Why Purgatory is not in the Bible - it does not exist

[lakeside]

DHK, there was only the twelve apostles of Jesus (the original eleven, and Matthias) as well as Mary, the Mother of Jesus, present in the upper room at Pentecost.

I would also be correct in the identification of the transition from disciples to apostles. The apostles were appointed just after Jesus' earthly mission, after the resurrection, but before the Ascension, and at varying points between the four Gospels. The most definitive is in the Gospel according to St. Matthew: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (28:19) The direction of "go" now establishes the eleven (remaining) disciples as apostles.

In support of the claim for those present at Pentecost, I first reference the transition between chapters one and two of the book of Acts. Chapter one ends with the casting of lots to determine the new apostle, Matthias. Chapter two begins with, "When the day of Pentecost had come...", implying a passing of time between the first chapter and the second chapter. (We also need to remember that when the books were originally written, they were not divided into chapters and verses, so we must approach the writings as a smoothly connected writing, and not choppy and separated.) So, after the passing of time, who was in the room?{ 2:14} answers the question: "But Peter, standing with the eleven..."; we can see by reading the beginning of chapter two that the events flow together in a continuous narrative. Therefore, there is seemingly no transition between the events of Pentecost and the speech of Peter to the crowd.

I must also briefly defend why Mary was in the room with the twelve. We can see throughout the scriptures that Mary was with Jesus every step of His ministry. She was (obviously) with him at his birth; she was with him in the temple; at the wedding feast of Cana; through his ministry; and even at his death and resurrection. On the cross, Jesus gave John to Mary as a caretaker, as a "new son". John took Mary into his home as his own mother. Mary was the perfect disciple; it was her "yes" to God in{ Luke 1} that initiated God's salvific plan on earth. She is the mother of Christ, and she never had any doubt about his Majesty. Therefore, it would only seem to reason that she was with the apostles in the upper room on Pentecost; she would have been there with John, as he was her caretaker, and she would have been there among the friends and disciples of Jesus.

 

[annsni]

I would also be correct in the identification of the transition from disciples to apostles. The apostles were appointed just after Jesus' earthly mission, after the resurrection, but before the Ascension, and at varying points between the four Gospels. The most definitive is in the Gospel according to St. Matthew: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (28:19) The direction of "go" now establishes the eleven (remaining) disciples as apostles.

Don't forget that Paul was an apostle too and he became one well after the Ascension.

 

[lakeside]

annsni, Here is something I uncovered by Scott Hahn, former protestant and now professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio as well as professor of Theology at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA and who has had various teaching programs on EWTN.

In his article about the papacy Dr. Hahn wrote:

"Peter's Place in the Early Church

But what does the Church do after Jesus is ascended into heaven, after Judas has committed suicide? Turn to Acts 1 to see what the Church does in response to Judas' death and Jesus' departure. It's very interesting and important because Peter stands up with the eleven in the Upper Room, verse 15, and He speaks about Judas' death and He says, "It was known beforehand and had even been prophesied in the Old Testament" and so what should we do now?

Notice that Peter -- and by the way, notice that it is Peter who stands up. He's not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises. And what is it he advises? He quotes the Psalms, "Let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one to live in it." But then he doesn't say, "Hey, guys, we're from twelve down to eleven. We better hang together now or we might end up hanging separately. No we're just down to eleven and it's going to be us from now on." He doesn't say that.

He says, "His office, let another take." Or as the King James version says, "His bishopric, let other men take." The word there is episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It's the word for bishop. In other words, there's an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, "Well obviously, automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his office, take."

And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no novelty. The other ten don't say, "Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There's no debate, no discussion. "

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Notice Dr. Hahn says, "...there is there's an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant..." and "...in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his office, take."

It was an episcopal [bishop's] office that was vacant and that is the one Matthias was elected to. If you don't agree with that then all you need do is provide the names of the apostles that filled the offices of the other eleven apostles when they died. Let's start with John. What apostle replaced the Apostle John? How about the Apostle Andrew? You know as well as I did that no Apostle replaced them because there is no ecclesiastical office of Apostle. Therefore the original Apostles, when they died, did not leave apostolate offices to be filled. They left episcopal offices which were filled by bishops.

 

[lakeside]

annsni, Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles not twelve Look it up in Acts 1:26;

"26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." [DR version]

"26 And they gaue foorth their lots, and the lot fell vpon Matthias, and hee was numbred with the eleuen Apostles." [KJV 1611]

"26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles." [RSV]

So we have eleven apostles before Matthias and eleven apostles after Matthias.

In addition the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the historical teaching of the church along with scripture says there were only twelve apostles chosen and sent by Jesus.

I say that Matthias was NEVER chosen and NEVER sent. by Jesus. Matthias was a bishop of the church chosen and sent by the church. He represents the scriptural basis for the apostolic succession of bishops from the Apostles. Now if you claim he was an Apostle [meaning one of the twelve] because he succeeeded another apostle [Judas] which Peter said no one could succeed Judas because his [Judas'] linneage was desolate then you have the problem of answering the question as to which Apostle succeeded Peter or James or John or any of the others. The answer is, of course, that no apostle succeeded them and Apostolic Succession then becomes a mere whim.


I also think that Pope Francis if publicly asked that question would agree with me, unless,of course he wanted to admit that the church was wrong in teaching that there were twelve apostles because there were really thirteen apostles and not the twelve that scripture says. I don't think he would do that.

 

[annsni]

annsni, Here is something I uncovered by Scott Hahn, former protestant and now professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio as well as professor of Theology at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA and who has had various teaching programs on EWTN.

In his article about the papacy Dr. Hahn wrote:

"Peter's Place in the Early Church

But what does the Church do after Jesus is ascended into heaven, after Judas has committed suicide? Turn to Acts 1 to see what the Church does in response to Judas' death and Jesus' departure. It's very interesting and important because Peter stands up with the eleven in the Upper Room, verse 15, and He speaks about Judas' death and He says, "It was known beforehand and had even been prophesied in the Old Testament" and so what should we do now?

Notice that Peter -- and by the way, notice that it is Peter who stands up. He's not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises. And what is it he advises? He quotes the Psalms, "Let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one to live in it." But then he doesn't say, "Hey, guys, we're from twelve down to eleven. We better hang together now or we might end up hanging separately. No we're just down to eleven and it's going to be us from now on." He doesn't say that.

He says, "His office, let another take." Or as the King James version says, "His bishopric, let other men take." The word there is episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It's the word for bishop. In other words, there's an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, "Well obviously, automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his office, take."

And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no novelty. The other ten don't say, "Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There's no debate, no discussion. "

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Notice Dr. Hahn says, "...there is there's an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant..." and "...in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his office, take."

It was an episcopal [bishop's] office that was vacant and that is the one Matthias was elected to. If you don't agree with that then all you need do is provide the names of the apostles that filled the offices of the other eleven apostles when they died. Let's start with John. What apostle replaced the Apostle John? How about the Apostle Andrew? You know as well as I did that no Apostle replaced them because there is no ecclesiastical office of Apostle. Therefore the original Apostles, when they died, did not leave apostolate offices to be filled. They left episcopal offices which were filled by bishops.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[annsni]

annsni, Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles not twelve Look it up in Acts 1:26;

"26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." [DR version]

"26 And they gaue foorth their lots, and the lot fell vpon Matthias, and hee was numbred with the eleuen Apostles." [KJV 1611]

"26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles." [RSV]

So we have eleven apostles before Matthias and eleven apostles after Matthias.

In addition the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the historical teaching of the church along with scripture says there were only twelve apostles chosen and sent by Jesus.

I say that Matthias was NEVER chosen and NEVER sent. by Jesus. Matthias was a bishop of the church chosen and sent by the church. He represents the scriptural basis for the apostolic succession of bishops from the Apostles. Now if you claim he was an Apostle [meaning one of the twelve] because he succeeeded another apostle [Judas] which Peter said no one could succeed Judas because his [Judas'] linneage was desolate then you have the problem of answering the question as to which Apostle succeeded Peter or James or John or any of the others. The answer is, of course, that no apostle succeeded them and Apostolic Succession then becomes a mere whim.


I also think that Pope Francis if publicly asked that question would agree with me, unless,of course he wanted to admit that the church was wrong in teaching that there were twelve apostles because there were really thirteen apostles and not the twelve that scripture says. I don't think he would do that.

Oh I get it. Paul lied. Luke lied. Just because it doesn't follow the church's teaching on apostles, Matthias and Paul are not apostles.

 

[lakeside]

annsni, The Apostles knew that the Holy Ghost would come down upon them; for Christ promised His Apostles that after His Ascension He would send the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, to teach them all truths and to abide with them forever.
Christ sent the Holy Ghost to sanctify His Church, to enlighten and strengthen the Apostles, and to enable them to preach the gospel
The Apostles were enlightened through the coming of the Holy Ghost by receiving the grace to remember and understand in its true meaning all that Christ had said and done in their presence.

The Apostles were strengthened through the coming of the Holy Ghost by receiving the grace to brave every danger, even death itself, in the performance of their sacred duties.

"Apostle" means a person sent, and "Gospel" means good tidings or news. Hence the name "Gospel" is given to the inspired history of Our Lord's life and works upon earth

Names of the Apostles.

The Apostles were: Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas Iscariot, in whose place Mathias was chosen.

Was St. Paul an Apostle?

St. Paul was an Apostle, but as he was not called till after the Ascension of Our Lord he is not numbered among the twelve. He is called the Apostle of the Gentiles; that is, of all those who were not of the Jewish religion or members of the Church of the Old Law.

St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John are called Evangelists, because they wrote the four Gospels bearing their names, and Evangelia is the Latin name for Gospels. St. Mark and St. Luke were not Apostles, but St. Matthew and St. John were both Apostles and Evangelists.


Why did not the Apostles fully understand when Christ Himself taught them?

The Apostles did not fully understand when Christ Himself taught them because during His stay with them on earth they were only preparing to become Apostles; and their minds were yet filled with many worldly thoughts and desires that were to be removed at the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

 

[annsni]

No. Paul was not one of the 12 but we can't say that an apostle is only one who was called before the ascension because we know that Jesus Himself personally called Paul and as such, he is counted among the apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

[lakeside]

annsni, so now that makes thirteen apostles, is that what you are saying ? I could give you an explanation, but you would not believe me.

 

[DHK]

I must also briefly defend why Mary was in the room with the twelve.

No you don't. That is not what you need to defend because that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is:

Why Purgatory is not in the Bible...

In light of that here is what you must answer:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214535&postcount=95

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214705&postcount=97

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214809&postcount=99

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214810&postcount=100

You have lots of work to do.
Stop derailing the thread.

 

[annsni]

annsni, so now that makes thirteen apostles, is that what you are saying ? I could give you an explanation, but you would not believe me.

There were the original 12.

Then one betrayed Jesus and killed himself - so there were 11.

Then they voted another one in which makes 12.

Then Paul was called as well and now there are 13.

Yep, there are thirteen apostles.

 

[Zenas]

There were the original 12.

Then one betrayed Jesus and killed himself - so there were 11.

Then they voted another one in which makes 12.

Then Paul was called as well and now there are 13.

Yep, there are thirteen apostles.

So how do you explain Revelation 21:14?

 

[annsni]

So how do you explain Revelation 21:14?

Those would be the 12 Apostles. What's the question?

Let me ask you this: We know the 11 apostles - who is the 12th in Revelation 21?

 

[lakeside]

16 Meanwhile the eleven disciples set out for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet them. 17 When they saw him they fell down before him, though some hesitated. 18 Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.' (St. Matthew 28:16-20)

...notice how St. Paul is not present at this important junction! ...it also obliterates St. Paul's claims to Apostleship since his claim is based upon the existing Twelve:


Quote:
8 Last of all he appeared to me too, as though I was a child born abnormally. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and am not really fit to be called an apostle, because I had been persecuting the Church of God; 10 but what I am now, I am through the grace of God, and the grace which was given to me has not been wasted. Indeed, I have worked harder than all the others -- not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Anyway, whether it was they or I, this is what we preach and what you believed. (1 Corinthians 15:8-11)

...are Sacred Scriptures wrong?

 

[lakeside]

annsni, It's pretty much well-known that Jesus had twelve Apostles. A few members of the Twelve are even major characters throughout the whole New Testament, and thus get to be mentioned a number of times (Simon Peter is a prime example of this); by contrast, the others never do anything of great importance to the story - in fact they are so minor that the only reason why we know their names is because the Evangelists cared to list them.

Which brings us to the list of the Twelve in the Synoptics. We would give it here in the traditional order (Matthew-Mark-Luke).

Matthew (10:1-4)

Simon who is called Peter
Andrew his brother
James of Zebedee
John his brother
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew the tax-gatherer
James of Alphaeus
Thaddaeus (also Lebbaeus, depending on which textual tradition you read; some even conflate the two names as "Lebbaeus called Thaddaeus" or vice versa)
Simon the Cananaean
Judas Iscariot, who also handed him over

Mark (3:13-18)

Simon to whom he gave the name Peter
James of Zebedee
John the brother of James
Andrew
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
James of Alphaeus
Thaddaeus
Simon the Cananaean
Judas Iscariot, who handed him over

Luke (6:12-16)

Simon whom he named Peter
Andrew his brother
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
James the son of Alphaeus
Simon who was called the Zealot/Zealous
Judas of James
Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor
We note the following characteristics:

Simon Peter is always named first.
Judas Iscariot is always placed last; to his name is tagged a note about his future handing over of Jesus to the authorities.
The first four disciples named are always the same, though the Evangelists never agree on the order (Mark: Simon-James-John-Andrew; Matthew, Luke: Simon-Andrew-James-John)
Always following the first four disciples are Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus. Mark and Luke list Matthew's and Thomas' names in that order, while Matthew places Thomas' name first.
All three agree in naming another Simon aside from Peter. Matthew and Mark give him the title "the Cananaean" while Luke gives "Zealot" (or "Zealous")
Mark names a Thaddaeus, which many manuscripts of Matthew follow. Other manuscripts of Matthew (and even a few of Mark), meanwhile, name this Apostle as Lebbaeus. Still others conflate the two readings, or just leave the name out wholesale. Luke, meanwhile, names a Judas of James. (On the other hand, some Vetus Latina manuscripts of Matthew has the name Iudas Zelotes, "Judas the Zealot/Zealous" here)

 

[DHK]

No you don't. That is not what you need to defend because that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is:

Why Purgatory is not in the Bible...

In light of that here is what you must answer:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214535&postcount=95

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214705&postcount=97

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214809&postcount=99

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2214810&postcount=100

You have lots of work to do.
Stop derailing the thread.

Let's get back to the topic of this thread.

If you want to discuss how many apostle there were start another thread.

 

[PreachTony]

Those would be the 12 Apostles. What's the question?

Let me ask you this: We know the 11 apostles - who is the 12th in Revelation 21?

Paul is referred to many times as an Apostle. In Acts 14:14, both Paul and Barnabas are called apostles. In Romans 16:17, Paul tells them to greet Andronicus and Junia, who were listed as "of note among the apostles." The title of Apostle does not appear to have been conferred solely upon the original 12 (or even just Matthias after Judas).

 

[annsni]

16 Meanwhile the eleven disciples set out for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet them. 17 When they saw him they fell down before him, though some hesitated. 18 Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.' (St. Matthew 28:16-20)

...notice how St. Paul is not present at this important junction! ...it also obliterates St. Paul's claims to Apostleship since his claim is based upon the existing Twelve:


Quote:
8 Last of all he appeared to me too, as though I was a child born abnormally. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and am not really fit to be called an apostle, because I had been persecuting the Church of God; 10 but what I am now, I am through the grace of God, and the grace which was given to me has not been wasted. Indeed, I have worked harder than all the others -- not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Anyway, whether it was they or I, this is what we preach and what you believed. (1 Corinthians 15:8-11)

...are Sacred Scriptures wrong?

So what you're saying is:

* Paul lied
* The Scriptures are wrong because Paul said that he was an apostle.