Featured Apostles, prophets and manifestations of the Holy Spirit

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

Their books were seen as being part of the NT canon due to them being associated with peter and paul, were recognized as also recording down inspired truths!

 

Okay, but still no proof that Paul replaced Judas. Come on, interact with what I've written. For example, why does the Bible say that Matthias was "numbered" with the apostles if he did not replace Judas?

 

I am suggesting that Luke recorded down what actually happened, and how the Apostles numbered him as being the replacement among them for Judas, but Jesus replaced him actually with Paul!

 

God by the Spirit records Matthias’ selection as an apostle without any hint of condemnation (Acts 1:15-26). Immediately thereafter Matthias functions in that capacity, again without a hint of condemnation. His actions and ministry as one of the twelve are recorded on numerous occasions in the book of Acts.

1. Matthias was filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).
2. Matthias stood up with the rest of the twelve on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14).
3. Matthias, along with the other apostles, was questioned after Peter’s proclamation of the gospel (Acts 2:37).
4. Those who were saved and baptized continued steadfastly in the doctrine and fellowship of Matthias and the other apostles (Acts 2:42).
5. Matthias, along with the other apostles, performed wonders and signs (Acts 2:43; 5:12).
6. Matthias, along with the other apostles, witnessed the resurrection with great power (Acts 4:33).
7. Matthias, along with the other apostles, received and distributed the common goods of all the disciples (Acts 4:34-37).
8. Matthias, along with the other apostles, was arrested and jailed by the high priest and the Sadducees (Acts 5:18).
9. Matthias, with Peter and the other apostles, answered the council of priests (Acts 5:29).
10. Matthias, along with the other apostles, was beaten for his faith and adjured to not preach Jesus (Acts 5:40).
11. Matthias, along with the other apostles, summoned the disciples to resolve the complaint concerning distribution to the Grecian widows (Acts 6:2).
12. Matthias, along with the other apostles, laid hands on the seven men charged with the task of the widows’ tables (Acts 6:6).
13. Matthias, along with the other apostles, remained at Jerusalem under great persecution (Acts 8:1).
14. Matthias, along with the other apostles, sent Peter and John to view the work of Philip at Samaria (Acts 8:14).
15. Matthias participated in receiving Saul (Paul) when he was introduced by Barnabas (Acts 9:27).
16. Matthias and other apostles heard Peter had preached to the Gentiles (Acts 11:1).
17. Matthias, along with the other apostles and the whole church, reached a decision at Jerusalem about the Gentiles relationship to the church (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16:4).

Like most of the apostles, he is not mentioned by name after the first chapter of Acts, but that does not exclude him any more than it does the others who are not mentioned by name.

 

So the 11 were wrong to choose Matthias? They were backslidden? The Bible does not say so. And if Paul were the replacement, the 11 were without a replacement for years! Paul was probably not saved until two years after Pentecost. That doesn't make sense.

There is nothing in the Bible that says Jesus replaced Judas with Paul--nothing! That is simply speculation.

 

No, I could be wrong about paul, but others have held the same!

 

I am basing this upon Paul Himself stating that he was an Apostle born out of season, and that the Lord Jesus directly appeared to him and commissioned him

 

Matthias being an apostle does not in any way contradict Paul being an apostle commissioned by the Lord. At least 19 men (and maybe a few others) have the word "apostle" connected to them, including the original twelve and these seven:

• Matthias [Acts 1:23,26; 6:2]
• James, the Lord’s brother [Gal. 1:19; I Cor. 9:5]
• Barnabas [Acts 14:4,14; I Cor. 9:1-6]
• Paul [Acts 14:4,14; Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:1]
• Silas (Silvanus) [I Thess. 1:1; 2:6; II Thess. 1:1]
• Timothy (Timotheus) [I Thess. 1:1; 2:6; II Thess. 1:1]
• Apollos [I Corinthians 4:6,9]

If you will give weight to what Paul himself stated, you must give weight to the fact he did not include himself in “the twelve.“ Paul clearly does not include himself in this “collective term“ either after the resurrection or at the time he is writing to the 1 Corinthians 15.
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve...And last of all he was seen of me also

 

Good point, so looks like am wrong about Paul replacing Judas, but he does still appear to have been last Apostle commissioned by Lord Jesus

 

Fine, but why do those things make him one of the 12 instead of just another apostle of many? I've given the list of other NT apostles, which you did not comment on. There are many apostles in the NT other than the 12 as now 3 of us have pointed out.

 

I am seeing that you and other are probably eight on this, but would still see Paul as being the last real Apostle of God

 

Welcome to proper interpretation of the NT apostles!

 

So we would all agree that since Paul was last one, has been no Apostles after John died given to the Church?

 

In one post I listed several important missiologists who teach/taught that the apostle is a soul winning, church planting missionary (exactly what Paul was). Why are they wrong, then?

 

I actually agree with Apostles for today as missionaries, and Prophets for today can be pastors gifted to apply the scriptures into setting, but the Office of both are closed, as see no additional revelations coming forth from God to us thru them.
The NAR apostles and prophets not that, but in the same sense as were in scriptures to them

 

Nope, not in the slightest. I believe that a modern soul winning, church planting missionary is the same as the Biblical apostle, except that modern missionaries do not have power to do miracles except through prayer. And obviously, modern missionaries do not receive revelation from God.

Note:
1. The early church believed that others were apostles after the NT era. The Didache (around AD 100) speaks about apostles (ἀποστολοι) coming to local churches. The Shepherd of Hermes (2nd century) also mentions apostles.
2. Church historians call the first missionary into a country the "Apostle to..." that country.
3. Until dispensationalism, it was normal to call a missionary an apostle. Now, I'm a dispensationalist, but some dispensational authors (Chafer et al) have totally missed the boat here, and mislead the church.
4. Note, for example, the article on "Apostle" in the original 1915 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, or the 19th century commentary by J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (pp. 92-101)

Many more examples could be given.

 

Okey dokey!

 

Could be semantics on how we are defining Apostles, as my understanding would be those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus while living, or he appeared to them after he arose, and had the sign gifts and were able to write down inspired words to us...
IF we broaden that out to say do not have sign gifts nor inspired teachings, can agree with that use for missionaries for today!