The Apostleship of Paul...

[Complete]

What a disappointment. And a discouragement. I thought from your responses you'd accept Scripture and reason as well as definition of words to come to the knowledge of the truth. Instead, you'd rather hold to a man-centered theology on this issue and rather than looking at the Scripture, history, and reason on the question would keep the textbook answer and hold to the error of Apostolic Succession, a form of government which drives the method of the Catholics in how they choose their Pope (Bishop of Rome.) So, let's look at the conclusion of the matter.
You believe when a believer dies God replaces them.
So, in practice, Christ builds His Church in Acts 2, and 3000 Jews are born again in one day and filled with the Holy Spirit. By your reckoning when a believer dies God replaces that person and the number remains 3000 in His Church regardless of Acts 2:47 which says God added to the Church daily such as should be saved. This means the Church doesn't grow beyond 3000 Jews.
You believe that a command by Christ disobeyed by Peter is OK.
You believe being "in the flesh" without the Holy Spirit as guidance is the foundation of dealing with and engaging spiritual matters in the Church, especially where application of Scripture to a circumstance or situation is concerned is OK.
You believe man appoints apostles, by either sharing the prerogative of God or outright usurping His authority which Scripture teaches belong solely to Him as per Saul in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
You believe that Scripture declaring almost a dozen times Judas being "among the twelve" is the same as Matthias being "with the eleven."
You believe that as under the Law Peter and others can cast lot's and violate God's command that only the high priest is sanctioned to perform to discern the Lord's will in this way and usurp his authority. You believe that having a natural or physical ability qualifies anyone to the spiritual office of apostle as long as one has the votes from men.
You believe offering God an "either/or" proposition in our prayers for His guidance is sufficient for God in which to make decision towards our need.
You believe Peter's method of appointing an apostle is the correct way to replace apostles that die - and were not even talking about an apostle in the Body of Christ for the New Covenant Body of Christ did not begin until the Advent of the Holy Spirit days away - is the correct way and yet cannot tell me who replaced James after Herod killed him in Acts 12. Nor can you tell me who replaced the other eleven apostles that died, including Peter.
You believe Peter's method of appointing apostles is the correct way but cannot enlighten me as to why this method is not practiced in the Christian churches today and why it stopped.
You believe Peter's method of appointing apostles is the correct way but I'm sure you're not in a church that practices his method nor in a church that has apostle or apostles in your church, and being that apostles and prophets are foundation of the churches that are founded and don't have at least one apostle are probably in a false church.
In order to hold to the man-centered theology and belief of Apostolic Succession one must believe all the above - and then some - or one is not in a biblical church. Funny thing, though, the Church did not begin until Acts 2 a day or more later, so I guess in Peter's Church he was building all the above are valid to be an apostle in his church, the Body of Peter.
What a shame.
I'm not discouraged anymore. Believe as you will. Your belief has no biblical basis or foundation and is - I know - an erroneous belief to hold on this subject.
Good luck with it. Like God, I cannot nor do not bless error.

'Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
But shun profane and vain babblings:
for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
And their word will eat as doth a canker:
of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Who concerning the truth have erred,
saying that the resurrection is past already;
and overthrow the faith of some.'
(2Ti 2:15-18)

Hello @jeremiah1five,

Your assessment of my belief is incorrect, but I do not wish to get entangled in justifying myself. Thankfully I need seek no other approval than that of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is my Father too - in Him.

I am sorry to have disappointed you.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[jeremiah1five]

'Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
But shun profane and vain babblings:
for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
And their word will eat as doth a canker:
of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Who concerning the truth have erred,
saying that the resurrection is past already;
and overthrow the faith of some.'
(2Ti 2:15-18)

Hello @jeremiah1five,

Your assessment of my belief is incorrect, but I do not wish to get entangled in justifying myself. Thankfully I need seek no other approval than that of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is my Father too - in Him.

I am sorry to have disappointed you.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

No, it is correct. I've taken your false belief in Apostolic Succession, and the other holdings and contradictions you hold on what Peter did and its ramifications to its logical and reasonable conclusion. You just haven't studied this out nor thought it out. You hold to the Gentile Church textbook teaching.
You probably also believe the textbook answer about Judas, that he is lost and separated from God and His friend, Christ, too.

We must ALL see the same Jesus.
We must ALL say the same thing as God.
To do otherwise is to oppose Him.
Good luck with that.

 

[Complete]

No, it is correct. I've taken your false belief in Apostolic Succession, and the other holdings and contradictions you hold on what Peter did and its ramifications to its logical and reasonable conclusion. You just haven't studied this out nor thought it out. You hold to the Gentile Church textbook teaching.
You probably also believe the textbook answer about Judas, that he is lost and separated from God and His friend, Christ, too.

We must ALL see the same Jesus.
We must ALL say the same thing as God.
To do otherwise is to oppose Him.
Good luck with that.

Subject Heading:- The Apostleship of Paul

Hello @jeremiah1five,

I do not believe in Apostolic Succession. Please do not make up lies. I have given you no reason to believe so.

Whatever you go on to say about me I will leave unchallenged, but this had to be said.

Within the love of Christ our Saviour.
Chris

 

[Complete]

Paul Or Matthias Which Apostle Was The Right Choice?​

Acts 1:26​

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.​

From the earliest centuries of this era since Christ, the question has often come up as to whether Matthias was rightly chosen as one of the 12 or whether Paul was the one who should have had that place. The reason that the question comes up is that they do not know the Scriptures.

Those who have read Chapter 15 of Acts can very readily see that Two Gospels were in order and that Paul had one and the 12 (including Matthias) had the other. Paul rehearses the proceedings of that council in Gal. 2:1-10. To him and those with him was entrusted the Gospel of the uncircumcision, and the 12 retained the Gospel of the circumcision.

If Paul had ever been the one who should take the place of Judas, you would think that he would have some knowledge of it. But we find him all the time magnifying his office as an Apostle to the Gentiles. He speaks of the 12 (1 Cor. 15:5) and then mentions why he was disqualified to be one of the 12 apostles. He had not seen Christ when He dwelt among men in the flesh, and he was a persecutor of the Christians.

In Acts 1:15-26, we find the account of the choosing of one to fill the place of Judas. You will note that there were certain qualifications, that he must have been among the number from the baptism of John to the ascension of Christ. Out of the 120 present, only two could qualify; Matthias and Barsabas. Paul was not present, and neither could he have met these requirements, as noted above.

So then, if Paul should have been chosen, he himself would have been a false witness to the facts. Also, Luke recorded that the 11 chose Matthias according to the custom of the Jews and under the direction of the Holy Spirit and that he was numbered with the eleven.

Those who do not know the Scriptures do not realize that Paul was being trained and accredited during the last half of Acts for a ministry that none of the 12 could ever fulfill. The 12 were confined to a ministry to Israel. They were to occupy thrones or places of authority during The Kingdom and preach to the Gentiles then. But that was in connection with The Kingdom, not The Church.

Since the 12 will have their names in the 12 Foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:14), and this city will be on the earth, they can have no part in The Church, which is blessed with all spiritual blessings in The Heavenlies and has its citizenship there. And so we must conclude that if Paul should have been one of the 12, he then could never have been The Apostle who proclaimed the Dispensation of The Mystery.

Paul was an apostle, and there is no doubt about that. But the ascended Christ chose him as a gift to The Church, not The Kingdom (Eph 4:11). In Gal 1:1, Paul recognizes that his apostleship was not of men. So he was not chosen by the 11, nor could he have been and retained that claim. His Gospel was not that of the 12 (Gal 1:11). Neither his field of endeavor, but among the heathen (Gal 1:16).

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-apostleship-of-paul.1102/page-2#post-41271

 

[Complete]

Paul was an Apostle Twice

Acts 9:15 - Eph. 4:11​

On the Damascus road, the Lord said to Paul, I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee (Acts 26:16). Note the two divisions here.

Beginning at Damascus, Paul preached what he had seen the 12 and others preaching for the next 27 years, ending in Rome (Acts 28:28).
Paul made a visit to Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion, the first of 5 visits there. And while he was in The Temple, he had a vision in which the Lord told him what to do. It was a ministry among the Gentiles. See Acts 22:17. But Paul did not begin this ministry until six years after he received it. He began this second ministry at the time of Acts 13:46, nine years after his conversion. This gospel of the grace of God was preached by Paul for the next 18 years, it ending also at Acts 28:28.

So in all, the first course Paul was to run lasted 27 years, from Damascus to Rome. There it ended after an all-day meeting with the chief Jews.
When Paul uttered the words of Acts 28:28, The Salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and his apostleship was finished, and he had finished that course.

There was no more for him to say, for finally, the Jews had caused God to declare them Lo-Ammi for the next two days of Hosea or two thousand years. There has been no valid offer of The Kingdom and The King from that day to this. The doors of The Kingdom were firmly closed at that time and will not be opened again until the times of the Gentiles have run their course. Then, after a baptism of fire, Israel will again be dealt God's people and the focus of that Dispensation. The Prophetic clock will start again. Over 2000 years have passed, and this has not happened yet. But God will keep His covenants with Abraham and His people, Israel, and that is still future.

Since the nations were to receive blessing thru Israel as a channel, and Israel failed, this blessing of the nations has also been postponed. But it will be done someday. The work of the apostles is outlined in Matt. 28:18-20 will yet be done in resurrection in The Millennium.

Since these things happened, and Paul's great apostleship, which he so courageously maintained in the first chapter of Galatians, was over, our question then is; What became of Paul?

And He gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). Among these apostles, Paul was the leader, the foremost. To him alone was given the revelation of The Mystery, a Secret that had been hidden in God for ages and generations up till that time. So then, Paul became an apostle twice.

Paul's calling as an apostle the second time must have been very shortly after that day in Acts 28. For two years, he carried on a ministry in his own hired house. He was released, then again arrested, imprisoned, and then executed. His second apostleship lasted about four years. What was it?
--------------------------------

SALVATION TODAY

Eph 2:5,8-10​

The preceding study ended with the question as to what Paul's second apostleship might be. It is centered around the salvation that was sent to the Gentiles. The 12 apostles were to make known the salvation that was of the Jews. This was done in the land. Paul made known the same salvation to the dispersion of Israel, and when they rejected , he offered it to the Gentile believers in the synagogues.

But at the end of Acts that all changed. Paul had a new salvation to offer to the Gentiles, (and to such Jews as would receive it on the same terms). This salvation is first spoken of in Eph 1:13. But it is not defined. But we gather that it was something they had heard from those who had visited Paul as a prisoner in Rome.

By grace are ye saved (Eph 2:5). This we find right in the midst of terms that tell us something about that salvation. It is about a people that are quickened, raised, and seated with Christ in heavenly places . And this tells us a lot. This is something new. The salvation during Acts had to do with an earth people, the nation Israel . They had an inheritance and hope here on earth, not in heaven. But now a new thing is revealed. A chosen people are made to sit in heavenly places and blest there with all spiritual blessings in Christ.

This salvation was a mystery or secret that had been hid in God from ages and generations till revealed to Paul by a special dispensation of God to reveal to the world after Ac 28:28.

This gospel of our salvation began to be made known about 60-64 A.D. and still is in effect. This may be the time of the 2 days we find mentioned in Ho 6:2. After that 2 days the Lord will come with clouds (angels, saints), and the dead and the living will be caught up to meet Him in the air and come with Him to set up the great kingdom, the hope of Israel. But when that happens, the church will not be here. It will leave as silently as it came into being. The world will know nothing about it.

But after the little parenthesis in Eph 2:5, the apostle goes on in verses 8-10, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Now the salvation that had been of the Jews and which was proclaimed till the end of Acts was also unto good works, that they should make known to the nations of the earth the name of Jehovah their God. They were the real Jehovah's witnesses.

But in Eph 3:10 we discover that a part of the good works today is to make known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places the manifold wisdom of God. This is a far wider outreach than Israel ever had.

Believer.com

 

[jeremiah1five]

Subject Heading:- The Apostleship of Paul

Hello @jeremiah1five,

I do not believe in Apostolic Succession. Please do not make up lies. I have given you no reason to believe so.

Whatever you go on to say about me I will leave unchallenged, but this had to be said.

Within the love of Christ our Saviour.
Chris

What you have posted IS Apostolic Succession and by holding to it is exactly what you believe. By not knowing what you believe as such tells me you haven't studied these questions but merely regurgitate the textbook answers held by the Gentile Church for nearly 2000 years.
Without the Holy Spirit to guide him and the others and outside of salvation, Peter was totally leaning upon his own understanding in the vanity of his disobedient mind and totally "in the flesh" in Acts 1.
What he did is the basis of authority the Catholics use to choose their popes.
Apostolic Succession. Look it up before you try to defend the defenseless.

 

[Complete]

What you have posted IS Apostolic Succession and by holding to it is exactly what you believe. By not knowing what you believe as such tells me you haven't studied these questions but merely regurgitate the textbook answers held by the Gentile Church for nearly 2000 years.
Without the Holy Spirit to guide him and the others and outside of salvation, Peter was totally leaning upon his own understanding in the vanity of his disobedient mind and totally "in the flesh" in Acts 1.
What he did is the basis of authority the Catholics use to choose their popes.
Apostolic Succession. Look it up before you try to defend the defenseless.

You are a Edit, @jeremiah1five. You are also wrong in regard to this. I pray that God will show you the error you have fallen into, and prevent others from being taken in by your reasoning, or be shaken in mind.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[jeremiah1five]

You are a Edit, @jeremiah1five. You are also wrong in regard to this. I pray that God will show you the error you have fallen into, and prevent others from being taken in by your reasoning, or be shaken in mind.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Because I point out the obvious of your belief you want to call me names?
What you have responded to me in my 15 points above and your comments proved you hold to Apostolic Succession. Look it up. Educate yourself. Study these questions.
But for the most part by your holding that Peter's actions in Acts 1:15-26 was correct you hold to classic Apostolic Succession. LOOK IT UP BEFORE YOU CALL NAMES.

 

[Complete]

Hello jeremiah1five,

Edit... No internal bickering and name-calling please.

I believe what the Bible says.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[SteveB]

Precious friends, are these the four current views of the apostles?:

Wow.... it has been a long time for me....
I forgot that people don't like Paul and seek to dismiss him.

1) There are twelve, including Matthias (replacing Judas), Paul not being an apostle?

Yes and no.
Paul made his status clear.
He's an apostle to the Gentiles. Romans 11:13, 1 Timothy 2:7

2) There are twelve, the eleven being in error, choosing Matthias, instead of Paul?

I don't think that Mathias was an error.
Peter may have jumped the gun. But as it's written in Proverbs 20:24, Man's goings are of the Lord, how then can a man understand his own way. it's a snare after vows to make inquiry.... I don't see it as an error.
For reasons in the heart and mind of God, Paul was chosen by God.
I think his letters bear out the reason God chose him.

I further think the position of apostle needs to be understood.
one who is sent.

an apostle is essentially a church planter. They go into areas where the gospel has not been given, and they preach the gospel and build a church body. Leaving the body/member positions in place.

today, we typically refer to apostles as missionaries.

it's not a hit&run operation, though in Paul's case, it appears there were hit&run situations where he came in, preached the gospel, new believers were saved, and Paul moved on in a few days to weeks, due to persecution he and his entourage experienced.

He notes these situations in letters, or Luke did in Acts.

3) There are thirteen, including Matthias and Paul, all preaching/teaching the same [ homogenized ] thing?

Ok.

4) a) There are twelve, according To God's Prophecy / Covenants / Law

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):​

​

b) There is One, According To God's Mystery / Grace ( preaching / teaching Different things )​

------------------------------------------------
Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified in the following study:

"
...there is perhaps no place where Paul sets his apostleship forth in stronger terms than in the first
chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, especially in the very first verse. As you read these opening
words, you can almost hear the thunder in the apostle’s voice as he declares in his opening salvo,

“Paul, an apostle, ( not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, ​

and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead; )” (Gal. 1:1)...​

...Paul didn’t always open his epistles by asserting his apostleship (cf. Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; etc.), but the
Galatians suffered from the same spiritual malady that afflicts many Christians today—they doubted
Paul’s apostolic authority! So Paul comes out swinging in this epistle by declaring his authority as an
apostle of God. As he himself affirmed,

“in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles” (II Cor. 12:11).​

Who were they? The Lord’s chiefest apostles were Peter, James, and John, men who are mentioned
ten times in Scripture apart from the twelve. Of those three chiefs, Peter was the chiefest of the
chiefs, but Paul was “not a whit behind” him either (II Cor. 11:5).

But if Paul’s apostleship was equal to Peter’s, and no higher, why do we follow Paul? Surely it is
because Peter was the apostle of the circumcision, and Paul was the apostle of the uncircumcision
(Gal. 2:8). It is important for a believer to know who his apostle is!...

...since most of them [ christians ] believe that Paul’s apostleship is of no more consequence to us
than the apostleship of Peter, James, and John, they are forced to conclude that Paul’s message
must be the same as these chief apostles. The problem with this is that they know that Chief
Apostle Peter taught water baptism was required for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), while
Paul claimed he wasn’t sent to baptize at all (I Cor. 1:17).

Since most Christians believe that Peter and Paul are of equal authority for believers today, they have
to figure out a way to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages. As you probably
know, the solution at which they have arrived is to conclude, “We’ll still baptize people, just not for
the remission of sins!”

In the same vein, most Christians know that Paul taught that if you are saved, The Lord has already
forgiven you “all trespasses” (Col. 2:13). But they also know that Chief Apostle John teaches that
The Lord is “faithful and just to forgive us our sins” if we confess them (I John 1:9). So to homogenize
these two opposite and contradictory messages they conclude that believers are forgiven when they
get saved, they just need a little more forgiveness when they sin!

This despite the fact that forgiveness of sins is something that every believer receives the moment
he gets saved, along with salvation, justification, and redemption. Most Christians wouldn’t think of
asking for more salvation, justification, or redemption when they sin, but asking for more
forgiveness is the only way to get Paul and John to say the same thing.

Finally, most Christians know that Paul asserts that salvation is By Grace Through faith without works
(Rom. 4:5), but they also know that Chief Apostle James is just as adamant that “faith without works
is dead” (James 2:20). So to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages they
conclude that Paul is talking about justification before God while James is addressing the issue of
justification before men, even though The Lord never asked anyone to be justified before
men—in fact, He condemned it (Luke 16:15)!

And on and on it goes, as futile attempts are made to try to blend Paul’s unique message with the
teachings of the Lord’s chiefest apostles, the other writers of the New Testament...
" (R Kurth)

Full study 'link': The Apostleship Of Paul

Amen.

View attachment 410

This issue was resolved in my mind a long time ago. I'm acquainted with people who reject Paul’s apostleship today.
One was a neighbor who was a pastor.

I know the "black Hebrew movement" rejects Paul’s apostleship. I've further seen a local "messianic" fellowship, filled with Gentiles, who have ensconced or entrenched themselves into "christianized-judaism."

Paul was a church planter, he went into areas previously unchurched, and with no experience with the gospel.
He suffered extensively at the hands of unbelievers.
I think what he says in 1 Corinthians 9.

1Co 9:2 WEB If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Matters here.

I once told the pastor neighbor, everything described in Paul's letters is contained in the old testament. As I stated it, and afterwards, I partly regretted doing so, but he stated he knew Paul's letters quite well, so it's not like he was ignorant of the information contained therein. He simply rejected his works defining Paul as an apostle.

In the churches I've been involved in, we often state--

The old testament is the new testament concealed. And the new testament is the old testament revealed.

Everything we who follow Jesus believe in is contained in the old testament.

So... if something Paul says or does offends, irritates, or even makes you envious....

Grow up and get over yourself.
We're all members of the body of Christ.

I've spent years feeling like I was none of the parts described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.
I was more like a pancreas, bile or gallbladder. Equally important, but where I need to be, not what I think I should be.

Paul describes how that the weaker parts of the body are given positions of perceived distinction.

1Co 12:22-26 WEB 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23 Those parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, on those we bestow more abundant honor; and our unpresentable parts have more abundant modesty, 24 while our presentable parts have no such need. But God composed the body together, giving more abundant honor to the inferior part, 25 that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 When one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. When one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.


I've long been intrigued by the underlined passage/statement...

Who gets the most prominent position in the church?

Yet, according to this passage, they're the weakest in the body.

The parts of the body which are stronger, are less prominent.

All in all, God places each of us in the body as it suits Him.

So.... Paul as an apostle?
Sure. He obviously did the job. His time is finished. He was thrashed, trashed, vilified, criminalized, beat to a pulp, stoned and left for dead, thrown into prison, whipped, suffered cold, hunger, spent time bobbing up and down in the Mediterranean, bit by a poisonous snake, viewed his church plants as children, who needed his love, care, attention, instruction, guidance, etc....

I'm curious how many people who talk about apostleship, view in the way Paul lived it out....

In Africa, and in my younger years, apostleship was viewed as a position of honor and distinction, like a movie star.

According to his letters, and Acts, it appears that Paul saw it as more the opportunity to be the guy picking up the cra8 of horses, in a parade.

As Jesus said....

He that desires to be great in God's Kingdom, let him be the servant of all.

 

[civic]

Wow.... it has been a long time for me....
I forgot that people don't like Paul and seek to dismiss him.


Yes and no.
Paul made his status clear.
He's an apostle to the Gentiles. Romans 11:13, 1 Timothy 2:7




I don't think that Mathias was an error.
Peter may have jumped the gun. But as it's written in Proverbs 20:24, Man's goings are of the Lord, how then can a man understand his own way. it's a snare after vows to make inquiry.... I don't see it as an error.
For reasons in the heart and mind of God, Paul was chosen by God.
I think his letters bear out the reason God chose him.

I further think the position of apostle needs to be understood.
one who is sent.

an apostle is essentially a church planter. They go into areas where the gospel has not been given, and they preach the gospel and build a church body. Leaving the body/member positions in place.

today, we typically refer to apostles as missionaries.

it's not a hit&run operation, though in Paul's case, it appears there were hit&run situations where he came in, preached the gospel, new believers were saved, and Paul moved on in a few days to weeks, due to persecution he and his entourage experienced.

He notes these situations in letters, or Luke did in Acts.




Ok.

This issue was resolved in my mind a long time ago. I'm acquainted with people who reject Paul’s apostleship today.
One was a neighbor who was a pastor.

I know the "black Hebrew movement" rejects Paul’s apostleship. I've further seen a local "messianic" fellowship, filled with Gentiles, who have ensconced or entrenched themselves into "christianized-judaism."

Paul was a church planter, he went into areas previously unchurched, and with no experience with the gospel.
He suffered extensively at the hands of unbelievers.
I think what he says in 1 Corinthians 9.

1Co 9:2 WEB If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Matters here.

I once told the pastor neighbor, everything described in Paul's letters is contained in the old testament. As I stated it, and afterwards, I partly regretted doing so, but he stated he knew Paul's letters quite well, so it's not like he was ignorant of the information contained therein. He simply rejected his works defining Paul as an apostle.

In the churches I've been involved in, we often state--

The old testament is the new testament concealed. And the new testament is the old testament revealed.

Everything we who follow Jesus believe in is contained in the old testament.

So... if something Paul says or does offends, irritates, or even makes you envious....

Grow up and get over yourself.
We're all members of the body of Christ.

I've spent years feeling like I was none of the parts described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.
I was more like a pancreas, bile or gallbladder. Equally important, but where I need to be, not what I think I should be.

Paul describes how that the weaker parts of the body are given positions of perceived distinction.

1Co 12:22-26 WEB 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23 Those parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, on those we bestow more abundant honor; and our unpresentable parts have more abundant modesty, 24 while our presentable parts have no such need. But God composed the body together, giving more abundant honor to the inferior part, 25 that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 When one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. When one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.


I've long been intrigued by the underlined passage/statement...

Who gets the most prominent position in the church?

Yet, according to this passage, they're the weakest in the body.

The parts of the body which are stronger, are less prominent.

All in all, God places each of us in the body as it suits Him.

So.... Paul as an apostle?
Sure. He obviously did the job. His time is finished. He was thrashed, trashed, vilified, criminalized, beat to a pulp, stoned and left for dead, thrown into prison, whipped, suffered cold, hunger, spent time bobbing up and down in the Mediterranean, bit by a poisonous snake, viewed his church plants as children, who needed his love, care, attention, instruction, guidance, etc....

I'm curious how many people who talk about apostleship, view in the way Paul lived it out....

In Africa, and in my younger years, apostleship was viewed as a position of honor and distinction, like a movie star.

According to his letters, and Acts, it appears that Paul saw it as more the opportunity to be the guy picking up the cra8 of horses, in a parade.

As Jesus said....

He that desires to be great in God's Kingdom, let him be the servant of all.

Think of how different our Bible would be apart from Paul. Without Peters writings things wouldn’t change much, the same with James. Besides John’s writings the other disciples writings have not influenced the church. Without Pauls letters almost 1/2 of the NT would be missing.

And Paul was hand picked just like the original 12 were by Jesus. Matthias was picked by the 11, not Jesus in person.

Jesus knew what He was doing . I think the disciples jumped the gun with their lot casting. Jesus didn’t cast lots lol. He picked each one individually to be His Apostles.

That’s my personal take fwiw. But I will not die on that hill it’s just my opinion.

 

[civic]

@jeremiah1five @Complete and everyone else let’s show some respect to the opinions of others and follow the golden rule. Thanks !

 

[SteveB]

Think of how different our Bible would be apart from Paul.

I have actually....

Without Peters writings things wouldn’t change much, the same with James. Besides John’s writings the other disciples writings have not influenced the church. Without Pauls letters almost 1/2 of the NT would be missing.

I think the expressions of the gospel would be perceived as more legalistic by many more people.
those who argue for a more legalistic approach wouldn't have anything/as much to push back, with, against them, or their arguments.

And Paul was hand picked just like the original 12 were by Jesus. Matthias was picked by the 11, not Jesus in person.

yep.

Jesus knew what He was doing .

Thank God!

I think the disciples jumped the gun with their lot casting.

Indeed. But in fairness to them, lot casting does have a biblical basis for its validity.

Jesus didn’t cast lots lol. He picked each one individually to be His Apostles.

Having a direct line to and with the Father, that's kind of a big deal...

That’s my personal take fwiw. But I will not die on that hill it’s just my opinion.

Oh, but hill die's are so important!

 

[civic]

I have actually....

I think the expressions of the gospel would be perceived as more legalistic by many more people.
those who argue for a more legalistic approach wouldn't have anything/as much to push back, with, against them, or their arguments.

yep.


Thank God!



Indeed. But in fairness to them, lot casting does have a biblical basis for its validity.


Having a direct line to and with the Father, that's kind of a big deal...

Oh, but hill die's are so important!

I’ll die on the gospel , deity if Christ , the bodily Resurrection/ Ascension of Jesus, Gods nature/ character- His innate attributes. But not much else - well the authority and infallibility of scripture too.

 

[jeremiah1five]

There are the twelve apostles of the Lamb:

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter,
and Andrew his brother;
James the son of Zebedee,
and John his brother;
3 Philip,
and Bartholomew;
Thomas,
and Matthew the publican;
James the son of Alphaeus, and
Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite,
and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. Mt 10:1–4.

This number will not change. There is no adding, subtracting, or replacement.

The number of apostles after the twelve grows as God gives call and is sent to do a thing just as Christ added to His Church daily such as should be saved. Apostleship did not end with the death of John the revelator on Patmos. Apostleship existed after John and continued throughout Gentile Church history whether or not a character in this history knew or not they were an apostle (sent) to do a thing for God.
Apostles exist today as well.

Matthias is not an apostle.
Saul/Paul is an apostle.
Luke is an apostle.
Epaphroditus is an apostle. Actually, an apostle's apostle.
And there are more apostles in the New Covenant writings.
Anyone "commissioned" or "sent" in the New Covenant writings qualifies as apostle in the very definition of the word, whether sent/commissioned of men or of God.

 

[JD731]

Luke, a prophet of God among the 70 of Lk 10, see Lk 1, was the author of the Acts. He would have known about all the things that transpired during the apostolic age. He would have known that Judas was not a repentant apostle and he would also have known that the government of God requires 12 apostles for prophecy to be fulfilled by OT prophets as well as Jesus Christ.

Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The number 12 in the scriptures is always indicative of the perfect rule of God. The number 11 is applied to Israel as falling short of this perfect rule. When Jesus called for the harvest in Matthew 12 it could not be realized because of a lack of laborers in the harvest. One had joined the enemy and this generation was cursed and would not be allowed into the kingdom of God.

Matt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (age) , neither in the world (age) to come.

"This age" was the dispensation of law that was brought to and end by the death of Christ and "that which is to come" is the present age. Judas could not be saved.

Stephen to the national rulers.
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

But, back to Luke and who he named as an apostle to fill the vacant office.

14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

These two men received their commission as apostle at the same time and both were chosen by Jesus Christ in the person of the Holy Ghost. Here.

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (They were not apostles at this time and the best that could be said of Saul was that he was a teacher - Luke realized what happened here)
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

Apostle means one who is sent and Barnabas is the apostolic authority for the ministry to gentiles to which Paul was called and which was needed to ligitimize his ministry in the eyes of the Jews. God is all wise.

The number of apostles of Jesus Christ is a fixed number.

There is much more to this argument which I have not touched on.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Luke, a prophet of God among the 70 of Lk 10, see Lk 1, was the author of the Acts. He would have known about all the things that transpired during the apostolic age.

There are some that believe Luke was the man from Macedonia, and I am one of them.
If Luke was called of God to write a gospel and historical, he would by virtue of such a call be Jewish since the oracles of God were committed to the Jews.

He would have known that Judas was not a repentant apostle and he would also have known that the government of God requires 12 apostles for prophecy to be fulfilled by OT prophets as well as Jesus Christ.

Judas did repent (Matt. 27:3-5.) He confessed his sin. He repented (changed his mind) and returned, threw actually, the money back at the priests in the Temple, and what should have happened as under the Law for being complicit in the death of an innocent man (Jesus) was to be taken outside the city and stoned to death, but the religious leaders said, "What is that to us? See thou to that!" In other words, YOU handle it!
He did. In obedience to the Law of life for life he went out and stoned himself with a rope and a tree.

Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Speaking to Jews.

The number 12 in the scriptures is always indicative of the perfect rule of God. The number 11 is applied to Israel as falling short of this perfect rule. When Jesus called for the harvest in Matthew 12 it could not be realized because of a lack of laborers in the harvest. One had joined the enemy and this generation was cursed and would not be allowed into the kingdom of God.

One reason why I reject what Peter did with regard to Matthias. He was in disobedience, completely in the flesh, and without guidance of the Holy Spirit did something the Gentile Church has been paying for ever since: Apostolic Succession.

Matt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (age) , neither in the world (age) to come.
"This age" was the dispensation of law that was brought to and end by the death of Christ and "that which is to come" is the present age. Judas could not be saved.

Why do Gentiles like to destroy the Covenants of God whether Abrahamic or Mosaic, they love to say the Law is abrogated or ended. But that can't be when in these very covenants (Abrahamic and Mosaic, respectively,) God says they are "everlasting" and "for ever."

Stephen to the national rulers.
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
But, back to Luke and who he named as an apostle to fill the vacant office.

Luke only named who the disciples chosen through the mystical method of casting lots which under the Law was reserved for the high priest and Peter was no high priest. Acts is a historical document recording things, people, places of what happened in Israel and beyond in this New Covenant era, an era begun in Jerusalem with the salvation of 3000 Jews to begin the Church Christ promised to build, and He added to that Church daily such as should be saved. If 3000 is a median number, then by weeks end 21,000 Jews would have been born-again and filled with the Holy Spirit. Returning to their homes and synagogues after the Feast these Jewish Christians took back with them their experience with the Holy Spirit, an outline of Peter's sermon, and testimony of Jesus Messiah who hanged on a tree.

14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
These two men received their commission as apostle at the same time and both were chosen by Jesus Christ in the person of the Holy Ghost. Here.

Yup. Acts 13:1-4.

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (They were not apostles at this time and the best that could be said of Saul was that he was a teacher - Luke realized what happened here)
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

Apostle means one who is sent and Barnabas is the apostolic authority for the ministry to gentiles to which Paul was called and which was needed to ligitimize his ministry in the eyes of the Jews. God is all wise.

They were sent to Jews and in every place they visited went first into the local synagogues to herald Israel's Messiah had come. And because the Judaizers could not reconcile how their Messiah died (hanged) on a tree there was a split and Jewish Christians began to worship and fellowship in their homes.

The number of apostles of Jesus Christ is a fixed number.

Yup. Twelve including Judas (Luke 6:12-13.)

There is much more to this argument which I have not touched on.

Do tell.

 

[JD731]

There are some that believe Luke was the man from Macedonia, and I am one of them.
If Luke was called of God to write a gospel and historical, he would by virtue of such a call be Jewish since the oracles of God were committed to the Jews.

Well, I do not have any problem with him being Jewish.

Judas did repent (Matt. 27:3-5.) He confessed his sin. He repented (changed his mind) and returned, threw actually, the money back at the priests in the Temple, and what should have happened as under the Law for being complicit in the death of an innocent man (Jesus) was to be taken outside the city and stoned to death, but the religious leaders said, "What is that to us? See thou to that!" In other words, YOU handle it!
He did. In obedience to the Law of life for life he went out and stoned himself with a rope and a tree.

The opportunity for Jews to repent was over when Judas killed himself. The end of dispensations are always times of judgement against those who do not repent in the appointed time. I call your attention to the days of the flood, the end of the law, the day of the Lord, when no one will be saved from their sins who have not been saved during the first 3 1/2 years of Daniel's seventh week., and at the end of the day of the Lord, which is the end of the one thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. God expects sinners to believe him and be justified at the appointed times and when they refuse he judges them and moves on.

When Matthew said Jesus went out of the house.

Matt 13:1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

This is prophetic and there are metaphors here, the house being the house of Israel. The sea represents the sea of humanity and the multitude the gentiles of the world. Now, he will speak mysteries that has heretofore not been revealed. It is new information concerning this age. That Jewish generation had committed the unpardonable sin.

Speaking to Jews.

One reason why I reject what Peter did with regard to Matthias. He was in disobedience, completely in the flesh, and without guidance of the Holy Spirit did something the Gentile Church has been paying for ever since: Apostolic Succession.

I don't understand your charge that this presumptuous act of Peter and the other apostles and prophets precipitated apostolic succession. You will need to explain that, but let me just say that Peter already possessed the Holy Spirit, as well as the others, at this time. I will explain this if you ask me to.

Why do Gentiles like to destroy the Covenants of God whether Abrahamic or Mosaic, they love to say the Law is abrogated or ended. But that can't be when in these very covenants (Abrahamic and Mosaic, respectively,) God says they are "everlasting" and "for ever."

The Mosaic covenant is not an eternal covenant and it had a purpose clearly laid out in scripture. It had a beginning and an ending and a purpose. It was a temporary addendum to the Abrahamic covenant, which is an unconditional and an eternal covenant. It did not replace or abrogate the Abrahamic covenant. I present the words of scripture as proof and will save my own commentary on it til later.

Ga 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after (after the Abraham Covenant), cannot disannul, that it should make the promise (of the Abrahamic covenant) of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise (not by the works of the law of Moses).
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added (as an addendum to the Abraham Covenat) because of transgressions, (for how long) till the seed (the seed of Abraham who will bless the world, Jesus Christ) should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (the law of Moses as an operative principle of divine dealing is done away in Christ)
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (It is now the rules of God's house that govern's us, which is the law of the Spirit)

Luke only named who the disciples chosen through the mystical method of casting lots which under the Law was reserved for the high priest and Peter was no high priest.

Can you prove that? I read in the proverbs that it was a method God approved of In the OT times. However Acts 1 is not OT times.
Pr 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Acts is a historical document recording things, people, places of what happened in Israel and beyond in this New Covenant era, an era begun in Jerusalem with the salvation of 3000 Jews to begin the Church Christ promised to build, and He added to that Church daily such as should be saved. If 3000 is a median number, then by weeks end 21,000 Jews would have been born-again and filled with the Holy Spirit. Returning to their homes and synagogues after the Feast these Jewish Christians took back with them their experience with the Holy Spirit, an outline of Peter's sermon, and testimony of Jesus Messiah who hanged on a tree.

You are speculating. We can only be sure about 8000 getting saved because that is the number given. Eight thousand out of a million or more who were there for the festival is a low number.

Yup. Acts 13:1-4.

They were sent to Jews and in every place they visited went first into the local synagogues to herald Israel's Messiah had come. And because the Judaizers could not reconcile how their Messiah died (hanged) on a tree there was a split and Jewish Christians began to worship and fellowship in their homes.

To the Jew first and also to the gentile. That was the order in those days.

Yup. Twelve including Judas (Luke 6:12-13.)

Ac 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

One would think the apostles would know that Judas fell from this ministry and apostleship. He was not there. They had been under the ministry of the risen savior for 40 days. The Jews had killed Jesus and had rejected his kingdom and his kingship. It was appropriate that this dispensation would begin with 11 Jewish apostles instead of 12. They fell short of the kingdom of God. Look at the reality of the times in which the NT was written;

Ro 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Do tell.

Those in the upper room did not receive the Holy Spirt there, they were filled with the Holy Spirit (there is a difference), meaning the Spirit controlled them. The apostles, less Thomas, had already been given the Holy Spirit on the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

This is my understanding of things in that day.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The opportunity for Jews to repent was over when Judas killed himself. The end of dispensations are always times of judgement against those who do not repent in the appointed time.

Where is the start-time of what you're saying?

I call your attention to the days of the flood, the end of the law, the day of the Lord, when no one will be saved from their sins who have not been saved during the first 3 1/2 years of Daniel's seventh week., and at the end of the day of the Lord, which is the end of the one thousand year reign of Christ on the earth. God expects sinners to believe him and be justified at the appointed times and when they refuse he judges them and moves on.

Example from Scripture, please.

When Matthew said Jesus went out of the house.
Matt 13:1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
This is prophetic and there are metaphors here, the house being the house of Israel. The sea represents the sea of humanity and the multitude the gentiles of the world. Now, he will speak mysteries that has heretofore not been revealed. It is new information concerning this age. That Jewish generation had committed the unpardonable sin.

The Scripture is literal unless the context reveals something else. Basically, as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", which can be applied to your passage in Matthew that says, "Jesus went out of the house" means exactly that.
You have two 'metaphors' referring to 'humanity/world' and that is redundant. Too much spiritualizing can lead to an over-abundance of erroneous understanding. The unpardonable sin has to do with God's election and the effect of those not elect and/or named in the "book of life of the lamb slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world" and the Presence of the HOLY Spirit in the world. Since "pardon" has to do with transgressions of God's Law(s) and the fact that ALL Israel is in the protected covenant(s) of God Israel cannot be guilty of an "unpardonable" sin. For the very nature of God's covenant of providing a Redeemer, Prophet, Priest, and King, etc. So, on this point you are in error.
You don't seem to me to be following any established hermeneutical rules and this will lead to flawed exegetical results. In other words, you're leaning on your own understanding.

I don't understand your charge that this presumptuous act of Peter and the other apostles and prophets precipitated apostolic succession. You will need to explain that, but let me just say that Peter already possessed the Holy Spirit, as well as the others, at this time. I will explain this if you ask me to.

The disciples were under specific command of their Lord to return to Jerusalem and wait to be endued with the Holy Spirit of Promise. Peter and the disciples didn't obey and without the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth they proceeded "IN THE FLESH" and disobeyed the Lord.

Let me guess you think Jesus' breathing on them and saying "receive the Holy Spirit" the Lord imparted the Spirit upon them, right? Well, that didn't happen for this pone important reason:

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Jn 16:7.

So, in this I find another error on your part.

The Mosaic covenant is not an eternal covenant and it had a purpose clearly laid out in scripture. It had a beginning and an ending and a purpose. It was a temporary addendum to the Abrahamic covenant, which is an unconditional and an eternal covenant. It did not replace or abrogate the Abrahamic covenant. I present the words of scripture as proof and will save my own commentary on it til later.

Ga 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after (after the Abraham Covenant), cannot disannul, that it should make the promise (of the Abrahamic covenant) of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise (not by the works of the law of Moses).
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added (as an addendum to the Abraham Covenat) because of transgressions, (for how long) till the seed (the seed of Abraham who will bless the world, Jesus Christ) should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (the law of Moses as an operative principle of divine dealing is done away in Christ)
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (It is now the rules of God's house that govern's us, which is the law of the Spirit)

Too many errors here, too. The Mosaic Covenant is perpetual throughout their [Hebrews] generations. In other words, while heaven and earth exist not one jot or tittle will pass away until all is fulfilled:

16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Ex 31:16–17.

Moving on to your next error...

Can you prove that? I read in the proverbs that it was a method God approved of In the OT times. However Acts 1 is not OT times.
Pr 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Yes, but the authority of casting the lot is reserved for the high priest alone and Peter is not a high priest.

You are speculating. We can only be sure about 8000 getting saved because that is the number given. Eight thousand out of a million or more who were there for the festival is a low number.

Jews travelled from their homes in Gentile lands to the Feast. The tongues the disciples spoke (17 languages) helps identify the locations the Jews travelled from to go to the Feast in Jerusalem.
Next, 3000 Jews were born-again on the Day of Pentecost (Feast of Harvest.) Acts 2:47 says the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. So, if we take 3000 as a median number and the Lord added to His Church daily, then by weeks end 21,000 Jews were born again. And I doubt seriously there were one million Jews at the Feast. It was a REMNANT of at least 1 million Jews who were allowed to return to their homeland by King Cyrus. That's a very low number against 1 million. At any rate, Jesus was adding to His Church daily and He did this while the Temple still stood and Jews were being born-again daily. The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans, so from Pentecost to the Temple's destruction was just about 4 decades of Jews being saved and born-again daily such as should be saved.
Another error on your part.

To the Jew first and also to the gentile. That was the order in those days.

Of course. It was a Jewish Covenant God made with the Jewish people and Jesus is a Jewish Messiah.
And the Gentiles that would be privy to any testimony of Jewish Christians about this Jesus and their saving experience with the Holy Spirit would be the circumcised Gentile proselytes, since they would be in attendance in their synagogues on the sabbath along with Jewish Christians before the "split."

Ac 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

And where exactly does Scripture say is "his own place?"
My studies reveal through Scripture Judas was an apostle of the Lord:

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Lk 6:13.

If JESUS NAMED these twelve as 'apostles', who are we to say Judas wasn't? Beside this, when they came to arrest Jesus in the Garden Jesus called Judas "Friend." The only other person so identified as "Friend" was Abraham. From my standpoint and from Scripture there are no apostles of the Lord in "hell", nor are there any friends of God or Christ in "hell."

One would think the apostles would know that Judas fell from this ministry and apostleship. He was not there. They had been under the ministry of the risen savior for 40 days. The Jews had killed Jesus and had rejected his kingdom and his kingship. It was appropriate that this dispensation would begin with 11 Jewish apostles instead of 12. They fell short of the kingdom of God. Look at the reality of the times in which the NT was written;

Ro 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

To be quite honest NO ONE ATTAINED righteousness by the Law. Excluding uncircumcised Gentiles who were NEVER under the Law, the giving of the Law was a witness of God's perfect, holy, and righteous standards, the Law was giving to show Israel the standard of God and the sinfulness of God's people.
n other words, no one can attain righteousness through the Law, and the Law's existence is to show Israel they were sinful and fall short of God's glory.
Another error on your part.

Those in the upper room did not receive the Holy Spirt there, they were filled with the Holy Spirit (there is a difference), meaning the Spirit controlled them. The apostles, less Thomas, had already been given the Holy Spirit on the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Scripture please.

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

This is my understanding of things in that day.

I appreciate that. But I have shown you your exegetical errors. The things you say are not supported by Scripture.

 

[JD731]

Where is the start-time of what you're saying?

Example from Scripture, please.

Scripture please.

I appreciate that. But I have shown you your exegetical errors. The things you say are not supported by Scripture.

Well, I am proving my points with the scriptures and you are not. "Breath" in the scriptures is a metaphor for the Spirit of God, who is life. Jesus said in John 3 when his subject is being born again as sons of God, that the Spirit is like the wind that bloweth where it listeth.

Now, here is the deal. the apostle John was present in the upper room on the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and he testifies of several particular occurrances that he and only a few others was privy to. One of the things he tells us is that Jesus Christ breathed on them and said "receive ye the Holy Ghost."
John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Now you have a choice. You can believe plain words of an apostle who was an eye witness and a participant or you can deny that Jesus said it or that it happened, or you can impose your own private interpretations over this and make it be just an idea that has no purpose or substance. That is your choice and it seems from your testimony that you have decided that it is not true.

I have decided that it is true and I am moving on from there with that testimony solidly in my mind. My understanding of what follows will be impacted by this knowledge and I will not forget it.

The Scripture is literal unless the context reveals something else. Basically, as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", which can be applied to your passage in Matthew that says, "Jesus went out of the house" means exactly that.
You have two 'metaphors' referring to 'humanity/world' and that is redundant. Too much spiritualizing can lead to an over-abundance of erroneous understanding. The unpardonable sin has to do with God's election and the effect of those not elect and/or named in the "book of life of the lamb slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world" and the Presence of the HOLY Spirit in the world. Since "pardon" has to do with transgressions of God's Law(s) and the fact that ALL Israel is in the protected covenant(s) of God Israel cannot be guilty of an "unpardonable" sin. For the very nature of God's covenant of providing a Redeemer, Prophet, Priest, and King, etc. So, on this point you are in error.
You don't seem to me to be following any established hermeneutical rules and this will lead to flawed exegetical results. In other words, you're leaning on your own understanding.

I am not in error. The kingdom message that was delivered to Judah and Israel with the message that the King had come and was in their presence was a real message which the rulers rejected and eventually caused them to plot to kill Jesus as an imposter. God was incensed by this rejection and pronounced a curse of "this generation" of Jewish rulers, whose responsibility was to recognize him from the OT scriptures and his works, both bearing testimony to his claims. Compare Matt 1:1 with Psalm 90:10 and you will find that the generation is 70 years. It was in 70 AD that God dispersed this nation from the land, cutting them off from their covenants and reckoning them as gentiles, forty of those years being after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This was propesied by our Lord;

Lk 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

This fig tree was cut down and moved out of the vineyard in 70 AD. Read He 3 here.

The disciples were under specific command of their Lord to return to Jerusalem and wait to be endued with the Holy Spirit of Promise. Peter and the disciples didn't obey and without the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth they proceeded "IN THE FLESH" and disobeyed the Lord.

Here is exactly what Jesus said;
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

The next verse lends clarity to what he means.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Now you are tasked to understand what Jesus means by being baptized with the Holy Ghost. It is not the same thing as "receiving" the Holy Ghost and it is not exclusive to the apostles. Following is some clarity.

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

So, John dipped the nation in water and Jesus will dip the nation in the Holy Ghost.
In order for that to happen there must be a great outpouring of the Holy Ghost in abundance. And there was.

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Now the nation is immersed in the Holy Ghost but they are not saved until the Holy Ghost was in them. It was God's decision to provide the Holy Ghost to the nation but it is the decision of each member of the nation to receive the Holy Ghost in them. The apostles were given the authority to discern those who believed and to baptize them accordingly in John 20. Some they did not baptize because their heart was not right. See Acts 8.

Let me guess you think Jesus' breathing on them and saying "receive the Holy Spirit" the Lord imparted the Spirit upon them, right? Well, that didn't happen for this pone important reason:

What do you think words mean? Plain words? C'mon now guy!

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Jn 16:7.

If death is not a departure then I have missed something. Besides, the "you" is plural, meaning the nation. One thing is sure; the apostles in that upper room did the baptizing in water but they themselves were never baptized to receive the Holy Ghost. The faithful student of the word of God considers these things.

So, in this I find another error on your part.

Too many errors here, too. The Mosaic Covenant is perpetual throughout their [Hebrews] generations. In other words, while heaven and earth exist not one jot or tittle will pass away until all is fulfilled:

16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Ex 31:16–17.

The law of Moses is not said to be a perpetual covenant between Israel and God, but the sign of the sabbath.

Moving on to your next error...

Yes, but the authority of casting the lot is reserved for the high priest alone and Peter is not a high priest.

Speculation until proven.

Jews travelled from their homes in Gentile lands to the Feast. The tongues the disciples spoke (17 languages) helps identify the locations the Jews travelled from to go to the Feast in Jerusalem.
Next, 3000 Jews were born-again on the Day of Pentecost (Feast of Harvest.) Acts 2:47 says the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. So, if we take 3000 as a median number and the Lord added to His Church daily, then by weeks end 21,000 Jews were born again. And I doubt seriously there were one million Jews at the Feast. It was a REMNANT of at least 1 million Jews who were allowed to return to their homeland by King Cyrus. That's a very low number against 1 million. At any rate, Jesus was adding to His Church daily and He did this while the Temple still stood and Jews were being born-again daily. The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans, so from Pentecost to the Temple's destruction was just about 4 decades of Jews being saved and born-again daily such as should be saved.

You have broadened that number way out past the context. Context is our friend.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 4:1 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,
2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

The context is the ministry of the apostles in Jerusalem, the capitol of Israel and few believed. Following is the number that God commanded to believe before he would return and establish his kingdom over them, his intended purpose.

Acts 238 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The operative phrase in this verse is highlighted. Consider this next bit of the purpose of God;

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. (of Israel)
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Jesus Christ will not establish his earthly kingdom over Israel until every soul is saved and those who refuse destroyed from off the earth. That is what the day of the Lord judgements are all about. I suggest you read the whole context and think.

Another error on your part.

Of course. It was a Jewish Covenant God made with the Jewish people and Jesus is a Jewish Messiah.
And the Gentiles that would be privy to any testimony of Jewish Christians about this Jesus and their saving experience with the Holy Spirit would be the circumcised Gentile proselytes, since they would be in attendance in their synagogues on the sabbath along with Jewish Christians before the "split."

Not sure how the above applies to my comments.

And where exactly does Scripture say is "his own place?"
My studies reveal through Scripture Judas was an apostle of the Lord:

I don't know but I will guess it is in the pit since that is where the man of sin comes from. Several men from the past shows up in the Revelation.

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Lk 6:13.

If JESUS NAMED these twelve as 'apostles', who are we to say Judas wasn't? Beside this, when they came to arrest Jesus in the Garden Jesus called Judas "Friend." The only other person so identified as "Friend" was Abraham. From my standpoint and from Scripture there are no apostles of the Lord in "hell", nor are there any friends of God or Christ in "hell."

Here is what Jesus said towards the end of his ministry to Judah;

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Peter was wrong when he said "we" believe and are sure. Judas did not stop being a devil all of a sudden.

To be quite honest NO ONE ATTAINED righteousness by the Law. Excluding uncircumcised Gentiles who were NEVER under the Law, the giving of the Law was a witness of God's perfect, holy, and righteous standards, the Law was giving to show Israel the standard of God and the sinfulness of God's people.
n other words, no one can attain righteousness through the Law, and the Law's existence is to show Israel they were sinful and fall short of God's glory.
Another error on your part.

Where have I taught that righteousness comes by the law of Moses? It would certainly be an error if I did.

Scripture please.

I appreciate that. But I have shown you your exegetical errors. The things you say are not supported by Scripture.

No you Haven't.