The 12th apostle: Matthias or Paul?

[Fred]

Most of this is a defense from silence …

Acts 1:26 -> Acts 2:14 -> Acts 2:37
are clear enough.

you are extolling the virtue of what the Bible does not say about Matthias … which I already acknowledged that the Bible says almost nothing about Matthias and God seems to have even less to say about Matthias specifically (that was precisely MY point).

Returning to the OP, you should have worded it differently since you are clearly not seeking a discussion as you implied, but have already made up your mind and are seeking to debate your position.

I had plenty of evidence that Matthias was the correct choice. I wanted to see evidence that overthrew it or that showed what I had was in error. Neither happened.

I care too little about Matthias (one way or another) to bother debating the point. Therefore, I leave you to your position with my blessings.

Thank you for your information and kindness.

 

[atpollard]

The 12th apostle: Matthias or Paul?​

Let me ask a question:
Was Paul an Apostle (like Peter) or was Paul not an Apostle (like Peter)?
The reference in the title to “12th Apostle” implies that EITHER Paul OR Matthias was an Apostle, but not both.

 

[Fred]

The 12th apostle: Matthias or Paul?​

Matthias was the 12th apostle.

Let me ask a question:
Was Paul an Apostle (like Peter) or was Paul not an Apostle (like Peter)?

See Galatians 2:9.

The reference in the title to “12th Apostle” implies that EITHER Paul OR Matthias was [the 12th] Apostle, but not both.

See my first comment. Furthermore, the brackets above are mine and the word "an" was removed.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Nor does any Christian.
No proof given.
Just your assertion.

Type and shadow. Once the reality came along with what Jesus taught about the Law there was no immediate knowledge on the effect of Messiah on the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenants.
Read all that Paul wrote to his fellow Jewish Christian brethren explaining these things. But Paul was qualified and being Pharisee and 'above many his equals' he was able to explain these things in his letters (and personal talks.) It is only reasonable.

Apples and oranges.
That refers to Christians being added into the Church. It doesn't refer to the role of the 12 apostles.

After Judas there was 11 apostles. Peter is not God. God places a person in the body (part) and is the ONLY one to call an apostle.
Jesus was on the planet for forty days after His resurrection. As Head of the Body and Head of the Jewish Church He would have appointed a replacement then. It is His prerogative, but He didn't.

Matthias, as with the others with him, was baptized into the body as described later on in Acts 2:4.
You are very confused.

You are guessing. There is no record.
It says Galileans were speaking in tongues and no one knows where Matthias was from. Guessing again.

No need to.
No recording of it.
The 12 were needed at the beginning of the NT Church (Acts 2:4).
You are still dodging the passages I already gave in support of Matthias being the 12th apostle.

So, you support a man appointing an apostle when Christ and God in Scripture are the only Ones who can do it.
You ignore Jesus' command to return to Jerusalem and tarry (WAIT FOR THE PROMISE) but Peter didn't wait. He STOOD UP! Disobedient.
Peter was in flesh.
Peter gave a physical or natural qualification for a spiritual office of apostle. In the flesh.
Judas was an apostle AMONG the twelve while Matthias is WITH the eleven.
If anything, maybe Peter was appointing a treasurer. Judas held the bag. But apostle? Only GOD can do that. Peter is not God.
Christ ADDS to His Church NOT replace.
Who replaced James in Acts 12?
No one.
My brother, Peter, bless his soul, was disobedient, in the flesh, and in total error.
To accept Matthias, one has to reject Scripture.

 

[Fred]

Type and shadow. Once the reality came along with what Jesus taught about the Law there was no immediate knowledge on the effect of Messiah on the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenants.
Read all that Paul wrote to his fellow Jewish Christian brethren explaining these things. But Paul was qualified and being Pharisee and 'above many his equals' he was able to explain these things in his letters (and personal talks.) It is only reasonable.

And not once did he claim he was one of the Twelve and not once did he ever question or challenge the selection of Matthias even though both he and Luke (the author of Acts) were close companions.

Peter is not God.

Oh, really.
Wow. How informative. With posting over 5 times in this thread your comment above really added to the discussion.
Instead of going through the rest of your drivel like the above deal with the following. I have a slight hope you can be able to figure it out.


Acts 1:26 -> Acts 2:14 -> Acts 2:37

 

[jeremiah1five]

Abraham the new born again name given to Abram the father of one family signified the father of many nations . Literal words have meaning that must be searched out

Many from my experience refuse to use the tools freely given needed to rightly divide. They keep thier eyes on the temporal corrupted hoping dying flesh could profit for something????

2 Corinthians 4:18King James Version18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
God is not a man as us ..

No one was born again until the Atonement and the application of said atonement by the Holy Spirit.

 

[jeremiah1five]

They were in error or God set one aside to be used in parables to hide the understanding from those not born again from above .?

John 6:70 King James Version Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Why 12 of 13 apostles (Judas missing )a remnant of 27 listed that represent walls of the city describing the new testament bride of Christ the church. . along with 12 gates as tribes to represent the old treatment saints 13 with the tribe of Dan missing ? Coincident or plan?

What is the hidden purpose as a parable ? Why Dan and Judas?

"Apostles of the Lamb" dates these apostles as when they were with Jesus while He was on the planet as Lamb of God.

 

[jeremiah1five]

And not once did he claim he was one of the Twelve and not once did he ever question or challenge the selection of Matthias even though both he and Luke (the author of Acts) were close companions.

None of those matters. Here is how an apostle is chosen:

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.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1 Cor. 12:28.

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.
Acts 13:1–2.

Peter was in grave error. Even if he was appointing a treasurer.

Oh, really.
Wow. How informative. With posting over 5 times in this thread your comment above really added to the discussion.
Instead of going through the rest of your drivel like the above deal with the following. I have a slight hope you can be able to figure it out.


Acts 1:26 -> Acts 2:14 -> Acts 2:37

None of those matters. Here is how an apostle is chosen:

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.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1 Cor. 12:28.

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.
Acts 13:1–2.

Peter was in grave error. Even if he was appointing a treasurer.

 

[Fred]

None of those matters.

None of what you asserted matters since you insist on dodging the evidence.

 

[jeremiah1five]

None of what you asserted matters since you insist on dodging the evidence.

The Scripture is for our training and admonition. To just take what Peter did without studying whether he was right or wrong is an erroneous approach.
This takes place in Acts which is an historical. It’s up to us to study what was recorded as it happened to learn if they got it right or wrong.

 

[Eleanor]

Please back up your response with biblical proof.

Paul didn't replace anyone. Matthias was an apostle for years before Paul was appointed by Jesus.

Why could Paul not have simply been added as #13, to take the gospel to the Gentiles, since the 12 had been entrusted with the Jews for several years already?

False dichotomy.
Both are correct choices, one by the Holy Spirit and the other by Jesus.

 

[Fred]

The Scripture is for our training and admonition.

In Acts 1:26 Matthias was numbered with the other apostles.
According to Acts 2:14 he stood with Peter while he (Peter) proclaimed the gospel.
In Acts 2:37 those to whom Peter preached to responded to him and to the "apostles" which points back to what was affirmed in Acts 2:14.

 

[Eleanor]

The Scripture is for our training and admonition. To just take what Peter did without studying whether he was right or wrong is an erroneous approach.
This takes place in Acts which is an historical. It’s up to us to study what was recorded as it happened to learn if they got it right or wrong.

Oh, wow!

We get to sit in judgment on the apostles whom Jesus authorized to speak for him, declaring that whoever rejected what the apostles said were rejecting him (Lk 10:16).

And from where does your authorization for this "erroneous approach" come that it trumps the apostles?

Well, you've made rather clear where you stand. . .not with Jesus.

WOW! . . .just WOW! ! !

 

[atpollard]

Matthias was the 12th apostle.

See Galatians 2:9.

See my first comment. Furthermore, the brackets above are mine and the word "an" was removed.

Judas was the 12th Apostle … see the Gospels.
If we want to get pedantic, Matthias was the 13th and Paul was the 14th (or higher depending on ones opinion of people like James).

… all of which comes into play when interpreting Revelation (which I do not do).

 

[Mod 5]

I'd like to thank you all for restoring the thread to the original topic, showing patience and forbearance doing so, and setting this example for others.

 

[jeremiah1five]

In Acts 1:26 Matthias was numbered with the other apostles.
According to Acts 2:14 he stood with Peter while he (Peter) proclaimed the gospel.
In Acts 2:37 those to whom Peter preached to responded to him and to the "apostles" which points back to what was affirmed in Acts 2:14.

There are two different Greek words translated "numbered" in Acts 1:15 and 26.
It doesn't say Matthias was there.
The apostles were the eleven Galileans that spoke tongues. No one knows if Matthias was from Galilee and it's all just guess work.
Why don't we appoint apostles the way Peter did it today?
And who replace James when Herod killed him in Acts 12?
Hmmmm....?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Oh, wow!

We get to sit in judgment on the apostles whom Jesus authorized to speak for him, declaring that whoever rejected what the apostles said were rejecting him (Lk 10:16).

And from where does your authorization for this "erroneous approach" come that it trumps the apostles?

Well, you've made rather clear where you stand. . .not with Jesus.

WOW! . . .just WOW! ! !

I have responsibility to God. Acts is a historical and it doesn't teach what is right and what is wrong. It just records the first 30 years of the Jewish Church.
What we have to do is take the historical and hold it up to the rest of the Jewish writings of the New Covenant to see what they got right and what they got wrong.
And Peter was in the flesh and disobedient and had no authority to do what he did.
God calls an apostle not a man or men.
That's how the RCC choose their popes. So, if this act by Peter is of God and the RCC do it to replace their Bishop of Rome and make a cardinal an Apostle why doesn't the Protestant Gentile Church do the same??

Hmmmmm....?

 

[Mr GLee]

"Apostles of the Lamb" dates these apostles as when they were with Jesus while He was on the planet as Lamb of God.

Rubbing Jewish flesh against other flesh does not represent the gospel.

It looks to puff up men above all things written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura)

It is Roman Catholic oral tradition passed on as a law of the atheist Jewish fathers. . . . . called a law of the fathers', commandment as I heard it through the father's grape vine.

They have a need for a legion of disembodied worker with familiar spirit gods called patron saints (3550 and rising) like that of Rachel with her idol images or King Saul when God stopped from all forms of communication...

The apostles sent one (not venerable or puffed-up ones) They would never stand in the place of the abomination of desolation making the eternal unseen things of the gospel to no effect.

As apostles sent (empowered) by the Holy Spirit even today, We can plant the incorruptible born-again seed (Christ) and water it with the doctrines of God. But again, they as us today would never be part of the abomination of desolation claiming they were the power to believe God and power to work to please him. .

It does not comes from dying flesh and blood of mankind.

1 Corinthians 3-5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

Ask yourself who sent you today.?

 

[Fred]

There are two different Greek words translated "numbered" in Acts 1:15 and 26.

Irrelevant.

It doesn't say Matthias was there.

Peter was with the eleven (Acts 2:14).
Go back to see who was added to the eleven in Acts 1:26.

 

[Mr GLee]

Irrelevant.



Peter was with the eleven (Acts 2:14).
Go back to see who was added to the eleven in Acts 1:26.

We know who replace the false apostle Judas. Why is the apostle Jesus the son of man not listed among the 12 or Mary?