Was Paul One of the Twelve?

[Smellin Coffee]

I contend he could not have been nor could he have been an apostle of Jesus at all.

There are only 12 spots and Judas was replaced by Matthias. This was admitted by Luke in Acts 6:2:

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Important matters had to be established or corroborated by at least two witnesses such as criminal/sinful accusation (Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 26:59-61, Matthew 18:16) as well as execution (Deuteronomy 17:6). Jesus Himself said His testimony alone was not valid so He declared both John the Baptist and Jehovah of the Old Testament as witnesses (John 5:30-42). There were also many eyewitnesses at his baptism (Matthew 3:5-17) and Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:4). Even Paul enforced the two-witness principle in II Corinthians 13:1:
1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Each one of the twelve (including Matthias) was appointed in the presence of other witnesses. Paul was not.

The calling of Matthias was endorsed by Jesus as He gave authority to the Twelve. Jesus told Peter and His disciples:

And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Verily I say unto you (disciples), Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Jude also gives credence to the Twelve:

But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Paul had no eyewitness accounts to his calling. If Peter really wrote II Peter, he did Paul no service by calling him

 

[graceandtruth]

So what do the epistles penned by Paul contain that you really, really don't like? 

 

[Castor Muscular]

I never even heard of the notion that Paul was one of the 12 until it was mentioned in this forum. 

 

[Frag]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

Whose gospel? Jesus' or Paul's?

Hmmmm....

 

[graceandtruth]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

Whose gospel? Jesus' or Paul's?

Hmmmm....

What's the difference?

 

[christundivided]

I contend he could not have been nor could he have been an apostle of Jesus at all.

There are only 12 spots and Judas was replaced by Matthias. This was admitted by Luke in Acts 6:2:

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Really? Luke's use of the "12" wasn't necessarily an approval of the 12. No more than when Luke calls "Satan"... ."SATAN" is an approval of "Satan" and everything that goes along with him.

Important matters had to be established or corroborated by at least two witnesses such as criminal/sinful accusation (Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 26:59-61, Matthew 18:16) as well as execution (Deuteronomy 17:6). Jesus Himself said His testimony alone was not valid so He declared both John the Baptist and Jehovah of the Old Testament as witnesses (John 5:30-42). There were also many eyewitnesses at his baptism (Matthew 3:5-17) and Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:4). Even Paul enforced the two-witness principle in II Corinthians 13:1:
1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Each one of the twelve (including Matthias) was appointed in the presence of other witnesses. Paul was not.

Wrong. You leaving out a large part of the picture. After Christ's resurrection. Christ could have appointed Matthias among two witnesses. He DIDN'T. In fact, Christ didn't appoint Matthias at all. You're being dishonest in pretending he did. HE DIDN'T. You're purposely intermixing the idea of "two or more witnesses"in an attempt to prove your point. Matthias has the same issue Paul did. Yet. Paul has Ananias. Matthias does not. You have a direct confirmation of Christ's approval of Paul via Ananias.

Act 9:15  But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Act 9:16  For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

You do not have anything of the sort for Mathias.

The calling of Matthias was endorsed by Jesus as He gave authority to the Twelve. Jesus told Peter and His disciples:

Wrong again. Jesus did not give anyone authority to do ANYTHING they wanted to do. Nice try. This same thing has been used by successive generations to argue for apostolic succession. Do you believe in apostolic succession? You must or are you just fabricating this to get your way?

And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Verily I say unto you (disciples), Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Jude also gives credence to the Twelve:

But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

No names given. It doesn't support Matthias or Paul.

Paul did not respond with any eyewitness accounts, but rather swore an oath, against the teaching of Jesus and Jude ((Matthew 5:34-37, James 5:12). No eyewitnesses. No letter of confirmation from the mysteriously silent Ananias; only Paul

 

[christundivided]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

Whose gospel? Jesus' or Paul's?

Hmmmm....

What's the difference?

That's the entire point of his argument. Its been around a long time. He's not being original at all. Many Judiazers have sought to prove that Paul's Gospel wasn't of God. They believe that if you remove Paul and everything he taught, then you are left with true Judaism. A Judaism that is based on keeping the law and working your way to heaven. He wants to be able to freely boast about his accomplishments.

I very seriously doubt he even believes in a trans-formative regeneration event called "getting saved". He probably believes more along the lines of one "becoming" the "Gospel". 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]That's the entire point of his argument. Its been around a long time. He's not being original at all. Many Judiazers have sought to prove that Paul's Gospel wasn't of God. They believe that if you remove Paul and everything he taught, then you are left with true Judaism. A Judaism that is based on keeping the law and working your way to heaven. He wants to be able to freely boast about his accomplishments.

I very seriously doubt he even believes in a trans-formative regeneration event called "getting saved". He probably believes more along the lines of one "becoming" the "Gospel". [/quote]

These comparisons are not the same thing at all. 

One is a weird form of anti-Marcion Judiazing heresy. (First paragraph) The second (paragraph) is traditional / orthodox Christianity.

 

[Ransom]

I contend he could not have been nor could he have been an apostle of Jesus at all.

Since the Bible never says there had to be a fixed number of apostles, it's frankly beside the point whether he was or not.  Matthias replaced Judas, but beyond that, the question is irrelevant.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

Whose gospel? Jesus' or Paul's?

Hmmmm....

What's the difference?

Where did Jesus ever teach salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Where did Jesus ever teach salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection?[/quote]

When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him,

 

[Frag]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

Whose gospel? Jesus' or Paul's?

Hmmmm....

What's the difference?

Where did Jesus ever teach salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection?

Oh no.  You have gone over to the dark side!!!!

 

[Frag]

Bro, you are heading towards outright heresy.  Be careful.

What happened in the upper room proves one thing -- this was the first gathering of BAPTIST people.

Jesus told them to go to Jerusalem and tarry until they were endued with power from on high (filling of the Holy Spirit) and then to evangelize, baptize and disciple in His power.  NO WHERE did Jesus tell them to vote in a new apostle!!!  But being BAPTIST, a long drawn out prayer meeting got boring, so they had to vote on something  (MOST Baptist get more excited about a chance to vote than a chance to pray).  This was THEIR idea, not Christ's directive.  Jesus had Judas's replacement already picked out -- He personally enlisted the original twelve, and He would personally enlist Paul to replace Judas.

 

[christundivided]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

Whose gospel? Jesus' or Paul's?

Hmmmm....

What's the difference?

Where did Jesus ever teach salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection?

Bingo... I told you.

 

[graceandtruth]

STOP!!!!


Take all the time you were going to waste arguing this stupid point and instead......


GO SOUL WINNING!!!!


Doeg.....

Whose gospel? Jesus' or Paul's?

Hmmmm....

What's the difference?

Where did Jesus ever teach salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection?

In John 3:16-18 Jesus definitely teaches a salvation based on faith that is accomplished by Jesus.  In 1 John 5 we are again presented with salvation through belief and not works.  So here we have Jesus and John both teaching salvation by faith.  That's two witnesses.......

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]That's the entire point of his argument. Its been around a long time. He's not being original at all. Many Judiazers have sought to prove that Paul's Gospel wasn't of God. They believe that if you remove Paul and everything he taught, then you are left with true Judaism. A Judaism that is based on keeping the law and working your way to heaven. He wants to be able to freely boast about his accomplishments.

I very seriously doubt he even believes in a trans-formative regeneration event called "getting saved". He probably believes more along the lines of one "becoming" the "Gospel".

These comparisons are not the same thing at all. 

One is a weird form of anti-Marcion Judiazing heresy. (First paragraph) The second (paragraph) is traditional / orthodox Christianity.
[/quote]

I don't know what point you're trying to make but in general, I don't expect you to make any sense.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Really? Luke's use of the "12" wasn't necessarily an approval of the 12. No more than when Luke calls "Satan"... ."SATAN" is an approval of "Satan" and everything that goes along with him. [/quote]

Luke understood it to be the Twelve, no more and no less. So the early church accepted the significance of the Twelve.

Wrong. You leaving out a large part of the picture. After Christ's resurrection. Christ could have appointed Matthias among two witnesses. He DIDN'T. In fact, Christ didn't appoint Matthias at all. You're being dishonest in pretending he did. HE DIDN'T. You're purposely intermixing the idea of "two or more witnesses"in an attempt to prove your point. Matthias has the same issue Paul did. Yet. Paul has Ananias. Matthias does not. You have a direct confirmation of Christ's approval of Paul via Ananias.

And Paul was alive when Jesus walked the earth. If Paul had been Jesus' chosen "12th man" then he would have either made His way to wherever Paul was at the time or found a way to meet him somewhere and give him the call. He didn't.

Act 9:15  But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Act 9:16  For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

You do not have anything of the sort for Mathias.

One man and he was not present at Paul's calling. Neither was Luke present at Ananias' vision. Instead, you have the known quantity of over 120 in prayer and obedience in waiting for the Holy Spirit including 11 men, hand-picked by Jesus Himself looking to obey His instruction. The result of the casting of lots was witnessed. Nobody fussed, nobody complained. Nobody thought it was a bad idea. If Paul was given a vision by a false entity, why couldn't Ananias? And why during the accusations about his not being an apostle by the churches did Paul never pull the "Ananias card"?

Wrong again. Jesus did not give anyone authority to do ANYTHING they wanted to do. Nice try.

You have to provide evidence that Peter was completely out of line to suggest the twelfth position be filled. And you would have to prove that the 120 witnesses were all deceived into Peter's "fleshly" plot.

This same thing has been used by successive generations to argue for apostolic succession. Do you believe in apostolic succession? You must or are you just fabricating this to get your way?

There were only 12 Apostles. James the Less, the first to be martyred was not replaced. Joseph Barsabbas who qualified to begin with was not accepted as such. What do you think I believe?

No names given. It doesn't support Matthias or Paul.

Fair enough. But then again, NOBODY in the Bible, apart from the 12 claimed to be an Apostle of Jesus other than Paul. And NOBODY ever called anyone else an Apostle of Jesus outside the realm of the 12.

Provide evidence for your claims about Paul. Are you saying that Paul "swore" like Peter?

I posted the Scriptures concerning the swearing of oaths. Take it as you will.

.....and the other Apostles claimed to have personal revelation from Jesus. What is the difference? Sounds like a requirement for apostleship. Looks like Paul qualified.

Peter had a vision from heaven and it was never claimed to be Jesus personally. John had a vision where it wasn't simply a vision, but he was pulled into heaven.

LOL. You're really grasping at straws. Do you really want to be challenged about your belief or are you just looking to bully your belief around?

What do you believe about John the Beloved? Do you remember when "John" received a vision somewhere? Would you question it as well? Or how about Peter's vision in Acts 10. In fact, Luke said Peter called him "Lord". Does that mean anything to you?

Cornelius also called the angel in his vision "Lord". Besides, Jesus elsewhere called the Father "Lord" as well:

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I contend he could not have been nor could he have been an apostle of Jesus at all.

Since the Bible never says there had to be a fixed number of apostles, it's frankly beside the point whether he was or not.  Matthias replaced Judas, but beyond that, the question is irrelevant.

The issue isn't how many apostles, but rather how many apostles of Jesus; apostles that Jesus sent. Paul made claim to being a part (or on equal terms) as the 12.

Remember, they will rule on 12 thrones and the gates of heaven are on 12 foundations named after the 12.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]That's the entire point of his argument. Its been around a long time. He's not being original at all. Many Judiazers have sought to prove that Paul's Gospel wasn't of God. They believe that if you remove Paul and everything he taught, then you are left with true Judaism. A Judaism that is based on keeping the law and working your way to heaven. He wants to be able to freely boast about his accomplishments.

I very seriously doubt he even believes in a trans-formative regeneration event called "getting saved". He probably believes more along the lines of one "becoming" the "Gospel".

These comparisons are not the same thing at all. 

One is a weird form of anti-Marcion Judiazing heresy. (First paragraph) The second (paragraph) is traditional / orthodox Christianity.

I don't know what point you're trying to make but in general, I don't expect you to make any sense.[/quote]

I very seriously doubt he even believes in a trans-formative regeneration event called "getting saved". - CU

This is a good thing.

He probably believes more along the lines of one "becoming" the "Gospel". - CU

This would be in line with traditional Christian thinking.