What made someone an apostle versus a disciple?

[Stephen168]

Conducting a search, I could find no results showing Timothy, Silas, Titus, Barnabus, and Apollos being called an apostle.

The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5).
Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1) Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14). Paul was commissioned and taught by Anamias (Acts 9:17). Does that mean Anamias was an Apostle? maybe.
Silvanus and Timothy call themselves apostles (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6)

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve.

 

[Stephen168]

But the criteria was strict. Peter specifically mentioned two when choosing between Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.

Acts 1:21-22 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

The apostles had to literally be there from the beginning and had witnessed the resurrection.

That is a qualification to be one of ‘the Twelve’, but others were sent (Apostles)

 

[TriuneUnity]

That is a qualification to be one of ‘the Twelve’, but others were sent (Apostles)

You’re probably right about this. The other apostles (for example, your mention of Barnabas), were apostles sent by the various churches, usually under the headship of one of the Twelve.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It is interesting that they did not expand the number to 13 by including Joseph called Barsabbas who apparently qualified as an apostle.

Acts 1:21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one

Most likely because the 12 were numbered that way specifically by Christ as the fulfillment of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Paul, for example, fits all of the criteria to be numbered among the 12, yet isn’t. He is almost his own category.

 

[Masters_Servant]

The criteria for being an apostle was spelled out throughout the NT: The apostles were:

by the will of God (Eph 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1, 2 Tim 1:1, Col 1:1, 2 Cor 1:1),
by the command of God (1 Tim 1:1),
sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father (Gal 1:1),
set apart for the gospel of God (Rom 1:1),
servant of God (1:1, Titus 1:1),
Have seen Jesus our Lord? (1 Cor 9:1),
appointed an apostle and a teacher (Matt 28:16,2 Tim 1:11, 1 Tim 2:7),
performed things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles (2 Cor 12:12),
Have God working in their ministry (Gal 2:8),
and were a witness of his resurrection." (Acts 1:22),
Jesus gave them power and authority (Luke 9:1, 2 Cor 10:8, 2 Cor 13:10)

So if these were the conditions for being an apostle, can someone be one today?

What all are the conditions for being a disciple? Where would the line be drawn differentiating between an apostle from a disciple?

apostolos in the Greek:
a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders

1. specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
2. in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
   1. of Barnabas
   2. of Timothy and Silvanus

From the word apostellō:

1. to order (one) to go to a place appointed
2. to send away, dismiss
   1. to allow one to depart, that he may be in a state of liberty
   2. to order one to depart, send off
   3. to drive away

From the words: apo & stellō
apo

1. of separation
   1. of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, …
   2. of separation of a part from the whole
      1. where of a whole some part is taken
   3. of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
   4. of a state of separation, that is of distance
      1. physical, of distance of place
      2. temporal, of distance of time
2. of origin
   1. of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
   2. of origin of a cause

stellō:

1. to set, place, set in order, arrange
   1. to fit out, to prepare, equip
   2. to prepare one’s self, to fit out for one’s self
   3. to fit out for one’s own use
   4. to prepare one’s self, to fit out for one’s self
   5. to fit out for one’s own use
      1. arranging, providing for this, etc.
2. to bring together, contract, shorten
   1. to diminish, check, cause to cease
   2. to cease to exist
   3. to remove one’s self, withdraw one’s self, to depart
   4. to abstain from familiar intercourse with one

The answer is yes. Disciple means “learner” in the simplest sense, but an apostle is one that has learned and is sent for a specific Kingdom “mission” or “duty”. This is why I maintain that none of the 12 Apostles, because they were commissioned for specific reasons by a divine authority explicitly, as noted with Paul to the gentiles including Rome and Peter to the Jews. If Peter had been a Bishop in Rome for 20 plus years as some claim; then he would have ignored his commission given by Jesus, which I know he would not have done that. It is also not difficult to show from Scripture that Peter could not have been a Bishop in Rome and that Babylon was still a city according to Josephus before the destruction in AD 70. Peter certainly he would have never allowed anyone to bury him in Rome; I assure you he is buried in or around Jerusalem, but all that is another topic and thread which I would not engage in because I can give overwhelming evidence that would not be believed and I would just be slandered more.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

MS, Mind sharing your source?

 

[Stephen168]

You’re probably right about this. The other apostles (for example, your mention of Barnabas), were apostles sent by the various churches, usually under the headship of one of the Twelve.

Paul, for example, fits all of the criteria to be numbered among the 12, yet isn’t. He is almost his own category.

I see Paul and Barnabas in the same category (post-earthly-Christ Apostles); which means they were not qualified to be one of the Twelve (Act 1:21-22). Paul had an encounter with the risen Lord but that did not make him an Apostle (Acts 9:5-6). They both seem to have been sent out by the Church in Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
The first category of Apostle would be those sent by the earthly Christ; the Twelve and the seventy. It would seem that some members of the seventy would qualify to be members of the Twelve (Barsabbas and Matthias) but never Paul or Barnabas.

 

[Stephen168]

Most likely because the 12 were numbered that way specifically by Christ as the fulfillment of the twelve tribes of Israel.

I think so
(Eph 2:19-22) (Rev 21:14)

 

[Stephen168]

The disciples were first made by the apostles in the starting of the ministry. Aside from Matthias being picked, no where in the NT does it indicate that an apostle annoited other apostles.

Yes, only once were the Twelve restored to 12, but Paul and Barnabas were Apostles (Galatians 2:9, Acts 13:1-3)

 

[TriuneUnity]

I see Paul and Barnabas in the same category (post-earthly-Christ Apostles); which means they were not qualified to be one of the Twelve (Act 1:21-22). Paul had an encounter with the risen Lord but that did not make him an Apostle (Acts 9:5-6). They both seem to have been sent out by the Church in Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
The first category of Apostle would be those sent by the earthly Christ; the Twelve and the seventy. It would seem that some members of the seventy would qualify to be members of the Twelve (Barsabbas and Matthias) but never Paul or Barnabas.

I can see where you are coming from there. However, Paul does not seem to share that view of his apostleship. In the opening chapters of Galatians, he indicates that he was an apostle sent by Christ, not by a church (unlike the others called apostles in the NT). “Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers who are with me. (Gal 1:1-2)”

In chapter 2 he explains that he met with the Twelve in Jerusalem in order to show himself in unity with the same gospel that they preached. But he makes it clear that all of his grace, apostleship, and ordination, came directly from Christ. This marks him out as not being reckoned among the Twelve, but not in the same line as Silas, Barnabas, Timothy, etc.

 

[shawn38]

I see Paul and Barnabas in the same category (post-earthly-Christ Apostles); which means they were not qualified to be one of the Twelve (Act 1:21-22). Paul had an encounter with the risen Lord but that did not make him an Apostle (Acts 9:5-6). They both seem to have been sent out by the Church in Antioch (Acts 13:1-3)
.

Paul obviously puts a wrinkle in everything. Paul was chosen by God directly, unlike Matthias for which they casted lots.

Rev 21:14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Of the 12 apostles, is Paul one since he was chosen by God?

We know that Paul was a witness to the resurrected Christ. We also know that he certainly persecuted the early church. The Bible doesn’t seem to say for how long he persecuted the followers.

 

[Stephen168]

Paul obviously puts a wrinkle in everything. Paul was chosen by God directly, unlike Matthias for which they casted lots.

Rev 21:14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Of the 12 apostles, is Paul one since he was chosen by God?

No. Paul did not qualify.

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—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.

Paul was chosen by God; but what was he chosen to do and when? Saul converted to Christianity (Acts 9:5-6) but that didn’t make him an Apostle. Paul was given instruction (Acts 9:17, Acts 11:25-26) but that doesn’t make anyone an Apostle either. Paul and Barnabas were sent out by some of the Twelve; first Barnabas (Acts 11:22) then Paul and Barnabas together (Acts 13:1-3, Galatians 2:9). At this point Paul was an Apostle and so was Barnabas (Acts 14:14).

 

[Moro_Rock]

Saint Patrick is the Apostle of Ireland

 

[Masters_Servant]

Your apologetics friends here seem to be saying that Jesus gave the Gospel message exclusively to the apostles and that they then gave this message on to others that were of this exclusive club that was ordained of men to carry on the gospel message. I see the scriptures that you use seem to be creatively edited to exclude texts that seem to be in opposition to this notion. For instance they say “Although many Protestant pastors apply St. Paul’s words, “rightly divide the word of truth**,” to themselves, in fact, these words were written to St. Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 shows the relationship between the legitimate ambassador and Scripture:” ** Let’s take a look at 2Cor.5 and see who Paul is saying should be Christ’s ambassadors.

2Cor.5
14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

(It says here that Jesus died FOR ALL and they that live through Him should no longer live unto themselves)

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

(In this verse we see that if ANY MAN be in Christ, he is a new creature.)

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Ok, when Paul says here “God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;” The “us” is not this exclusive club to whom you refer. The “us” refers back to ANY MAN.

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

(Again here we see that God was not committing the word of reconciliation to a select few but has committed the word of reconciliation to us “ANY MAN”)

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

(The word “we” here again refers back not to an eclusive club of ordained priests, but to ANY MAN who has been renewed in Christ.)

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

So now “we” are ambassadors of Christ and God has committed to “us”, anyone who has been renewed in Christ, the ministry of reconciliation and this is not contingent upon being ordained by man, but being renewed in Christ. "that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

You touched on the core issues about who is to serve; which is written in the “Pastoral Epistles” Timothy and Titus. I Timothy 3 and Titus give the “qualifications that God, not man ordained” and I Tim 5 gives the congregation and/or deacons the proper way to deal with the pastor who is beyond approach. These are the list of qualifications needed to serve God, not useless genealogies.

In 1 Timothy 1; about the use of worthless genealogies and the warning associated with what will result if the warnings are not heeded and do we see this in the churches from the Biblical era till today. Genealogies is used in the similar context of “I am of Paul” “of Peter”, “of Apollos” etc.{1 Corinthians 1:10-13}; then a similar warning with a specific command on how to handle such in Titus 3. Keep in mind these are directions and commands concerning the pastoral care, duty, discipline and false teachers and how to deal with theses things.

IMHO, if the Catholic church were to follow the Biblical pattern of qualifications given and avoid the warning in the pastoral epistles and followed through with the discipline in
1 Timothy 5 beginning in verse 20; then these issues of pastoral abuses would all but disappear. In a Baptist church; if a pastor were caught in anything above reproach he would be removed from office; yet he could still serve the Lord in some other capacity. If the reproach was against the law such as theft; he would be in jail and in either case that person would never serve as a pastor again. the exception would be the congregation who did not do its due diligence in background and fact-finding checks, which I have never personally witnessed, but I have seen these exceptions in news stories on rare occasions.

 

[Reuben_J]

IMHO, if the Catholic church were to follow the Biblical pattern of qualifications given and avoid the warning in the pastoral epistles and followed through with the discipline in
1 Timothy 5 beginning in verse 20; then these issues of pastoral abuses would all but disappear. In a Baptist church; if a pastor were caught in anything above reproach he would be removed from office; yet he could still serve the Lord in some other capacity. If the reproach was against the law such as theft; he would be in jail and in either case that person would never serve as a pastor again. the exception would be the congregation who did not do its due diligence in background and fact-finding checks, which I have never personally witnessed, but I have seen these exceptions in news stories on rare occasions.

If it was me I would defrock a priest found out committing child molesting. I would not however do that if it is just pastoral abuse as that can be corrected. However that is me and I could very well wrong and not Christ like when I take that course of action.

Being a non-Catholic you may never ever fully comprehend the sacredness of the confidentiality of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance). You cannot and should never use priest’s confession of their sins in the Sacrament against them in secular law. In doing that not only you betray the trust of the penitent but you are taking the law of God into your own hands.

Once a person confesses his sin, then it is between God and him. The confessor can only advice what the penitent should do – that advice can include asking him to give himself up to the police. But the confessor cannot report what he hears during the confession to the police.

Basically in confession we are dealing with repentance. All souls are worthed saving and once fallen must be given a chance to start anew and allow the Holy Spirit to strengthen and sanctify them.

Certainly as what it seems today, we are applying human and secular solution to what is necessarily between man and God.

 

[shawn38]

No. Paul did not qualify.

Now that depends for Paul was there persecuting the early church. He certainly was a witness to the resurrected Christ.

Paul was chosen by God; but what was he chosen to do and when?

There’s zero doubt why Paul was chosen by Christ.

Acts 26:16 I (Jesus) have appeared to you (Paul) to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you.

He was chosen to take the message to the Gentiles. Rom 11:13, Gal 2:8

More affirmation to the fact that the apostles had to be literal witnesses of the resurrected Christ.

Peter
2 Ptr 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

John
1 Jn 1:1-3 …from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.

It’s a consistent theme. Was anyone in the Bible ordained an apostle that had not actually seen Christ?

 

[shawn38]

Peter’s departure nears

2 Ptr 1:14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

How does Peter do it? Through his letters

2 Ptr 3:1 Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

 

[Stephen168]

Now that depends for Paul was there persecuting the early church. He certainly was a witness to the resurrected Christ.

There’s zero doubt why Paul was chosen by Christ.

Acts 26:16 I (Jesus) have appeared to you (Paul) to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you.

He was chosen to take the message to the Gentiles. Rom 11:13, Gal 2:8

More affirmation to the fact that the apostles had to be literal witnesses of the resurrected Christ.

Peter
2 Ptr 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

John
1 Jn 1:1-3 …from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.

It’s a consistent theme. Was anyone in the Bible ordained an apostle that had not actually seen Christ?

I agree. As I said in my last post, Paul was an Apostle. You asked if Paul was one of the Twelve Apostles; no he was not one of the Twelve Apostles. There are more than 12 Apostles at anyone time in the New Testament. You explained WHY Paul was an Apostle. I explained WHEN he was an Apostle. I don’t see any conflict. The reason ‘why’ I go to work doesn’t conflict with ‘when’ I go to work. I agree with you on WHY Paul was an Apostle, but the New Testament is pretty clear to me that Paul and Barnabas were made Apostles at the same time.

If you think someone who is trying to kill you is ‘accompanying’ you, than maybe Paul would qualify, as one of many, to be one of the Twelve. I don’t agree. Except for Judas, I also can’t find anywhere else in the Bible where any of the Twelve are replaced.

 

[Masters_Servant]

If it was me I would defrock a priest found out committing child molesting. I would not however do that if it is just pastoral abuse as that can be corrected. However that is me and I could very well wrong and not Christ like when I take that course of action.

Being a non-Catholic you may never ever fully comprehend the sacredness of the confidentiality of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance). You cannot and should never use priest’s confession of their sins in the Sacrament against them in secular law. In doing that not only you betray the trust of the penitent but you are taking the law of God into your own hands.

Once a person confesses his sin, then it is between God and him. The confessor can only advice what the penitent should do – that advice can include asking him to give himself up to the police. But the confessor cannot report what he hears during the confession to the police.

Basically in confession we are dealing with repentance. All souls are worthed saving and once fallen must be given a chance to start anew and allow the Holy Spirit to strengthen and sanctify them.

Certainly as what it seems today, we are applying human and secular solution to what is necessarily between man and God.

God gives the formula for repentance; so why not follow His prescription and then it becomes a non-issue? There is no immunity for braking any law; it is God who establishes all authority and the laws that authority creates for punishment for criminals. IF someone came to a confessional booth and said they robbed a convenient store because they were hungry, then that would remain confidential like an attorney client relationship? Or does the Priest insist that the person turn themselves over to the law; and if the criminal confessor does not, then should the shouldn’t the priest turn them over to the authorities? If not, then that person has become a law unto themselves and God has something to say about that as well.

 

[Reuben_J]

God gives the formula for repentance; so why not follow His prescription and then it becomes a non-issue? There is no immunity for braking any law; it is God who establishes all authority and the laws that authority creates for punishment for criminals.

What, may I ask you, is God punishment for criminals? As far as I know, there is none. Who will throw the first stone? God’s punishment is to be meted in the afterlife not here on earth. Or are you following the laws in the Leviticus?

IF someone came to a confessional booth and said they robbed a convenient store because they were hungry, then that would remain confidential like an attorney client relationship? Or does the Priest insist that the person turn themselves over to the law; and if the criminal confessor does not, then should the shouldn’t the priest turn them over to the authorities?

I tell you what – a priest would say what Jesus would have said. Repent, go and sin no more. Repentance means to turn 180 degrees from what you have done. It is not about stop doing what you are doing but it is about doing what you have not been doing. In other word, you will live according to the way of God instead of sinning. It is a proactive action. If you steal, you have to return what you have stolen. Remember Zachius? He returned the money back – four folds.

The priest cannot and should not turn him to the authority. The priest has no business doing police work or becomes vigilante. He is a spiritual minister. He advises in the things of God. Of course, one of it may include advising the penitent to give himself up to the police.

But I have the feeling you do not really understand what it mean by repentance.

If not, then that person has become a law unto themselves and God has something to say about that as well.

What do you mean a person become a law unto himself in the Sacrament of Confession? How can that be? If you repent you will go back to the Lord and follow his way. A repented Christian is always a good Christian, a good person and contributing goodness to the society. There should not be any duplicity.

If a person abuses the Sacrament of Confession, then he is actually not repenting of his sin and God will deal with that.

I have the feeling that you actually want the priest to act as an enforcement officer – a policeman. No, that’s not his responsibility and it is not practical to put that responsibility on a priest. I don’t know about Protestants, maybe you expect your pastor to do that, I am not sure.