, they had to be called by Jesus Twelve men were called Second they had to be sent by Jesus. Judas was called by Christ but never sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent. Paul was both called by Christ and sent by Christ.

 

[inkaneer]

1. Barnabas, Silas, Timothy and Appolos are referred to as apostles that are not one of the 12.
2. Paul and Barnabas go to the Apostles. They are not referred to as being part of the 12. It doesn’t say that they should go up to the other Apostles.
3. Paul is never listed as nor referred to as one of the 12.
4. Jesus does not call him an Apostle.

One other comment. The word part has different meanings. In the context that it is being discussed it means:

3: one’s share or allotted task (as in an action) : duty <one must do one’s part>

Come join us and be part of a winning team.

This was covered before.

 

[inkaneer]

You did happen to notice that Dan is not in that number, Another has taken the palce of Dan.

Yes but I also notice that there is no claim by anyone that that the replacement does not succeed from Dan just as Paul replaces Judas but is not his successor. Jesus did not call nor send Matthias. Jesus did call Paul and did send him to the gentiles.

 

[NotWorthy]

Once again I dealt with this before. Nowhere is the word apostle defined as “…one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when He was taken up from us’” In fact that definition does not fit Judas as Judas killed himself before "the day when He was taken up from us’’. And if Judas is no Apostle then Matthias cannot succeed to something that Judas was not.

Except Judas was Sent. In Matthew 10, we see Judas sent. He is called an Apostle… not an “Apostle Novitiate”, but an Apostle.

An Apostle is “one who is sent” That is what the word apostolos means. But specifically we are speaking of those 12 who were known as the apostles of the Lamb or the apostles of Jesus Christ. These men have to have two qualifications to be considered apostles of Jesus. First, they had to be called by Jesus Twelve men were called Second they had to be sent by Jesus. Judas was called by Christ but never sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent. Paul was both called by Christ and sent by Christ.

Not to be a stickler, but Paul is sent by the Holy Spirit. He is never mentioned as an Apostle until the Holy Spirit gathers he and Barnabas and sends them to Crete.

Now, you asked me where it was written that Bishops have to have a see. I respond, where is it written that “First, they had to be called by Jesus Twelve men were called Second they had to be sent by Jesus**”**

 

[inkaneer]

Except Judas was Sent. In Matthew 10, we see Judas sent. He is called an Apostle… not an “Apostle Novitiate”, but an Apostle.
Not to be a stickler, but Paul is sent by the Holy Spirit. He is never mentioned as an Apostle until the Holy Spirit gathers he and Barnabas and sends them to Crete.

Now, you asked me where it was written that Bishops have to have a see. I respond, where is it written that “First, they had to be called by Jesus Twelve men were called Second they had to be sent by Jesus**”**

I do think we went over all this already.

 

[NotWorthy]

I do think we went over all this already.

Which part? That Judas was not an Apostle, even though Jesus calls him an Apostle?

Or the part where you were going to sowh where it says, “First, they had to be called by Jesus Twelve men were called Second they had to be sent by Jesus**”? **I don’t see where that technicality of yours was written down, but in any event, I see Judas being called and sent in Matthew 10.

 

[NHInsider]

Not that it matters so much to the discussion, but I found this on AgapeBibleStudy.com, regarding Dan missing from the list of Revelation.

It matters only to the extent that Ink’s issue hangs on whether Revelation is read literalistically or not.

 

[NotWorthy]

It matters only to the extent that Ink’s issue hangs on whether Revelation is read literalistically or not.

Isn’t the point of all this regarding the 12 tribes is that Jesus wanted 12 Apostles during the Pentecost?

 

[bo_leggs]

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.

I did take the time to read all of the posts and it is clear that you are rejecting clear Catholic teaching as well as the logic and reason presented here by all of the people who have shown clearly that Matthias was the twelfth Apostle, not just a bishop, and that Paul also being declared an Apostles makes no difference at all. The Twelve are the original Apostles less Judas plus Matthias. This is the clear and consistent teaching of the Church as well as the view of the early Church Fathers. I don’t know why you can’t accept this fact, but instead insist on your erroneous view that Matthias was only a bishop. You have shown nothing that would support your view except the very Protestant tactic of distorting the true interpretation of the Scriptures in a pathetic attempt to “prove” your view.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Ink, I think it is safe to say that all of your arguements have been weiged and measured and found lacking.

The concenues of scripture, The ECF, oh basically all those that have called themselves chirstian , up to and incliding our present Pope along with everyone on this thread says Matthias was an Apostle. One thing I have found is that almost every time that I was at odds with everyone else no matter how convinced I was that I was right, time has shown me I 9.9 out of 10 times was wronge.

I wish you a very Merry Chirstmas and as we now observe this season of Advent may gods peace be with you and yours

 

[adrift]

This was covered before.

I have read the entire thread and no it has not been covered but sidestepped.