Who really replaced Judas ? [ Mathias or Paul]

[po18guy]

So you think they didn’t have God’s blessing in make the call to cast lots ? Thus, Christ later had to intervene and call Saul to the 12 Apostleship ? Indeed we don’t hear much thereafter about Mathias.

Anyone know much about Mathias … from Catholic Tradition ?

However, for example, Jesus Himself chose Simon the Zealot. We know his name from scripture, and almost nothing more from tradition. Someday, I hope to know more about him.

As to Saul of Tarsus, I think he had to be converted before he brought the fledgling Church in Jerusalem to and end, so zealous was he. According to Luke (Acts 8:3) and by his own admission (Galatians 1:18), he tried to destroy it.

 

[brb3]

Peter’s selection brought on the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, there would be no Church.

No Church… No Paul.

I think both choices were instrumental (and necessary) to usher in the Kingdom!

It’s all good – when the H.S. is behind the selection ! Mathias was probably a silent superstar, probably died a martyr after leading 1000’s of ethnic Jews and heathen gentiles to the Lord & his Church.

Oh if only Judas hadn’t been so ‘news-worthy’ … and had lived to a real martyrdom for his master. The Sanhedrin was coming for Christ anyday, and the Calvary event would of happened w/o Judas.

But, we all have made Judas type errors in our past … stories we don’t wish to be told.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I wonder if Hahn actually said this. For me its purely hear say and possibly apocryphal. He must know that this idea is a common protestant argument against apostolic succession as many use it.

How can those who write the NT scriptures with absolute truth and authority make their first judicial act fallible in nature?

Interesting that it took 70 posts before someone finally asked the most relevant question. The OP was never called upon to quote Scott Hahn’s actual statement.

I’m with kkoleon and assume Scott Hahn was misrepresented in this case.

 

[ryanoneil]

As many others have mentioned, casting lots was not chance. It was a serious means of discerning the Lord’s will. Notice the casting of lots for levitical priest duties in the Temple.

They too, in the same manner as their relatives, the descendants of Aaron, cast lots in the presence of King David, Zadok, Ahimelech, and the heads of the priestly and levitical families; the more important family did so in the same way as the less important one. (1 Chron 24:31)

What is Jesus? What has he done? He has predicted the destruction of the Temple. It hadn’t happened yet, but it would within the generation. If the Temple was going to be destroyed, where would the new sacrifices be? Where would the new Temple be? JESUS!

Then, who are the new priests? The 12 apostles! So for them to cast lots corrisponding to (1 Chron), is to determine the priest working in the new Temple of Jesus in his Kingdom. And it falls to Mathias! Restoring the twelve tribes at the “beginning” of the Church is important. Later, the office isn’t filled when James dies in Acts 12, but apostolic sucession continues.

 

[alpharomeo3]

After reading and posting on this topic I went ahead and relayed the good news to a friend of mine who is non-denominational christian and his response is there was no successor to Judas!
i found it odd. He said that there were 12 apostle’s including Judas and only eleven after i wondered how he came to this conclusion I want to point to him Acts 1:15-26

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers[a] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
“‘May his place be deserted;
Let there be no one to dwell in it,’** and,
" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’[c] 21Therefore 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.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

There is biblical proof that Matthias was chosen i guess if you were to accept that Matthias was chosen by the remaining 11 that you would have to accept that the church has the authority to elect a successor to peter than you would have to start your journey home.

I believe many believe that Jesus is the ultimate authority and if he didn’t chose himself than it’s not true but the fact is he was smarter than us and he left a plan for Christians to follow the choice of Matthias shows using her (the church) authority and if you can conceive that!

You can conceive a successor to peter and not that Jesus and the apostles are all gone and left us on this small manual to follow by our on interpretations I will point my friend in scripture to acts soon but I will do it tactfully I won’t hit him over the head with it I’m not a bible thumper.**

 

[po18guy]

After reading and posting on this topic I went ahead and relayed the good news to a friend of mine who is non-denominational christian and his response is there was no successor to Judas!
i found it odd. He said that there were 12 apostle’s including Judas and only eleven after i wondered how he came to this conclusion I want to point to him Acts 1:15-26

You might point out to your friend that Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter long after this point in Acts. By your friend’s opinion then, both of Peter’s letters must be torn out of their bible, since it follows that Peter, who had no authority to replace, also had no authority to write.

You might also ask where they got the authority to make this proclamation against scripture.

 

[NotWorthy]

After reading and posting on this topic I went ahead and relayed the good news to a friend of mine who is non-denominational christian and his response is there was no successor to Judas!
i found it odd. He said that there were 12 apostle’s including Judas and only eleven after i wondered how he came to this conclusion I want to point to him Acts 1:15-26

Please let us know what your friend says.

And how does he address the fact that Luke calls the collection of Apostles “The Eleven” prior to Mathias selection (and after Judas demise, of course) and “The Twelve” after the selection of Mathias?

 

[brb3]

20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
“‘May his place be deserted;
Let there be no one to dwell in it,’** and,
" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’[c]

21Therefore 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."

.**

Ok … lets examine what Peter is quoting here.

Psalms 69:25-28 ---- May THEIR CAMP be a desolation, let no one dwell in THEIR tents. For THEY persecute him whom thou has smitten, and him whom thou hast wounded, they afflict still more. And to THEM punishment upon punishment; may THEY have no acquittal from thee. Let THEM be blotted out of the book of the living; let THEM not be enrolled among the righteous.

Peter says its all about Judas. But, how does he make this case ?

To my mind this is about the Sanhedrin … the Whole group, not the individual Judas.

---

Then lets look at Psalms 109:8 May his days be few; may another seize his goods !

Where does Peter get "may another take his office place of leadership ] … from the above verse 8 ?

 

[po18guy]

Then lets look at Psalms 109:8 May his days be few; may another seize his goods ! Where does Peter get "may another take his office place of leadership ] … from the above verse 8 ?

Psalm 109:8 (New International Version) May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

Psalm 109:8 (New American Standard Bible) Let his days be few;
Let another take his office.

Psalm 109:8 (King James Version) Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Psalm 108:8 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition) May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take.

 

[brb3]

Psalm 109:8 (New International Version) May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

Psalm 109:8 (New American Standard Bible) Let his days be few;
Let another take his office.

Psalm 109:8 (King James Version) Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Psalm 108:8 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition) May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take.

I don’t see it ! Look at verses 10-11 for the context.

"May his children wander about and BEG; may they be driven out of the RUINS THEY INHABIT ! May the CREDITOR SEIZE ALL THAT HE HAS; may standers PLUNDER THE FRUITS OF HIS TOIL ! "

The wicked person spoken of … is being described in terms of MATERIAL LOSS … not his OFFICE !

 

[po18guy]

I don’t see it ! Look at verses 10-11 for the context.

"May his children wander about and BEG; may they be driven out of the RUINS THEY INHABIT ! May the CREDITOR SEIZE ALL THAT HE HAS; may standers PLUNDER THE FRUITS OF HIS TOIL ! "

The wicked person spoken of … is being described in terms of MATERIAL LOSS … not his OFFICE !

Ah, but prophecy is principle, not precision.

 

[porthos11]

Look closely at what Luke writes here.

They ask the Lord to show them who has been chosen. Then they ‘hurriedly’ decide to cast lots.

This seem so OT like. Did Christ ever teach us to make decisions based on ‘games of chance’ ? It appears Christ all along had Paul in mind for the spot … and the disciples didn’t wait for the Lord to work the miracle appointment to position that they ask the Lord to select.

Do we even today select our Popes based on similar games of chance ?

Maybe thats why we had a few problem popes in the Middle Ages.

The drawing of lots was a divinely-ordained means of discerning God’s will in the Old Testament. It was only expected that this was a legitimate means of doing so until Pentecost; in fact, this is the last instance of the casting of lots recorded in the Bible. After this, the Church always relied on the Holy Spirit for guidance, suggesting that God has since withdrawn his approval of lots as a means of discernment.

 

[brb3]

The drawing of lots was a divinely-ordained means of discerning God’s will in the Old Testament. It was only expected that this was a legitimate means of doing so until Pentecost; in fact, this is the last instance of the casting of lots recorded in the Bible.

After this, the Church always relied on the Holy Spirit for guidance, suggesting that God has since withdrawn his approval of lots as a means of discernment.

Others here have suggested the H.S. controlled the outcome of their actions.

When you say ’ God has since withdrawn his approval of ’ … cite your source in scripture or tradition. Protestants vote to select their ministers … Catholics cast lots [ballots] in the selection of our Popes .

 

[NotWorthy]

Others here have suggested the H.S. controlled the outcome of their actions.

When you say ’ God has since withdrawn his approval of ’ … cite your source in scripture or tradition. Protestants vote to select their ministers … Catholics cast lots [ballots] in the selection of our Popes .

I don’t think this is the same “casting of lots”. This was more like “heads I win - tails you lose”, as I understand it.

 

[porthos11]

Others here have suggested the H.S. controlled the outcome of their actions.

When you say ’ God has since withdrawn his approval of ’ … cite your source in scripture or tradition. Protestants vote to select their ministers … Catholics cast lots [ballots] in the selection of our Popes .

But neither process claims to discern the will of the Holy Spirit, and neither process uses the short-straw method (so to speak). Elections make use of reason and the electors do their best to rely on the Holy Spirit’s guidance and enlightenment when doing so. Casting of lots did no such thing; it was purely “O Lord, let the one who draws the short straw succeed Judas”.

As for God’s withdrawal of such methods, I have no New Testament citations, as I clearly mentioned it’s “suggested”, meaning, it’s speculation on my part, and simply because it’s never heard of again.