Researching apostles...

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Apostles ... MUST pass 2 tests to qualifiy for that...

See and be commissioned by the risen christ, and have authority to write scriptures in a revlation from God sense!

That is contradictory.

What about all the apostles who wrote NO Scriptures?
Jesus gave no apostle(s) verbally 'authority to write scriptures'.

Who says Mark or Luke ever saw Jesus? And Jesus certainly did not give either of them 'authority to write scriptures' in person. In fact, Jesus gave NO apostle or any person whomsoever 'authority to write scriptures'.

 

[DHK]

I think the 11 apostles made a mistake to appoint Matthias an apostle. If he was an apostle, no testimony to his success as one exists.

God doesn't think it was a mistake.
The office was of divine appointment. They carried out the instructions and chose the apostle exactly as God told them--as they would have done in the OT. The start of the Age of Grace would begin the very next day. This was the way that God had always directed such decisions. They prayed for direction; God chose for them; God never rescinded that decision. His name will be one of the twelve. There are only twelve names that are written on those foundations of the twelve walls. That is what it says. Matthias will be one of those names. Nothing much is said of Simon Zealotes either.

There is no possibility the apostles were faultless or sinless. In fact Paul was the one who judged and opposed inter alia Peter in his SINNING.

The twelve pillars represent twelve apostles - twelve OF them; nothing in the bare number prohibits there were more than 12 apostles. But there came no new apostles after the first and only generation of apostles. That is what is important; not how many they were.

The Bible is our testimony. Over and over again the Bible refers to "The Twelve." It speaks of it as an office. When used in other places of other men it describes them as apostles of the churches. However, there were no apostles after the first century.

James the brother of Jesus ... was he an apostle? They say he was the LEADER of the apostles; but was he one of the 12? As far as I can see, he wasn't.

James (as well as Jude) was the half brother of Jesus.
James was also the pastor of the church at Jerusalem, and the author of the epistle of James. Yes, he was well accepted and known among the Apostles, but not an apostle himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is contradictory.

What about all the apostles who wrote NO Scriptures?
Jesus gave no apostle(s) verbally 'authority to write scriptures'.

Who says Mark or Luke ever saw Jesus? And Jesus certainly did not give either of them 'authority to write scriptures' in person. In fact, Jesus gave NO apostle or any person whomsoever 'authority to write scriptures'.

Jesus explicitly said to the Apsotles, the 12, that the HS would come to them, and allowing them to remember ALL that needed to be recorded down to us, for JUST as God commissioned the OT prophets to speak and write on his behalf, so would the Apostles be!

And the Apostolic church received both Luke/mark as scripture writers , for the backing of the Apostles peter and paul were behind them!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus explicitly said to the Apsotles, the 12, that the HS would come to them, and allowing them to remember ALL that needed to be recorded down to us, for JUST as God commissioned the OT prophets to speak and write on his behalf, so would the Apostles be!

Then Mark and Luke and James ought to have been apostles, but they aren't.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then Mark and Luke and James ought to have been apostles, but they aren't.

They were each associated witht he 12 Apostles and paul, so the church took them as having been under the 'annoiting" so to speak of the Apsotles that they were partaking in ministry with!

same with Jude and james, for BOTH were half brothers to the lord jesus, and had rceived visit from him in his resurrected state!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

How could Paul call himself an apostle of Jesus Christ? I believe he was such an apostle in the truest sense OF THE CALLING.

 

[Yeshua1]

How could Paul call himself an apostle of Jesus Christ? I believe he was such an apostle in the truest sense OF THE CALLING.

paul was called by God as one out of season, as many hold that he was the one meant by God to replace judas and been the 12 Apsotle, but he was still commissioned directly by the risen christ!

he was the LAST person ever to be an "official" Apostle, as he o fthe same as the 12 were!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I agree with you (more or less).

We both differ with DHK, as I understand him. Because he insists there ever were 12 apostles; no less; no more.

I believe the Reformed way : There were apostles while the apostles lived; after them there were no apostles again.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with you (more or less).

We both differ with DHK, as I understand him. Because he insists there ever were 12 apostles; no less; no more.

I believe the Reformed way : There were apostles while the apostles lived; after them there were no apostles again.

acts called both barabus and paul Apsotles, at least it does in the Nasb...

would say there there is a cler distinction drawn between the original 12, and paul, and that mark/james/jude/luke were all inspired by the HS to record down sacred texts, its just that they were not as the 12 and paul in that they were notgiven it seems any sign gifts!

Important thing here is to see that since death of John, NONE have been Apsotles in either sense of inspired to record scriptures, notr having sign gifts!