Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's also good news Jesus called Simon Rock.
Demonstrate the above; prove it.
Yes, right, so prove your above statement, show that it's true.
Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
As far as this issue is concerned it doesn't even matter whether the vision recorded in Revelation was of a literal city, with literally twelve foundations, each with the literal names of the twelve apostles, literally written on them, or not. The point is that there is no biblical reason to believe that Paul's name was seen in that vision. No matter how you slice it, if Paul was included then Matthias was excluded because one thing that we know for certain is that John didn't miscount and miss a thirteenth foundation. And, if Matthias is excluded, then why was he filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - an event that occurred literally one sentence after the eleven went through a very biblical procedure to add him to their number?
I'm seriously having a hard time understanding where the resistance is coming from on this point. It seems that the evidence is clear enough to be compelling even on the most basic and intuitive of levels. Again, regardless of whether the vision in Revelation was of a literal city, there isn't any doubt at all that it was a vision of Jerusalem, which is not the capital city of the world nor any other sort of Gentile city, but it is the capital city of the Nation of Israel. That, along with the copious use of the number twelve all over the place makes it impossible - impossible - that this vision had anything to do with Gentiles and Paul EXPLICITLY states that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles (i.e. not Israel).
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
1 Timothy 2:7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Not only that but Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us that he is THE chief sinner!1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
Why would that be? Could it be because he destroyed the very church that Matthew 16 is talking about?
Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and destroyed it.
If you look up Galatians 1:13 in your bible, you'll note that it reads differently than what I just quoted. It will say "tried to destroy it" but what I posted is what the original language says. The word used is "porthéō" and it means "destroyed". There isn't anything in the text that suggests "tried to". The translators simply added it.
Bottom line is that there seems no end to the evidence against the notion that Paul's name is written anywhere on the foundation of the New Jerusalem. To suggest that it was is pure speculation and it seems too far to go for any reason, much less just to make Paul the author of Hebrews of all things.
Right Divider
Body part
He could have called Peter "Peter", and the rock foundation of God's church would still be that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus was the Son of God with or without twelve, thirteen, or five hundred apostles.
How can anything change what exists?
Jesus was God's Son !
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's not what I was getting at. You seemed to be saying that it wouldn't have mattered as to the consequent history of the promulgation of the Gospel to the world that He is the Son of God, whether there were Apostles.
Not in dispute.
Is.
Okay, seriously! What are you doing here, really? You actually believe that there were twelve Apostles by some sort of accident or coincidence?
What possible benefit could you possibly be deriving from showing up to say the most amazingly insipid things I've seen posted here in years! (Not counting anything about flat Earth theory or how Trump is a Nazi).
You ought to be embarrassed but I know you're just the opposite of that.
Right Divider
Body part
Second worst poster on TOL, but shooting for #1.
Derf
Well-known member
Revelation 21:2 (KJV)
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:9 (KJV)
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Ephesians 5:31-32 (KJV) 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 2:19-20 (KJV) 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
Nothing to do with the church? Only if your system is driving your theology.
Someone else would have taken the apostles place in this hypothetical situation.
The foundation of the church, that Jesus was the Son of God, needs no outside support to make or keep it true.
Wow! Change the subject much?
I'm not going to go into any detail on this at all but Israel is the bride of Christ. God has even divorced Israel in the past. There's a whole book of the Old Testament that is God's divorce decree. They will, however, be remarried. God literally would not be considered qualified to pastor the typical Baptist church.
The Body of Christ is NOT the bride of Christ because its.....
wait for it....
The BODY of Christ!
An analogy made by Paul in Ephesians, not withstanding.
I'm not going to spend any effort to attempt to establish this biblically beyond what I just pointed out concerning the idea that Christ isn't going to marry Himself. It certainly can be established but, for the time being, you'll just have to take my word for it. Perhaps in a different thread, we could get into more detail. For now, the point here is that "the church" is a term that is used for more than one group of believers and is not, by itself, evidence that the New Jerusalem is somehow not a reference to Israel.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Then those men would have been the Apostles.
1) Using a verse from around a year after Matthias was chosen to fill the role (and had been filling) that Judas Iscariot was supposed to fill does not help your argument.
2) Yes, Paul stayed with the Apostles for a time. Guess what, though. There were already 12 of them. Scripture says so literally eight chapters before chapter 9. That makes Paul the thirteenth, not the twelfth. In order for you to get Paul as number 12, you have to ignore what was said in chapter 1 regarding Matthias. In other words, your commitment is to your doctrine, rather than letting scripture speak for itself.
3) The very structure of Acts indicates Paul was not part of what was going on with the Apostles.
Paul (then Saul), is first mentioned at the end of chapter 7, and by the end of Acts, it's all Paul wall to wall.
Peter's name, on the other hand, starts out mentioned from Acts 1, gets mentioned more and more to where it's almost all Peter around chapters 11 and 12, and the last time in Acts we see his name is in Acts 15, at the Jerusalem Council.
In other words, Acts shows Peter's influence decreasing as Paul's influence increases.
The following chart from Bob Enyart's "The Plot" pdf shows Peter and Paul's changing influence in Acts, in the number of mentions per chapter:
In addition to how often Peter's and Paul's names are used throughout Acts , there's also the three Ananiases, representing the spiritual state of Israel (the only three Ananiases in the entire Bible, by the way), and the three instances immediately following Stephen's martyrdom where God specifically and directly speaks to someone and tells them to do something that, given an overview of what was going on at the time, was unusual, especially considering that it's centered on Paul.
TL;DR: Your attempt at supporting your argument is lacking.
No. We're saying that the Apostles (the Twelve including Matthias, not including Paul or Judas Iscariot) were not part of the church started by Paul.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
But none of them are the TWELVE Apostles who will sit on TWELVE thrones ruling over the TWELVE tribes of Israel.
No, they will rule over the Jews. A throne is not a symbol of judgement, typically. It's a symbol of authority, government.
Not just on the last day.
Tiers?
Scripture says otherwise:
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. - Revelation 21:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation21:14&version=NKJV
In other words:
Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Bartholomew, Judas Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
He DID call Peter "Peter."
Peter in KOINE Greek is "PETROS."
And I know you're not a Catholic, but Jesus didn't say that he would build His church on "PETROS" but "PETRA."
Why?
Which church?
If the qualifications for being part of the Twelve were to write large portions of the New Testament, then most of the Twelve are disqualified.
In other words, Paul writing half the New Testament isn't evidence that Paul was one of the Twelve, unless you want to disqualify most of the others.
Rather, it points to there being two halves of something bigger. One half relates to Israel, the other half to something else.
Which is what is called begging the question. A fallacious argument.
So what?
We hardly know anything about at least two of the Twelve. That doesn't make them any less Apostles.
Except that he was never "numbered with the eleven," as Matthias was. Even Peter was "with the eleven." Paul? Never once.
Luke wrote at least two books. He was NOT an Apostle. He was a physician.
Correct.
Doesn't mean Paul was one of "the Twelve." It's not even circumstantial evidence that he was.
He called Peter by his name, "PETROS," and then specified "PETRA" (not Peter's name) for what He would build His church upon.
Yes. But not the gospel of the Kingdom.
We agree!
But not an Apostle to the Jews!
He provided the bulk of CHRISTIAN church doctrine, much of which was a mystery to the Twelve.
False.
The reason is that the Twelve, who were given the authority to do such things, chose Matthias, not Paul, to replace Judas Iscariot, and there is nothing in any of Paul's writings or the rest of the New Testament to indicate that he replaced Judas, rather than Matthias, only commitment to certain doctrines external to scripture.
Don't what? Allow for Matthias to be the twelfth? Or for Paul to be the twelfth? Why would it? If Matthias is the twelfth, and if Paul is the thirteenth to a different group of people, then there's no reason for Paul to be the twelfth. In fact, outside of a change in programs, there is literally no reason Paul should even BE an apostle.
Then what's the problem?
Why do you assume that the list of the Twelve changed between Acts 1 and when they sit on the thrones?
So why believe otherwise?
If Christ said that the twelve that He had chosen would sit on twelve thrones, and then one of them betrayed Him and then killed himself, and then a few days later, He rises from the dead, spends 40 days teaching them about the coming Kingdom of Israel, and about His return, and then they go and immediately pick a replacement for Judas Iscariot, Matthias, and they even do so citing the scriptures(!), why believe anything other than that Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot?
That's at least three witnesses.
God's standard is "two or three to establish a matter."
Again, why would the list of names change? Why Paul at all?
Supra.
Is that not more than enough to convince you that Matthias is the one that actually replaced Judas, and that given the circumstances, Paul was completely unnecessary?
If things had continued as they were going in Acts 1, 2, and so forth, Paul would have been completely unnecessary, because as Christ said, and I paraphrase, "you guys won't even be able to get through all the cities in Israel before I return." Having 12 people spread throughout Israel is a very efficient way to do things. Having 11 (plus one, if you include Matthias) stay in Jerusalem (ignoring the mission trips the twelve did which aren't mentioned in scripture except in passing) while one Apostle goes to the rest of the world is not.
The above link should give some insight.
The "Kingdom of God" is not the "Kingdom of Israel." Rather, the Kingdom of God contains both the Kingdom of Israel (a nation) and the Body of Christ (an organism)
Kingdom of God
|.........................\
Kingdom of........Body of Christ
Israel
As I pointed out above in post #233, Paul isn't even mentioned until the end of Acts 7, and it's when he's partaking in the martyrdom of Stephen, one of the disciples.
Why would He? It's extremely inefficient, not to mention unnecessary, since, again, Christ Himself said that they wouldn't be able to even get through the cities before His return.
Aside from one instance 3 years after his conversion, and his presence at the Jerusalem council 14 years after that, he had ZERO contact with the rest of the Apostles in Jerusalem.
Can't be. "Uncircumcision" is not "Circumcision."
Except that I'm not having a hard time with it.
It's a difference between what Paul taught and what the Twelve taught.
Agreed.
Include what? The Trib?
I'm comparing what Paul said about Christ's return (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), "therefore comfort one another with these words," with what Jesus and the Twelve, particularly John, in writing Revelation, said, along with Daniel and others.
Jesus' second coming, for Israel, means the Great Tribulation, something terrible.
Jesus' second coming, for the Body of Christ, means the rapture PRIOR to the Great Tribulation, a comfort.
Paul taught the latter, while Jesus and the Twelve taught the former.
I'm pointing out the fact that he had the authority to make such statements, compared to the Twelve, who were under the law, which stated and allowed for divorce ONLY through sexual immorality.
Do you see the difference? Paul was not bound by the law, and because of that, he could share his opinion on the matter (within the bounds of what God had taught him, of course), but the Twelve (as Paul taught) were cursed to keep and teach the law until the day they died.
Because He was.
"King of the Jews."
Gentiles had always been able to enter into relationship with God through Israel's covenant relationship with Him.
Having direct access to God WITHOUT the need for a covenant was completely contrary to literally the entire history of Israel!
Of course they couldn't, becuase their laws were, both literally and figuratively, set in stone. You want to enter into a relationship with God, you need to circumcise and keep the law.
Paul didn't teach that, though. He taught specifically to NOT circumcise, and to NOT put oneself under the law, because if you do, you're cursed.
I agree, but that doesn't quite cover it.
There's a difference between being hard-headed, and being unaware of something.
Paul's mystery gospel was "kept secret since the world began." No one on earth, and perhaps even in heaven, knew of Paul's gospel. It was something that had never been explained before.
Supra.
Wrong.
Again, Gentiles had always been able to enter into relationship with God through Israel's covenant. What God was showing Peter in Acts 10 was something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Things that are different are not the same.
No, it wasn't.
The good news of the Kingdom was that the Messiah had come and was getting ready to take His throne.
The good news of the grace of God is that no one has to keep the law to form a relationship with God.
That's actually closer to how the passage reads.
[Galatians 2:7-9 KJV] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the GentilesAnd when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Note the bracketed words in the King James, above, mean those words were inserted for readability, but you can read it without those words just fine. Since "the gospel" is not repeated in vs 7, the emphasis is on the different recipients, not on the different content. Vs 8 backs that up by using the word "apostleship" of the circumcision, i.e., Peter was sent to the circumcision with the same message. If two times wasn't enough, Paul says it again in vs. 9 "that we unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.
The point is that Peter, James, and John (and by extension, the rest of the Twelve) agreed to go to a different group than Paul did.
An unbalanced assignment that doesn't make much sense.
It's the first time recorded in Scripture, which is what matters.
See again post #233.
You're more than welcome to do a study on the number twelve in the Bible and confirm or reject what I said based on that, but I'm not about to do, nor do I have the time to do, a Bible study here in this thread. Suffice it to say that the work HAS been done by at the very least Bob Enyart. Not that he's right, of course, but I'm not making the claim based on nothing but conjecture.
From Bob's "The Plot":
| God associates Israel with the number twelve and also with 144, that is, twelve squared, (122=144). For example, their New Jerusalem has twelve foundations (Rev. 21:14) and walls which tower 144 cubits in height (Rev. 21:17) containing twelve gates (Rev.21:12). Also, Jesus recognized a 24-hour day (John 11:9-10; Mat. 20:9-12; [27:45; John 1:39; 4:52; 9:4; Acts 2:15]). Thus the six working days of Israel's week contained 144 hours in which they could work, just as God sealed the 144 thousand Israelite "servants" (Rev. 7:3-4) for His work. So the 144 hour workweek even further ties the Sabbath to Israel. For God said: "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath…" Ex. 20:9-10 |
By God, to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.
So you say there are two churches?
I can't agree.
One faith, one Spirit, one Lord, one body.
I didn't say it, Paul did in 1 Thes 2:14..."For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus:"
Matt 19:28 says differently..."And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matt 19:28.
What other day of judgement will there be?
Yep.
I agree, the first real apostles of the Lamb.
Yep X 3.
Because it is a hypothetical situation.
The only church founded on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God.
That's what Scripture says. I'm just the messenger.
It's too bad you disagree with Scripture.
And one Apostle...
...for the Body of Christ, the second church.
But for Israel, twelve Apostles, twelve tribes, twelve thrones, twelve gates, one Messiah.
And when was that Epistle written?
Speaking to and about Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Bartholomew, Judas Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who was later replaced by Matthias, according to Scripture.
Revelation confirms what Jesus said:
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. - Revelation 21:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation21:14&version=NKJV
Paul did not meet Jesus' qualifications in Matthew 19:28. He was not one who had followed Jesus at the time Jesus said what He said:
So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. - Matthew 19:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:28&version=NKJV
Paul wasn't even around back then, and therefore is not qualified to sit on one of the twelve thrones.
Matthias, however, was described as one of the men who [had] "accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22)
What are you talking about?
Not what Scripture says.
So you agree that Matthias is one of the Twelve? Good!
Thanks for conceding the discussion.
Why would someone else have taken the apostles place in that hypothetical situation? What's the reasoning for it? Can you explain? Or are you just spouting whatever comes across your mind?
That's not what the eternal nation of Israel is promised. They were promised a Messiah King who would reign over them forever.
Guess I win?