Why isn't Peter listed as the first bishop of Jerusalem?

[cottice]

I am sure Matthias IS an Apostle. In Rev 21:14

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I am pretty sure the name of Judas Iscariot is not there.

Well you are right about there being only twelve Apostles and you are correct on the names of eleven of them. You are also correct that Judas’ name is not there. However, you are incorrect about Matthias name being there. Neither is Barnabus. It is Paul whose name is on the foundation stone. Scripture calls Paul an apostle no less than ten times. Some of those times scripture calls him an “Apostle of Jesus Christ”. BUT, contrary to Paul, no where in scripture is Matthias ever called an Apostle. You would think that scripture would do so, at least once, IF he were, in fact, one of the twelve Apostles Then, of course, we would have thirteen foundations. So I would jhave to reject your position.

 

[cottice]

My copy of Eusebius Book 4 says this:

*Chapter 5. The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration

1. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.*

I don’t see Peter there.

Somewhere I heard or read that the original four Patriarchs of the church (Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria) were selected because those were the cities that Peter established the bishoprics. I recall it said that while Peter did not go to Alexandria he did consecrate Mark, who had been his secretary, and sent him to Alexandria as its first bishop. So all of the Partriarchial cities had some tie in to Peter. Certainly there is no doubt that on Pentecost it was Peter who addressed the crowd not James. If James were the leader of the Church in Jerusalem then we should expect that he would give the inaugural address. So I guess it depends on when Peter left Jerusalem for Antioch. One of the church writers tells us that Peter left Antioch for Rome in about 42 AD so it had to be before then. Paul writes that before he set out on his missionary journeys he visited Peter in Jerusalem but saw no other apostle there but James. This was after his three year sojourn in the desert. Not sure when that occurred but had to be in the period from 27AD to 40 AD. I say 27 AD because that apparently is the year that is now generally accepted as the year Jesus was crucified. Also, Peter, not James, apparently takes the lead in Jerusalem as He is the one first arrested (with John) [Acts3- 4]. then later [Acts 5], apparently all of the apostles were also arrested.

By the way, the patriarchy of Constantinople was created centuries later as some sort of appeasement to the emperor. We can now see that was not a good move.

 

[Usagi]

Well you are right about there being only twelve Apostles and you are correct on the names of eleven of them. You are also correct that Judas’ name is not there. However, you are incorrect about Matthias name being there. Neither is Barnabus. It is Paul whose name is on the foundation stone. Scripture calls Paul an apostle no less than ten times. Some of those times scripture calls him an “Apostle of Jesus Christ”. BUT, contrary to Paul, no where in scripture is Matthias ever called an Apostle. You would think that scripture would do so, at least once, IF he were, in fact, one of the twelve Apostles Then, of course, we would have thirteen foundations. So I would jhave to reject your position.

Did you have another username before this? This one has only 38 posts, but I have exchanged posts with another user who had this exact conviction about Paul vs. Matthias.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches identify St. Matthias as the new twelfth Apostle. I’ve seen some Protestant groups insist that God “really” picked Paul as Judas’ replacement, and that Peter’s selection of Matthias was an unwarranted act (thus demonstrating to them, I’m sure, that the idea of the papacy is silly) – but even they think that the selection of Matthias was an attempt to replace Judas.

Do you have anything besides your own interpretation of the Biblical text to corroborate the idea that Paul and not Matthias was the new member of the Twelve?

Usagi

 

[Randy_Carson]

My copy of Eusebius Book 4 says this:

*Chapter 5. The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration

1. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.*

I don’t see Peter there.

Eusebius used Peter’s Hebrew name: Symeon.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did you have another username before this? This one has only 38 posts, but I have exchanged posts with another user who had this exact conviction about Paul vs. Matthias.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches identify St. Matthias as the new twelfth Apostle. I’ve seen some Protestant groups insist that God “really” picked Paul as Judas’ replacement, and that Peter’s selection of Matthias was an unwarranted act (thus demonstrating to them, I’m sure, that the idea of the papacy is silly) – but even they think that the selection of Matthias was an attempt to replace Judas.

Do you have anything besides your own interpretation of the Biblical text to corroborate the idea that Paul and not Matthias was the new member of the Twelve?

Usagi

Many Protestants REALLY, REALLY want to make Paul one of the Twelve to put him on par with Peter as a counter-balance to the Catholic Church’s claims regarding the papacy.

This is silly, for many reasons, not the least of which is that we ALREADY hold Paul in high regard as the writings of the early Church show.

But Paul never got his own keys to the kingdoms.

 

[cottice]

Did you have another username before this? This one has only 38 posts, but I have exchanged posts with another user who had this exact conviction about Paul vs. Matthias.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches identify St. Matthias as the new twelfth Apostle. I’ve seen some Protestant groups insist that God “really” picked Paul as Judas’ replacement, and that Peter’s selection of Matthias was an unwarranted act (thus demonstrating to them, I’m sure, that the idea of the papacy is silly) – but even they think that the selection of Matthias was an attempt to replace Judas.

Do you have anything besides your own interpretation of the Biblical text to corroborate the idea that Paul and not Matthias was the new member of the Twelve?

Usagi

I think if you look at what the scriptures actually say and what they don’t say then there is no way there can be more than Twelve Apostles and Matthias is not one of them. I think that the number of Apostles is fixed by Rev 21:14 so that there can be no more than twelve. In Acts 1:15 Peter quotes the psalms and calls for someone to fill the office that Judas vacated. He is not calling for someone to be the twelfth Apostle as the Greek word that is used is episkope not apostolos. * Episkope *is translated as bishop, not apostle.Then you have the Lord’s words to Annaias about choosing Paul to be His messenger that He would send to the Gentiles. Then you have the many verses in the New Testament that call Paul an Apostle with some even stating he is an Apostle of Jesus Christ. That is a lot of evidence for Paul. On the other hand you have Matthias, a man neither called by nor sent by Jesus and who is never, ever, once called an Apostle by scripture. The best you have is Luke saying Matthias was “numbered with the eleven Apostles”. That is not the same as being an Apostle. Luke could have said that Matthias became an Apostle. But he did not. I think the reason he did not write that is because he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it.

But Matthias is an important figure. He is the first bishop of the church and the first of the successors to the Apostles. He, therefore, is the biblical precedent for Apostolic Succession. But all that goes away if you maintain that Matthias was an Apostle. Plus you have a bigger problem. If the Apostles could promote someone to being an Apostle why weren’t there others? Why did they not promote someone to replace James when he died? The logic for this argument just utterly fails.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In Acts 1:15 Peter quotes the psalms and calls for someone to fill the office that Judas vacated. He is not calling for someone to be the twelfth Apostle as the Greek word that is used is episkope not apostolos.

In Acts 1:20, Peter is saying that someone needs to fill the office vacated by Judas. Peter actually quotes Psalm 109:8 which is translated in the KJV as “bishoprick”:

Acts 1:20
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

So, yes, the Greek in Acts 1:20 is episkope from which we get our words “episcopacy” which refer to bishops.

Two things need to be noted here: first, Peter didn’t choose the word episkope, he QUOTED it as part of the Psalm. That weakens the argument that Peter was suggesting that everyone vote for a new bishop to take the place of the dead Apostle, Judas, doesn’t it.

But even stronger is the fact that Peter is suggesting that someone be elected to fill the position vacated by an Apostle - not an position vacated by a bishop. If Matthias were elected as a bishop, then Judas’ place would still be deserted; clearly, that is the very situation that Peter was trying to remedy by proposing the election in the first place.

So, the election in Acts 1 was about filling the office of Apostle and not about creating the new office of bishop which did not happen until later.

The Greek supports this. In Acts 1:26, Matthias was added to the Eleven apostolos.

And btw, elsewhere I have described that there are as many as 21 apostles named in the NT, so the idea that the office of Apostle was closed after the election of Paul is by no means certain. This too, has been explained elsewhere by me, but a careful reading of Acts 13 will show that Paul was not made an apostle by Jesus in Acts 9.

 

[Ignatius]

Why then is he not listed as the first bishop of Jerusalem?

Where do you see someone is listed as Bishop of Jerusalem prior to 70 A.D.?

 

[ericc]

Eusebius used Peter’s Hebrew name: Symeon.

Not so. In Eusebius Book 3:

Chapter 11. Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.

1. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

This Symeon or Simon was mentioned as one of the brethren of the Lord consisting this foursome : James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas. Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3.

 

[ericc]

Well you are right about there being only twelve Apostles and you are correct on the names of eleven of them. You are also correct that Judas’ name is not there. However, you are incorrect about Matthias name being there. Neither is Barnabus. It is Paul whose name is on the foundation stone. Scripture calls Paul an apostle no less than ten times. Some of those times scripture calls him an “Apostle of Jesus Christ”. BUT, contrary to Paul, no where in scripture is Matthias ever called an Apostle. You would think that scripture would do so, at least once, IF he were, in fact, one of the twelve Apostles Then, of course, we would have thirteen foundations. So I would jhave to reject your position.

Unfortunately Paul excludes himself as one of the Twelve. In 1 Cor 15:5 “and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve”.

Paul is known as Apostle of the Gentiles. In Mat 19:28 Jesus said "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His Glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Trying to fit Paul as one of the judges for 12 twelve tribes of Israel does not fit his role as Apostle of the Gentiles as Paul designated himself in Romans 11:13. Matthias has followed Jesus during his ministry. The hard fact is that Paul did not follow Jesus during his ministry.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not so. In Eusebius Book 3:

Chapter 11. Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.

1. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

This Symeon or Simon was mentioned as one of the brethren of the Lord consisting this foursome : James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas. Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3.

You are correct, and I was wrong.

I completely misread the post (skimmed it, really), and I mistook that Symeon for Simon.

 

[ericc]

But Luke doesn’t say there are twelve again. He could easily have done so if he wanted. Furthermore being "numbered with the eleven Apostles does not make Matthias an Apostle any more than a black sheep maybe numbered with ninety nine white sheep but that doesn’t make him a white sheep. The shepherd may say he has a flock of one hundred sheep; ninety nine are white, one is not. In the case of Matthias we have twelve bishops. Eleven of them are Apostles; one is not.

Luke never calls Matthias an Apostle. Others are called apostle but the word is used in a general sense to mean missionary. Furthermore, we are all called to be apostles but none of us are one of the twelve.

Not in the least. Matthias was a missionary of the church. Peter called for someone to replace Judas in the office of bishop [See Acts 1:15 in either the KJV or the DR versions]. Peter never called for another apostle. Matthias was a bishop not an apostle of Jesus Christ. He does not rank with the other Apostles [including Paul] as he was never called nor sent by Jesus. Paul was most definitely called and sent by the Lord. Scripture says it; I believe it so what is your hang up with it? Why do you defy what is so plainly stated in scripture?

I think you are mistaken. The 11 Apostles really meant to refill Judas apostleship. Acts 1:24-25.

And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

 

[cottice]

Unfortunately Paul excludes himself as one of the Twelve. In 1 Cor 15:5 “and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve”.

Twelve what? I do not see the word ‘Apostles’ there. Another example of the Holy Spirit not calling Matthias an Apostle when given the opportunity to do so.

Paul is known as Apostle of the Gentiles. In Mat 19:28 Jesus said "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His Glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Trying to fit Paul as one of the judges for 12 twelve tribes of Israel does not fit his role as Apostle of the Gentiles as Paul designated himself in Romans 11:13. Matthias has followed Jesus during his ministry. The hard fact is that Paul did not follow Jesus during his ministry.

Yes, yes, Yes. Paul is the APOSTLE to the Gentiles. Thank you for admitting his being an apostle. Now all you need do is revise the book of Revelation to say that the new city of Jerusalem had thirteen foundations not twelve and the 24 elders [the 12 OT Patriarchs and the 12 Apostles] were really 25 elders. Then you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[cottice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
In Acts 1:15 Peter quotes the psalms and calls for someone to fill the office that Judas vacated. He is not calling for someone to be the twelfth Apostle as the Greek word that is used is episkope not apostolos.

In Acts 1:20, Peter is saying that someone needs to fill the office vacated by Judas. Peter actually quotes Psalm 109:8 which is translated in the KJV as “bishoprick”:

Acts 1:20
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

So, yes, the Greek in Acts 1:20 is episkope from which we get our words “episcopacy” which refer to bishops.

Two things need to be noted here: first, Peter didn’t choose the word episkope, he QUOTED it as part of the Psalm. That weakens the argument that Peter was suggesting that everyone vote for a new bishop to take the place of the dead Apostle, Judas, doesn’t it.

Peter probably did not use the word episkope But that is the word that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So where are you going with this? Seems like a dead end to me. Unless, of course the Holy Spirit was wrong… Do you really want to go there?

But even stronger is the fact that Peter is suggesting that someone be elected to fill the position vacated by an Apostle - not an position vacated by a bishop. If Matthias were elected as a bishop, then Judas’ place would still be deserted; clearly, that is the very situation that Peter was trying to remedy by proposing the election in the first place.

So, the election in Acts 1 was about filling the office of Apostle and not about creating the new office of bishop which did not happen until later.

You logic would be more believable if it were supported by other instances where an Apostle was elected to fill a vacancy caused by the death of another Apostle. But as you know full well that never happened. The Apostles are succeeded, not by other Apostles, but by bishops which is exactly what Peter called for.

The Greek supports this. In Acts 1:26, Matthias was added to the Eleven apostolos.

So why are there eleven Apostles before Matthiass was elected and still eleven afterwards? Should not Luke have said twelve Apostles. Why not? What is so wrong about outrightly calling Matthias an Apostle? I believe there is a reason and that reason is that Luke is constrained by the Holy Spirit from doing so.

And btw, elsewhere I have described that there are as many as 21 apostles named in the NT, so the idea that the office of Apostle was closed after the election of Paul is by no means certain. This too, has been explained elsewhere by me, but a careful reading of Acts 13 will show that Paul was not made an apostle by Jesus in Acts 9.

Missionaries, my friend, missionaries. We are distinguishing between those who spead the gospel with that select group of twelve who were selected by Jesus. The Eastern church calls the seventy disciples that Jesus sent out the minor apostles to distinguish them from the Twelve that he selected. That is because they abhor Latin and refuse to use the word ‘missionary’ just as they deny belief in purgatory because it too is derived from a Latin word. And lest we forget, you have the words in the book of Revelations limiting the number of Apostles to twelve. So how can you have 21? Further more Acts 9 provides us with definitive proof that Paul was selected by Jesus to be sent to the Gentiles. That Paul indeed did so is proof that he was sent by the Lord.

 

[ericc]

Twelve what? I do not see the word ‘Apostles’ there. Another example of the Holy Spirit not calling Matthias an Apostle when given the opportunity to do so.

You seem to be clutching at straws. When the Gospel writers says the Twelve, it is understood to mean the Twelve Apostles.

Mt 10:5
Mt 26:14
Mt 26:47
Mk 4:10
Mk 6:7
Mk 9:35
Mk 10:32
Mk 11:11
Mk 14:10
Mk 14:17
Mk 14:20
Mk 14:43
Lk 8:1
Lk 9:1
Lk 22:3
Lk 22:47
Jn 6:67
Jn 6:70
Jn 20:24
Acts 6:2

It is futile to argue your case really. Anyway, my previous post on Acts 1:24-25 is extremely clear that Matthias was chosen to replace the ministry and apostleship vacated by Judas. I take your silence on that point as acceptance.

Yes, yes, Yes. Paul is the APOSTLE to the Gentiles. Thank you for admitting his being an apostle.

I am not disagreeing with you that Paul is an apostle. He is but he is not one of the Twelve.

Now all you need do is revise the book of Revelation to say that the new city of Jerusalem had thirteen foundations not twelve and the 24 elders [the 12 OT Patriarchs and the 12 Apostles] were really 25 elders. Then you can have your cake and eat it too.

I’m sorry, Catholics do not change the contents of Bible on whims and fancies or self interpretations. All you need to prove is that Paul who is not one of the Twelve has his name on one of the foundations. Although you are rooting for Paul, you have not provided any evidence to support your claims. Paul himself in 1 Cor 15:9 put himself last.

“For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God”. He supported the stoning of Stephen to death in Acts7:58-8:1 and admitted it Acts 22:20. He knows his place.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
In Acts 1:15 Peter quotes the psalms and calls for someone to fill the office that Judas vacated. He is not calling for someone to be the twelfth Apostle as the Greek word that is used is episkope not apostolos.

Peter probably did not use the word episkope But that is the word that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So where are you going with this? Seems like a dead end to me. Unless, of course the Holy Spirit was wrong… Do you really want to go there?

You logic would be more believable if it were supported by other instances where an Apostle was elected to fill a vacancy caused by the death of another Apostle. But as you know full well that never happened. The Apostles are succeeded, not by other Apostles, but by bishops which is exactly what Peter called for.

So why are there eleven Apostles before Matthiass was elected and still eleven afterwards? Should not Luke have said twelve Apostles. Why not? What is so wrong about outrightly calling Matthias an Apostle? I believe there is a reason and that reason is that Luke is constrained by the Holy Spirit from doing so.

Missionaries, my friend, missionaries. We are distinguishing between those who spead the gospel with that select group of twelve who were selected by Jesus. The Eastern church calls the seventy disciples that Jesus sent out the minor apostles to distinguish them from the Twelve that he selected. That is because they abhor Latin and refuse to use the word ‘missionary’ just as they deny belief in purgatory because it too is derived from a Latin word. And lest we forget, you have the words in the book of Revelations limiting the number of Apostles to twelve. So how can you have 21? Further more Acts 9 provides us with definitive proof that Paul was selected by Jesus to be sent to the Gentiles. That Paul indeed did so is proof that he was sent by the Lord.

cottice-

I know that you feel very strongly about the position you have staked out here.

Most of us who have been members of the forum longer than you appreciate the value of supporting evidence when an argument is presented.

Therefore, would you mind providing links to Catholic websites or better yet, any Catholic books that explain the case for Matthias as you have described it?

Once we have reviewed a few quotes from www.vatican.va or some trustworthy Catholic theologians or even a magazine article or two, then we will have something more than the personal opinion of a newcomer to consider.

I’m sure you can understand this, and I look forward to reading the documents you choose to present in support of your position.

Thanks.

 

[cottice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
In Acts 1:15 Peter quotes the psalms and calls for someone to fill the office that Judas vacated. He is not calling for someone to be the twelfth Apostle as the Greek word that is used is episkope not apostolos.

Peter probably did not use the word episkope But that is the word that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So where are you going with this? Seems like a dead end to me. Unless, of course the Holy Spirit was wrong… Do you really want to go there?

You logic would be more believable if it were supported by other instances where an Apostle was elected to fill a vacancy caused by the death of another Apostle. But as you know full well that never happened. The Apostles are succeeded, not by other Apostles, but by bishops which is exactly what Peter called for.

So why are there eleven Apostles before Matthiass was elected and still eleven afterwards? Should not Luke have said twelve Apostles. Why not? What is so wrong about outrightly calling Matthias an Apostle? I believe there is a reason and that reason is that Luke is constrained by the Holy Spirit from doing so.

Missionaries, my friend, missionaries. We are distinguishing between those who spead the gospel with that select group of twelve who were selected by Jesus. The Eastern church calls the seventy disciples that Jesus sent out the minor apostles to distinguish them from the Twelve that he selected. That is because they abhor Latin and refuse to use the word ‘missionary’ just as they deny belief in purgatory because it too is derived from a Latin word. And lest we forget, you have the words in the book of Revelations limiting the number of Apostles to twelve. So how can you have 21? Further more Acts 9 provides us with definitive proof that Paul was selected by Jesus to be sent to the Gentiles. That Paul indeed did so is proof that he was sent by the Lord.

cottice-

I know that you feel very strongly about the position you have staked out here.

Most of us who have been members of the forum longer than you appreciate the value of supporting evidence when an argument is presented.

Therefore, would you mind providing links to Catholic websites or better yet, any Catholic books that explain the case for Matthias as you have described it?

Once we have reviewed a few quotes from www.vatican.va or some trustworthy Catholic theologians or even a magazine article or two, then we will have something more than the personal opinion of a newcomer to consider.

I’m sure you can understand this, and I look forward to reading the documents you choose to present in support of your position.

Thanks.

Randy, I presented my evidence from scripture. I did not read anything into it that was not there. Begin with Peter’s call for someone to fill the office vacated by Judas. Again the Greek word used is episkope. A word which is translated elsewhere in the NT as overseer or bishop and never once as apostle. Peter does not call for another apostle. He does not use that word (apostolos). Imagine the consequences if he did. Apostles would not be succeeded by bishops but by apostles. But since no one in christianity, to include the Catholic Church, believes there were additional apostles then Apostolic Succession , as maintained by the Catholic Church is a myth. For if an apostle can succeed Judas then an apostle can succceed Peter or James, John, Matthew Thomas and the others. But the church doesn’t teach that and never has. Peter called for a bishop and Matthias was that bishop and thus the Apostolic Succession of bishops was instituted and manifested in the scriptures (to the chagrin of protestants everywhere). Please open your eyes and see that scripture calls Paul an Apostle over ten times while scripture, the Book of Revelation, places a limit on the number of apostles at twelve (Rev 21:14)? So how can you say that Matthias not Paul is that twelfth apostle? You have created a contradiction in scripture by doing so. In my position there is no contradiction in scripture. Jesus replaced Judas with Paul. Scripture records that God called Paul and God sent Paul. God alone could do that because they were His Apostles and His alone, not Peter’s nor anyone elses.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, nothing yet. I’ll wait.

:compcoff:

 

[cottice]

So, nothing yet. I’ll wait.

:compcoff:

See #37 And I am waiting also for you to explain how Rev 21:14 fits into your scenario without destroying it all together. Rev 21:14 fits my position perfectly.

 

[ericc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
In Acts 1:15 Peter quotes the psalms and calls for someone to fill the office that Judas vacated. He is not calling for someone to be the twelfth Apostle as the Greek word that is used is episkope not apostolos.

Peter probably did not use the word episkope But that is the word that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So where are you going with this? Seems like a dead end to me. Unless, of course the Holy Spirit was wrong… Do you really want to go there?

You logic would be more believable if it were supported by other instances where an Apostle was elected to fill a vacancy caused by the death of another Apostle. But as you know full well that never happened. The Apostles are succeeded, not by other Apostles, but by bishops which is exactly what Peter called for.

So why are there eleven Apostles before Matthiass was elected and still eleven afterwards? Should not Luke have said twelve Apostles. Why not? What is so wrong about outrightly calling Matthias an Apostle? I believe there is a reason and that reason is that Luke is constrained by the Holy Spirit from doing so.

Randy, I presented my evidence from scripture. I did not read anything into it that was not there. Begin with Peter’s call for someone to fill the office vacated by Judas. Again the Greek word used is episkope. A word which is translated elsewhere in the NT as overseer or bishop and never once as apostle. Peter does not call for another apostle. He does not use that word (apostolos). Imagine the consequences if he did. Apostles would not be succeeded by bishops but by apostles. But since no one in christianity, to include the Catholic Church, believes there were additional apostles then Apostolic Succession , as maintained by the Catholic Church is a myth. For if an apostle can succeed Judas then an apostle can succceed Peter or James, John, Matthew Thomas and the others. But the church doesn’t teach that and never has. Peter called for a bishop and Matthias was that bishop and thus the Apostolic Succession of bishops was instituted and manifested in the scriptures (to the chagrin of protestants everywhere). Please open your eyes and see that scripture calls Paul an Apostle over ten times while scripture, the Book of Revelation, places a limit on the number of apostles at twelve (Rev 21:14)? So how can you say that Matthias not Paul is that twelfth apostle? You have created a contradiction in scripture by doing so. In my position there is no contradiction in scripture. Jesus replaced Judas with Paul. Scripture records that God called Paul and God sent Paul. God alone could do that because they were His Apostles and His alone, not Peter’s nor anyone elses.

It is clear that Acts 1:24-25 definitely addressed the apostleship issue. The appropriate Greek word was used too: ἀποστολῆς apostolēs. You have no way of denying the substance and weight that these 2 verses carries. Remember that Jesus already gave these Apostles the binding and loosing authority. These 11 Apostles bound this decision on Earth as in Heaven. To deny their authority is to deny the authority that Jesus vested in them. And God chose Matthias.

“And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, **To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas **hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.”

You asked Randy to open his eyes( subtle inference that his were shut) and in return I am asking you to open your mind. No one is disputing Paul apostleship. Somehow you are inferring that we deny his apostleship. But his apostleship is not of the Twelve. He was never one of them. Saul never walked with Jesus, or the Twelve or the Seventy. Paul came into the picture much later. At the time of Matthias election to Judas apostleship, Paul/Saul was still out there destroying the Church. The Twelve was made whole again upon Matthias election, way before Saul became Paul. For you to claim that Paul became the Twelve apostle, you need to show that :

a) Paul either was selected by Jesus to replace the seat vacated by Judas
b) or by those He vested with proper authority i.e. the Twelve Apostles

which you can’t. Because God has chosen Matthias already.

I have shown you previously that Paul does not include himself as one of the Twelve in 1 Cor 15:5. Matthias is already in the Twelve and Luke writes it as Twelve , not Eleven.

** “and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve”**. So you have Luke acknowledging the Twelve. And in verse 8 , lastly appearing to Paul. You have no way to argue Paul is in the Twelve. If Luke intends for Paul to be in the Twelve, verse 8 would not fit in the scheme of things.

You asked why are there eleven Apostles before Matthias was elected and still eleven afterwards? The only time Eleven was mentioned after Matthias election is in Acts 2:14. Simple maths shows “Peter standing with the Eleven” makes twelve is it not? If Peter is standing among the Eleven, then you have a case. But it is not. He is standing with eleven others.

In addition to Paul, Barnabas is also called an apostle. Acts 14:14. why is he not considered as well?

Your persistence in promoting Paul to the Twelve is honorable but unfortunately not supported by Scriptures, Paul or the Church. I sincerely urge you to reconsider your objective to pursue this line of thinking. The question I have to asked of you is why the need to promote Paul to the Twelve? He doesn’t need it, he didn’t asked for it. But why do you think he ought to be there?

Apologies to Randy for butting in.