Was Paul One of the Twelve?

[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.

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

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.
[/quote]

Well at least we know your stand now. Now, I understand all the obfuscating. You really have no idea what traditional Christian thinking involves.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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

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

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]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.

Well at least we know your stand now. Now, I understand all the obfuscating. You really have no idea what traditional Christian thinking involves.[/quote]

Yes, I stand with Martin Luther:

This life therefore is not righteousness, but growth in righteousness, not health, but healing, not being but becoming, not rest but exercise. We are not yet what we shall be, but we are growing toward it, the process is not yet finished, but it is going on, this is not the end, but it is the road. All does not yet gleam in glory, but all is being purified.

And Paul:

And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18 ESV)

And Jesus:

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (John 15:2 ESV)

 

[christundivided]

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

Never said any different.

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.

For a good reason.

1Co 15:8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1Co 15:9  For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1Co 15:10  But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Joh 10:16  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

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"?

Not one of them had the promise of the empowering of the Holy Ghost. Not one of them. They were told to "wait" to be witnesses.... but they couldn't wait to appoint a member of the 12?..... Come on....

Nothing but men. I'm not saying I could have done better. I couldn't have, but I recognize their mistake. The casting of lots is a joke. It was never used in such a case. Never. Maybe David should have cast lots between his sons in choosing a new king. Maybe Solomon wouldn't have turned away from God...

Paul didn't have to play the Ananias card that we know. He may have played the card and the again, Ananias may have been dead. There are several possible/valid reason he didn't.

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.

I have just as much proof as you have of Mathias. More. Who would think that 120 people could be duped all at one time. Who would of thunk it. It's never about impossible... <<<sarcasm added.

Peter was their leader and probably should have been to some degree. It didn't last long. James had high expectations.

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?

There were more. Yet, I do agree with the distinction of the 12. I just disagree with your rejection of Paul in general.

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.

Sure they did.

Act 14:14  Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Act 14:4  But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.

No doubt the title was given Barnabus due to his dealings along with Paul.

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

I get it now. Sorry. You're saying that Paul swore to God and committed sin. Yet, you know that Christ himself swore to God. (Matt. 26:63)

Maybe you don't understand what  Matthew 5:34 actually teaches.

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.

So Paul had a vision from heaven. You know no different. He considered it to be personal teaching of the Gospel. Not that Christ actually returned to earth and walked and talked with him. You're stretching the meaning to fit what you want it to be.

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

Okay. This means what?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him,

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=rsc2a]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.

Well at least we know your stand now. Now, I understand all the obfuscating. You really have no idea what traditional Christian thinking involves.

Yes, I stand with Martin Luther:

This life therefore is not righteousness, but growth in righteousness, not health, but healing, not being but becoming, not rest but exercise. We are not yet what we shall be, but we are growing toward it, the process is not yet finished, but it is going on, this is not the end, but it is the road. All does not yet gleam in glory, but all is being purified.

And Paul:

And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18 ESV)

And Jesus:

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (John 15:2 ESV)
[/quote]

Humm.... you miss the fact that contrasted this with " trans-formative regeneration event called "getting saved"". You don't become anything until you're regenerated.

I doubt that SM actually believes in regeneration. I maybe wrong. I kinda doubt it.

Here is couple verses from Paul you ignored.

Rom 7:21  I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

 

[rsc2a]

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.

Unless those thrones and gates and foundations all have symbolic meaning....

 

[christundivided]

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.

Unless those thrones and gates and foundations all have symbolic meaning....

Even in AMillennialism 12 actually represents 12 of something... moron. 12 doesn't somehow magically turn into whatever # you want to use.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Even in AMillennialism 12 actually represents 12 of something... moron. 12 doesn't somehow magically turn into whatever # you want to use.[/quote]

Unless it's not even talking about a number...


I also see that you still strive to be like Jesus in how you engage others in conversation. /sarcasm

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Even in AMillennialism 12 actually represents 12 of something... moron. 12 doesn't somehow magically turn into whatever # you want to use.

Unless it's not even talking about a number...


I also see that you still strive to be like Jesus in how you engage others in conversation. /sarcasm
[/quote]

Yeah... like a number doesn't really mean a number. It could be any particular arrangement one wants. I mean, the fact that a number was chosen to convey a thought is entirely irrelevant. Someone needs to tell other people about this.. because its creating a lot of confusion.

Sorry for calling you a moron. Will you consider me a follower of Jesus now?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Even in AMillennialism 12 actually represents 12 of something... moron. 12 doesn't somehow magically turn into whatever # you want to use.

Unless it's not even talking about a number...


I also see that you still strive to be like Jesus in how you engage others in conversation. /sarcasm

Yeah... like a number doesn't really mean a number. It could be any particular arrangement one wants. I mean, the fact that a number was chosen to convey a thought is entirely irrelevant. Someone needs to tell other people about this.. because its creating a lot of confusion. [/quote]

And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king! (Acts 26:6-7 ESV)

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion... (James 1:1 ESV)



Ten tribes no longer existed. The "twelve tribes of Israel" was a way of referring to all of Israel. It wasn't even about the number except as a symbol. 





[quote author=christundivided]Sorry for calling you a moron. Will you consider me a follower of Jesus now?[/quote]

Sure.

 

[graceandtruth]

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

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

 

[AresMan]

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?

Joh 11:25  Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Joh 11:26  And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Joh 6:40  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

[Izdaari]

I don't remember ever hearing that Paul was one of the Twelve. But he did claim to be, and was accepted by the early church as, an Apostle sent by God to be "the apostle to the gentiles", and I think that was correct.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I don't remember ever hearing that Paul was one of the Twelve. But he did claim to be, and was accepted by the early church as, an Apostle sent by God to be "the apostle to the gentiles", and I think that was correct.

Right.  He claimed to be the "apostle to the gentiles".    But he can't be one of the twelve if his inclusion increases the count to thirteen. 

 

[rsc2a]

I don't remember ever hearing that Paul was one of the Twelve. But he did claim to be, and was accepted by the early church as, an Apostle sent by God to be "the apostle to the gentiles", and I think that was correct.

Right.  He claimed to be the "apostle to the gentiles".    But he can't be one of the twelve if his inclusion increases the count to thirteen.

Why not? There was a point where "the Twelve" only had 11.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:3-6 ESV)

In other words, "the Twelve" is synonymous with the Apostles, regardless of number. Or, as I told CU, the term "the Twelve" isn't really about a number at all. (I can provide modern day examples as well.)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

As Marty pointed out on another thread, Judas replacement is recorded in Acts, by Luke...who we believe when he quotes Christ in his gospel, but not when he quotes Christ in Acts.
It gets confusing to someone of my inferior intellect.....as opposed to those who have ability to name their own canon!

 

[Ransom]

The issue isn't how many apostles, but rather how many apostles of Jesus;

"Of Jesus" is understood. Who else would an apostle be an apostle of? All you're saying is:"It's not about the number of apostles, it's about the number of apostles."

Paul made claim to being a part (or on equal terms) as the 12.

Yes, he did. A claim that was accepted by the twelve in Jerusalem: "When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them" (Acts 15:4); "they listened to Barnabas and Paul *as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles" (v. 12); and in the letter that resulted from that council, the apostles said they were sending it with "beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ" (25-26).

In other words, they:

• received Paul and Barnabas with open arms;
• heard and believed the report of Paul and Barnabas, that the Holy Spirit was working in the Gentiles; after all, the apostle Peter (who was one of the Twelve, was he not?) had reported the same experiences;
• endorsed their ministry, by sending their letter back to Antioch with them.

Paul himself says:

[W]hen they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised  (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Gal. 2:7=9)

Paul was probably actually speaking of an earlier trip to Jerusalem, but nonetheless his account harmonizes with Luke's narratives: the Twelve recognized that God had entrusted Paul with a ministry to the Gentiles, and they endorsed him.

In Peter's letters, he certifies the letters of Paul as Scripture along with the "other Scripture" (2 Pet. 3:16) - and, as I mentioned before, Peter was a prominent member of Jesus' original 12 apostles.

None less than the Holy Spirit himself commissioned Paul for his missionary work:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.

 

[Ransom]

BTW, have you ever noticed that when the most virulent apostasies try to discredit Christianity, they always go after Paul?

The Judaizers, Ebionism, Islam, Unitarianism, and 20th-century liberalism - all have, as a prominent talking point, some kind of dichotomy between Jesus and Paul. It's actually a pretty good way to spot a heretic . . .

 

[Darkwing Duck]

If Paul actually was taught by Christ, then something is amiss. If Paul actually saw Christ and was mentored by Him, Jesus either never actually left the earth, Jesus lied by coming back to earth in a manner different than how He promised to come back, Paul is giving instruction to the churches through revelations instead of the Holy Spirit teaching Christ