ON THE QUESTION OF MATTHIAS

[atpollard]

I have no ideas what the above means.

It means ...
"Luke meant just what Luke said ... no more and no less."

When Luke wrote (Acts 2:14) "But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven", he meant that all 12 of the Apostles (the 11 surviving apostles that Jesus had appointed plus the Apostle selected in the previous chapter to replace Judas) were all "present and accounted for". I do not believe Luke was commenting on the Matthias question at all ... it probably never entered Luke's mind.

I believe the point of Acts 2 was that the WHOLE CHURCH was assembled and ALL OF THE LEADERSHIP (Apostles) stood with Peter in agreement at the words that Peter spoke. I believe that Luke's point was an affirmation of the message in the sermon by unanimity among Authority.

If I am correct, then Acts 2:14 is "agnostic" (takes no position) on the Mathias vs Paul question (except to affirm the fact that Matthias was standing there with Peter and everyone else). It is like John 3:16 stating "the world" and "whosoever believes" is neutral on Calvinism vs Arminianism ... one needs to look for other verses to PROVE either Doctrine.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Doesn't that more acknowledge the reality than comment (one way or another) on whether the prior action was correct?

Jesus acknowledged Peter would deny Him, but that does not imply that "denying Christ" is a good thing and we should do likewise ... or even that Jesus desired Peter to deny Him. It just acknowledged the reality (just as Peter's insight from God was acknowledged as being from God ... an GOOD example compared to the BAD example ... but both alike in being "statements of fact" rather than commands to us.)

Choosing Matthias was probably the correct action, but I question whether THAT was Luke's point in Acts 2:14 (I think Luke was making another point all together).
YMMV

Revelation and the reference to 12 foundations makes questions about "Who are the 12 Apostles" significant [to whatever extent the question is significant]. If Matthias is #12, then is Paul not an Apostle in Revelations? ... [This is why I generally avoid discussions on Revelations or Daniel or Eschatology in general. I have enough on my plate in the PRESENT. ]

Revelation names on the foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem helps us to date and identify who these apostles are. They are the twelve apostles of the Lamb when Jesus was on the planet as the Lamb of God. This would include Judas Iscariot.

 

[Fred]

It means ...
"Luke meant just what Luke said ... no more and no less."

Ok.

When Luke wrote (Acts 2:14) "But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven", he meant that all 12 of the Apostles (the 11 surviving apostles that Jesus had appointed plus the Apostle selected in the previous chapter to replace Judas) were all "present and accounted for". I do not believe Luke was commenting on the Matthias question at all ... it probably never entered Luke's mind.

I disagree. Luke expressed himself in a way that clearly shows Matthias included as an apostle in equality with the others (Acts 2:14).

I believe the point of Acts 2 was that the WHOLE CHURCH was assembled and ALL OF THE LEADERSHIP (Apostles) stood with Peter in agreement at the words that Peter spoke. I believe that Luke's point was an affirmation of the message in the sermon by unanimity among Authority.

If I am correct, then Acts 2:14 is "agnostic" (takes no position) on the Mathias vs Paul question (except to affirm the fact that Matthias was standing there with Peter and everyone else).

But Luke informs us in Acts 2:37 that the "apostles" he already referred to in Acts 2:14 were now addressed by those to whom the gospel was preached.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Sounds good to me.
Acts 2:21 corresponds to Romans 10:13.
Acts 9:27-28 with Ephesians 6:20.
Acts 9:31 with Colossians 3:22.
Acts 9:35 with 2 Corinthians 3:16.
Acts 10:36 with Romans 10:12.
Acts 10:45 with Romans 5:5
Acts 10:47 with Galatians 3:2.
Acts 21:14 with Ephesians 5:17.

Many others as well.

Why, because Luke repeats Paul?
Luke traveled with Paul so Luke would mimic his companion.

 

[Fred]

Why, because Luke repeats Paul?
Luke traveled with Paul so Luke would mimic his companion.

They complement one another.

The Name
Acts 5:41 with James 2:7 and 3 John 7

The will of the Lord
Acts 21:14 with James 4:15


Now what is going to be your pathetic excuse?

 

[atpollard]

Revelation names on the foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem helps us to date and identify who these apostles are. They are the twelve apostles of the Lamb when Jesus was on the planet as the Lamb of God. This would include Judas Iscariot.

I will simply be unable to accept Revelation as intended as LITERAL until I stand before a slain lamb riding a horse with a sword sticking out of its mouth ... all 100% literal. Until then, I will need to view 99% of Revelation as a vision of symbols that need interpretation. [I believe that it was literally on the "Lord's day" (Sunday) when John had his vision.]

It is just a flaw in me. I cannot make that leap.

 

[jeremiah1five]

They complement one another.

The Name
Acts 5:41 with James 2:7 and 3 John 7

The will of the Lord
Acts 21:14 with James 4:15


Now what is going to be your pathetic excuse?

I was hoping you would provide some original thinking that way I stand a chance of being sharpened but you're only providing the textbook answers. One side says Mattias the other says Paul.
So, you go ahead and argue with the other group, and I look elsewhere for some sharpening.

 

[Fred]

I was hoping you would provide some original thinking that way I stand a chance of being sharpened but you're only providing the textbook answers

It's not difficult demolishing your grandiose claims about yourself.

So, you go ahead and argue with the other group, and I look elsewhere for some sharpening.

Classic.

 

[jeremiah1five]

It's not difficult demolishing your grandiose claims about yourself.




Classic.

Demolish me you demolish Christ in me.
"What you do to these the least of my brethren you have done it unto me," He said.
You have done me no harm. But you do have some serious attitude issues. I call them demons.
Demon-possessed! Evil spirits. Evil attitudes.
But I will ask the Lord to heal you so that you can be "in your right mind" (Mk. 5:15.)
Calling my responses "pathetic" and "demolishing me" are not right spirit or mind.
But keep replying. I'm testing the spirit to see whether you are of God" (1 Jn. 4:1.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

@Freddie

God made no covenant with Gentiles or any Gentile and his seed.
Here, these are examples of a Covenant. Show me in the Jewish Scriptures God making any kind of Covenant with Gentiles.

Here. Here's a Covenant God made with covenant language:

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. Gen. 9:11.

See that? That's a covenant with covenant language. Here's another:

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen. 17:6–7.

See that? That's a covenant with covenant language. Here's another:

8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. Ex. 24:8.

See that? That's a covenant with covenant language. Here's another:

3 I have made a covenant with my chosen,
I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever,
And build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
Ps. 89:3–4.

See that? That's a covenant with covenant language. Here's another:

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
That I will make a new covenant
With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer. 31:31.

See that? That's a covenant with covenant language. In all these instances you see the language of covenant, God intending a covenant and actually making it, and Hebrews/Jews as recipient of the Covenant God makes with a certain people and that people are Hebrews/Jews and the children of Israel and David who is a Jew. And there's one more covenant. More like an anti-covenant. A direct command for Israel to make NO COVENANTS with anyone else except God and that's because as Bride of Christ, to make a covenant with anyone else besides their betrothed is adultery. And God is a jealous God.

31 And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. Ex. 23:31–32.

So, for you to say Gentiles that come to Christ are joined equally in covenant with the children of Israel is a lie. God forbids it. God commands against it. And Paul is surely, as apostle of Jesus Christ, NOT teaching it nor advocating it. So this means your interpretation of Saul/Paul's words are in error.

God made no covenant with Gentiles nor any Gentile and their seed, nor has God joined Jew and Gentile in any covenant at all.

THE WORD OF GOD.

 

[Fred]

Demolish me you demolish Christ in me.

False association.

Quite delusional on your part as well.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I was hoping you would provide some original thinking that way I stand a chance of being sharpened but you're only providing the textbook answers. One side says Mattias the other says Paul.
So, you go ahead and argue with the other group, and I look elsewhere for some sharpening.

Why would it be between Matthias and Paul?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Why would it be between Matthias and Paul?

It's not. Those are the two major teachings from the erroneous Replacement Theologies of these two groups.
My position is Biblical.
Christ doesn't replace, He adds.
NO ONE replaced Judas.
Brother Judas is with Christ right now trippin' over all this Replacement Theology nonsense.

 

[Fred]

Christ doesn't replace, He adds.

Hebrews 10:9
He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

brother Judas

The son of perdition is your brother?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Christ doesn't replace, HE ADDS.

Isaiah 22:19-22 I will thrust you from your office

and pull you down from your station.

On that day I will summon my servant

Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;

I will clothe him with your robe,

gird him with your sash,

CONFER on him your AUTHORITY.

He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,

and to the house of Judah.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;

what he opens, no one will shut,

what he shuts, no one will open.​

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hebrews 10:9
He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

The First Covenant is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit.
It is HE God promised to put in the inward parts of His covenant people Israel.
Now, instead of the Law of God directing, guiding, and instructing from without on stones, the Holy Spirit does the same thing from within on fleshly tables of the 'heart.'

The son of perdition is your brother?

Christ honors this apostle of the Lamb by inscribing his name on the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem, so, I too honor this man for a couple of reasons.
One is by being the first of twelve to participate directly in the institution of the New Covenant with Israel by being at the supper in which it is made, second, by being used of God to teach salvation 101.

"He saw (perceived/understood)" his sin.
He confessed his sin.
He repented of his sin.
He obeyed God.

Matthew 27:3-5.

My Jewish brother from another mother.

 

[Fred]

The First Covenant is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit.

The First Covenant has been abrogated (Hebrews 8:13).

Christ honors this apostle of the Lamb by inscribing his name on the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem,

Zero proof that the name of Judas is there. Your ramblings and guesses don't constitute proof.

He confessed his sin.

Where does it say he did so to God?

He repented of his sin.

See above.

He obeyed God.

Where?

My Jewish brother from another mother.

Get a hold of yourself.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Isaiah 22:19-22 I will thrust you from your office

and pull you down from your station.

On that day I will summon my servant

Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;

I will clothe him with your robe,

gird him with your sash,

CONFER on him your AUTHORITY.

He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,

and to the house of Judah.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;

what he opens, no one will shut,

what he shuts, no one will open.​

Israel is under a New Covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Holy Spirit has come to them as Promised.
And since the New Covenant Jewish Church is a continuation of the Great Congregation of over 3 million children of Israel in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle, the subject is the body of Christ.
The apostle is the thumb in the body of Christ and there are no body parts excised or amputated in Christ's body.
Your Scripture refers to Israel's captivity and it seems to me the last verse refers to Israel's Messiah.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Israel is under a New Covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Holy Spirit has come to them as Promised.
And since the New Covenant Jewish Church is a continuation of the Great Congregation of over 3 million children of Israel in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle, the subject is the body of Christ.
The apostle is the thumb in the body of Christ and there are no body parts excised or amputated in Christ's body.
Your Scripture refers to Israel's captivity and it seems to me the last verse refers to Israel's Messiah.

It is in response to

jeremiah1five said:
Christ doesn't replace, HE ADDS.

 

[Fred]

Christ doesn't replace, He adds.

What is the book, chapter and verse which supports your assertion?