Was Paul One of the Twelve?

[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.

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.)

it's entirely possible. I had just never heard it before.

 

[Castor Muscular]

it's entirely possible. I had just never heard it before.

You could call them the Baker's Twelve.

 

[christundivided]

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.)

it's entirely possible. I had just never heard it before.

The thought is entirely silly. There are many instances in which the "12" are referenced. This alone gives significance to the idea of "12" being important. Sm even mentioned the 12 foundation of the new Holy City. I referenced the 24 elders in Revelation. (which I believe has to be the 12 partiarchs and the 12 apostles). Numbers mean something in the Scriptures.

As to Paul's reference in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, Its not entirely accurate. The truth is that Christ first appeared to Mary. Not Cephas/Peter. He then appeared to the 10 because Judas was gone and Thomas was absent. There is also a textual issue. The Latin texts reference 11. Not 12.

As to Paul's and Lukes' reference to the 12 apart from naming Paul among them.... Paul would have never included himself in such. He didn't have to fight that fight and he chose not to do so. He wasn't called to minister among them. I wouldn't have myself. He did fight to be included. Many would seek to leave him out entirely.

2Co 11:5  For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
2Co 11:6  But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.

From the Scriptures it is clear there is a rank to be seen among the apostles. Peter traditionally being the first leader. James becoming the real leader as we see the early church become more and more influenced by Judaizers. The "12: had/have significance. In the end. The Lord Himself will declare the 12.

Traditionally the choosing of Mathias has been the spring board/justification used to do many silly things in the church. It is the very idea behind apostolic succession. If you believe Matthias was rightfully chosen and really is the 12th. Then you should have no problems with anyone claiming to appoint apostles throughout history. Peter began the practice with Matthias and we all know that the "lot" never lies..... I cast a lot over a doughnut and apple this morning... .The "lot" feel on the "doughnut". I'm so grateful for the sovereign choice of God in my life. <<sarcasm added.

 

[christundivided]

it's entirely possible. I had just never heard it before.

You could call them the Baker's Twelve.

LOL. Good one.

 

[Ransom]

CU said:

Traditionally the choosing of Mathias has been the spring board/justification used to do many silly things in the church. It is the very idea behind apostolic succession.

Crap. It was nothing more than filling a perceived vacancy. Even if the Roman church (and others that teach apostolic succession) use Acts 1 as justification, it's no more necessarily the basis of such than Matt. 16:16 is the basis of the papacy. (I guess Jesus messed everything up when he called Peter a rock, right?)

If you believe Matthias was rightfully chosen and really is the 12th. Then you should have no problems with anyone claiming to appoint apostles throughout history.

Peter listed a very specific qualification for Judas' replacement: "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22)  Matthias was chosen because he had been a follower of Jesus from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Now, unless you have time travel technology, there's no replacing one of the Twelve anymore, and so this passage is justification for nothing.

Peter began the practice with Matthias and we all know that the "lot" never lies.....

No, the lot never lies. It just is.  You will notice, though, that they chose Matthias by lot only after their more conventional criteria brought the candidate pool down to two equal candidates (v. 23). After employing their God-given wisdom, they relied on the hand of Providence.

After that, no one can say Matthias was a bad choice. There is simply nothing said about him after that, neither good nor bad.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]The thought is entirely silly. There are many instances in which the "12" are referenced. This alone gives significance to the idea of "12" being important. Sm even mentioned the 12 foundation of the new Holy City. I referenced the 24 elders in Revelation. (which I believe has to be the 12 partiarchs and the 12 apostles).[/quote]

There are many instances in which temples are also referenced, but when Jesus told them that He could raise it in 3 days if they destroyed it, He wasn't talking about a building. 

Would you like other examples where particular words or phrases are symbolically referring to something else?

[quote author=christundivided]Numbers mean something in the Scriptures.[/quote]

Yes. And it's not always a count of something.

[quote author=christundivided]As to Paul's reference in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, Its not entirely accurate. The truth is that Christ first appeared to Mary. Not Cephas/Peter.[/quote]

It's still entirely accurate. First, the text doesn't say that Jesus showed up to Peter before anyone else. Second, even if it did, "anyone else" could contextually be understood to mean "the Twelve".

[quote author=christundivided]He then appeared to the 10 because Judas was gone and Thomas was absent. There is also a textual issue. The Latin texts reference 11. Not 12. [/quote]

Let's see...we can appeal to the Latin texts over the Greek ones. We can ignore what every translation available (with one exception out of the twenty I checked) says. We can ignore every Bible commentator I (briefly) read on this passage...

...or we can accept that "the Twelve" referred to a particular group of people regardless of the actual number present at the time as the text (and commentaries and translations and context....) indicates.

[quote author=christundivided]As to Paul's and Lukes' reference to the 12 apart from naming Paul among them.... Paul would have never included himself in such. He didn't have to fight that fight and he chose not to do so. He wasn't called to minister among them. I wouldn't have myself. He did fight to be included. Many would seek to leave him out entirely.[/quote]

Can you explain this contradiction?

[quote author=christundivided]From the Scriptures it is clear there is a rank to be seen among the apostles. Peter traditionally being the first leader. James becoming the real leader as we see the early church become more and more influenced by Judaizers. The "12: had/have significance. In the end. The Lord Himself will declare the 12. [/quote]

It's clear there is rank among the apostles?

[quote author=christundivided]Traditionally the choosing of Mathias has been the spring board/justification used to do many silly things in the church. It is the very idea behind apostolic succession.[/quote]

Traditionally, Daniel's dietary choices have been the springboard/justification for claiming that a raw vegetable diet is nutritionally (and morally) superior. What's your point?

[quote author=christundivided]If you believe Matthias was rightfully chosen and really is the 12th. Then you should have no problems with anyone claiming to appoint apostles throughout history.[/quote]

See False Dilemma.

[quote author=christundivided]Peter began the practice with Matthias and we all know that the "lot" never lies..... I cast a lot over a doughnut and apple this morning... .The "lot" feel on the "doughnut". I'm so grateful for the sovereign choice of God in my life. <<sarcasm added.[/quote]

You really don't realize how often decisions were made by casting lots in Scripture, sometimes at the direct command of God, do you?

 

[christundivided]

Crap. It was nothing more than filling a perceived vacancy. Even if the Roman church (and others that teach apostolic succession) use Acts 1 as justification, it's no more necessarily the basis of such than Matt. 16:16 is the basis of the papacy. (I guess Jesus messed everything up when he called Peter a rock, right?)

First, I am NOT focused on Peter as the "rock". My focus is on the method. So, don't be dishonest in your responses to me. Your reference has no application in what I said.

IF and that is a BIG IF, Christ has specifically chosen Matthias, as He did with Peter, (Matthew 16:16) then we wouldn't be having the conversation.

Peter listed a very specific qualification for Judas' replacement: "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]The thought is entirely silly. There are many instances in which the "12" are referenced. This alone gives significance to the idea of "12" being important. Sm even mentioned the 12 foundation of the new Holy City. I referenced the 24 elders in Revelation. (which I believe has to be the 12 partiarchs and the 12 apostles).

There are many instances in which temples are also referenced, but when Jesus told them that He could raise it in 3 days if they destroyed it, He wasn't talking about a building. 

Would you like other examples where particular words or phrases are symbolically referring to something else?
[/quote]

I am well aware of the temple reference. It think you're being really silly. The "temple" reference is explained in the Scriptures. In other words, we read were Christ's "temple" statement actually means his body. We even have other statements in which the apostles reference our bodies as "temples". So "temple" is clearly explained.

Now, I expect you in like manner to find somewhere in the Scriptures were "12" actually means something else. Do use "TEMPLE". Use "12". Get it? Your vastly superior knowledge of time and space should give you the ability to do this.

The Scriptures are very good at explaining themselves. Don't take an example of the word "temple" and make anything of it you will. In like manner, I could say that "grace" actually means "a cute little girl" in Topeka Kansas.  That doesn't actually mean she is the one that "saves" us.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I am well aware of the temple reference. It think you're being really silly. The "temple" reference is explained in the Scriptures. In other words, we read were Christ's "temple" statement actually means his body. We even have other statements in which the apostles reference our bodies as "temples". So "temple" is clearly explained.

Now, I expect you in like manner to find somewhere in the Scriptures were "12" actually means something else. Do use "TEMPLE". Use "12". Get it? Your vastly superior knowledge of time and space should give you the ability to do this. [/quote]

Other than the aforementioned (and clear) example from Paul:

How many tribes did Israel have? Hmm....

[quote author=christundivided]The Scriptures are very good at explaining themselves....[/quote]

Sometimes.

[quote author=christundivided]Don't take an example of the word "temple" and make anything of it you will. In like manner, I could say that "grace" actually means "a cute little girl" in Topeka Kansas.  That doesn't actually mean she is the one that "saves" us.[/quote]

More logical fallacies.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]I am well aware of the temple reference. It think you're being really silly. The "temple" reference is explained in the Scriptures. In other words, we read were Christ's "temple" statement actually means his body. We even have other statements in which the apostles reference our bodies as "temples". So "temple" is clearly explained.

Now, I expect you in like manner to find somewhere in the Scriptures were "12" actually means something else. Do use "TEMPLE". Use "12". Get it? Your vastly superior knowledge of time and space should give you the ability to do this.

Other than the aforementioned (and clear) example from Paul:

How many tribes did Israel have? Hmm....

[/quote]

Yes, there is textual variant. The Latin texts were translated from Greek sources. Except for maybe the book of Matthew, but I don't expect you know anything about this. Obviously, they, (which includes Jerome) didn't change 12 to 11. Its safe to say that they had texts that said "11"

Apparently Christ believed in 12 tribes and 12 thrones.

Mat 19:28  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.

How does 12 not mean 12?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I am well aware of the temple reference. It think you're being really silly. The "temple" reference is explained in the Scriptures. In other words, we read were Christ's "temple" statement actually means his body. We even have other statements in which the apostles reference our bodies as "temples". So "temple" is clearly explained.

Now, I expect you in like manner to find somewhere in the Scriptures were "12" actually means something else. Do use "TEMPLE". Use "12". Get it? Your vastly superior knowledge of time and space should give you the ability to do this.

Other than the aforementioned (and clear) example from Paul:

How many tribes did Israel have? Hmm....

Yes, there is textual variant. The Latin texts were translated from Greek sources...Obviously, they, (which includes Jerome) didn't change 12 to 11. Its safe to say that they had texts that said "11"[/quote]

It's so "obvious" that virtually every translation (and all surviving Greek texts) have "12" yet "11" is correct? Why? Because if the correct number (as virtually every translation, all surviving Greek texts, and every commentary I've seen) is 12, it makes your pet theory indefensible?

[quote author=christundivided]Except for maybe the book of Matthew, but I don't expect you know anything about this.[/quote]

Still the very model of a Christ-follower, I see.

[quote author=christundivided]Apparently Christ believed in 12 tribes and 12 thrones.

Mat 19:28  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. [/quote]

Or He recognized that "the twelve tribes of Israel" was another way of saying "all of Israel".

[quote author=christundivided]How does 12 not mean 12?[/quote]

You didn't answer the question. Let me ask again:

How many tribes did Israel have?

 

[christundivided]

It's so "obvious" that virtually every translation (and all surviving Greek texts) have "12" yet "11" is correct? Why? Because if the correct number (as virtually every translation, all surviving Greek texts, and every commentary I've seen) is 12, it makes your pet theory indefensible?

Nope. Almost every translation task has some type of politics involved. Hence, you get textual variants. I seriously doubt that Paul would have said 12. Just my opinion. Either way, you must account for the variant. You either accept it or deny it. I tend to accept it. Obviously, you deny it.

Still the very model of a Christ-follower, I see.

You didn't know any better. You still don't. What I said was true. Just like you're saying I don't know what I'm doing. You're such a model of a "Christ-follower".

By the way. You usually put "I see" at the front of a sentence.... Yoda. Just a "friendly jab".

Or He recognized that "the twelve tribes of Israel" was another way of saying "all of Israel".

Not really. I tend to take what Christ said seriously. I don't believe that Christ said "12 tribes" to match "12 thrones" as a way to represent "all of Israel". Its a 12 to 12 thing. Not a one to one thing. Get it? I don't expect you to let it go Vic. You have a hard time doing such.

How many tribes did Israel have?

Christ answered it for you. Its 12. Do you believe that Paul was part of the tribe of Benjamin? or do you simply believe his really name was "Ben" and that he was a "jamin" type of guy?

 

[rsc2a]

It's so "obvious" that virtually every translation (and all surviving Greek texts) have "12" yet "11" is correct? Why? Because if the correct number (as virtually every translation, all surviving Greek texts, and every commentary I've seen) is 12, it makes your pet theory indefensible?

Nope. Almost every translation task has some type of politics involved. Hence, you get textual variants. I seriously doubt that Paul would have said 12. Just my opinion. Either way, you must account for the variant. You either accept it or deny it. I tend to accept it. Obviously, you deny it.

Ok...you tend to reject what the overwhelming majority of Christendom accepts as truth. I don't.

[quote author=christundivided]

Still the very model of a Christ-follower, I see.

You didn't know any better. You still don't. What I said was true. Just like you're saying I don't know what I'm doing. You're such a model of a "Christ-follower". [/quote]

If you'd like, I can cite the reference and page where NT Wright discusses the authorship (including probable language) of each of the four gospels. He also describes how each author's background and audience would have changed how they portrayed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, in particular when it comes to their Messianic expectations.

[quote author=christundivided]

Or He recognized that "the twelve tribes of Israel" was another way of saying "all of Israel".

Not really. I tend to take what Christ said seriously.[/quote]

Just because someone doesn't agree with my interpretation doesn't mean I think they take the Christ less seriously than I do.

[quote author=christundivided]I don't believe that Christ said "12 tribes" to match "12 thrones" as a way to represent "all of Israel". Its a 12 to 12 thing. Not a one to one thing. Get it? I don't expect you to let it go Vic. You have a hard time doing such. [/quote]

I know you are a fan of Gill, so I'll use him:

When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, or glorious throne; as he did when he ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God; and was then exalted as a prince, and made, or declared to be Lord and Christ; and was crowned in human nature, with honour, and glory, and angels, principalities, and powers, made subject to him: ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones: for though Judas fell from his apostleship, yet Matthias was chosen in his room, and took his place, and made up the number twelve; a metaphorical phrase, setting forth the honour, dignity, and authority of their office and ministry, by which they should be judging the twelve tribes of Israel;

As an aside, he has no problem accepting Matthias as one of the Apostles. Of course, this becomes plainly obvious when one considers that "the Twelve" often had differing numbers of people being referred to kind of like....

[quote author=christundivided]

How many tribes did Israel have?

Christ answered it for you. Its 12. Do you believe that Paul was part of the tribe of Benjamin? or do you simply believe his really name was "Ben" and that he was a "jamin" type of guy?[/quote]

...this. Because the 1st, 2nd and 34th chapters of Numbers (among other places) lists out the tribes of Israel. Strangely, they come up with a number other than twelve.

 

[Bob H]

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

"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"


This settles it for me. Of course if one denies the inspiration of the scriptures............... then anything goes

 

[Ransom]

First, I am NOT focused on Peter as the "rock". My focus is on the method. So, don't be dishonest in your responses to me. Your reference has no application in what I said.

Have you ever heard of "analogy," or don't they have those on your planet?

IF and that is a BIG IF, Christ has specifically chosen Matthias, as He did with Peter, (Matthew 16:16) then we wouldn't be having the conversation.

No one has said Christ specifically chose Matthias. The other apostles got together after Judas' death and chose a replacement, using both their own God-given wisdom and the guiding hand of Providence.  The only reason we're having this conversation is because certain anal-retentive persons - you, for instance - seem to think this is a Bad Thing.

All fabrications in Peter's own mind.

What was a "fabrication"? That Matthias had been a disciple of Jesus from the beginning? I'm sure that if Peter fabricated that particular fact, someone else would have called him on it.

Or do you mean that their methodology was "fabricated"? If so, so what? It's no different than every other job search in history: the disciples wanted Judas' replacement to have experience comparable to Judas - though with less theft and betrayal, I'm sure.

In fact, the only "fabrication" I see here is your fabrication of reasons that Matthias was a bad choice for the apostles to make - an argument for which you have exactly zero evidence.

The ONLY "Scripture" he used for qualifications/justification can easily be applied to Paul.

You mean Psa. 109:8? How exactly, in the days immediately following the ascension, was Paul qualified to take Judas' "office"?

You logically know this. So, stop wasting my time with your inane comments.

You're no better as a mind reader than as an exegete.

You're also being double minded. At one hand, you say there is significance to the "12" and on the other you point out there are more apostles than just 12.

Which one is it. Is 12 significant or not?

*shrug* There have been many holocausts, but if you talk about "the Holocaust," people will generally know which one you mean.

There are many philosophers, but if you cite "the philosopher," those versed in philosophical studies and literature will know you mean Aristotle.

In other words, there are many times that there is X, but there are also special or distinctive cases of X. There's nothing "double-minded" about that. It's just everyday language. And "apostle" was, after all, simply an everyday word for a messenger. In fact, the Latin synonym was missio, from which we get "missionary."

Yes, the lot LIES. Not every roll of the dice is God's choice.

I guess this one just got by Him. Whoops!

They even inferred that God had to have controlled that choice... by intervening in the choice of the lot.

In other words, they were good theologians, with a right understanding of God's omnipotence.

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" (Prov. 16:33).

NO there wasn't two EQUAL choices.

Really. And you happen to know what distinguished Barsabbas and Matthias, that would have enabled the apostles to favour one or the other without resorting to lot?  Perhaps you could share this enlightenment with the theologians.

There was only one choice. Not two.

Only if Barsabbas and Matthias were the same person, and they were too stupid to realize it.

Your idea of "PROVIDENCE" excludes "CHOICE" or do you even know what "PROVIDENCE" means? "Providence entails ideas for forethought, foreknowledge.... planning and execution.

Amen.

Yes, Matthias was a bad choice.

Sheesh, it's too bad you weren't there to set them straight!

Peter should have waited. He didn't have the power of the Holy Ghost and we all know his propensity to go out on his own.

He wasn't on his own. They all participated. Do you think that Peter's impulsiveness was unknown to the other disciples? Are you somehow under the impression that he held them in some sort of Svengali-like sway that prevented even one of them from asking, "Uh, Peter, are you sure this is the right idea?"

Of course not. That's ridiculous. The fact that they went through with his idea is prima facie evidence that they agreed.

In the grand scheme of things its not really a big deal.... other than to foster silly ideas about "fleeces" and the "roll of the dice".

The misappropriation of other verses in Judges by silly Christians doesn't somehow negate the validity of the disciples' actions in this instance.

 

[christundivided]

I know you are a fan of Gill, so I'll use him:

When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, or glorious throne; as he did when he ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God; and was then exalted as a prince, and made, or declared to be Lord and Christ; and was crowned in human nature, with honour, and glory, and angels, principalities, and powers, made subject to him: ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones: for though Judas fell from his apostleship, yet Matthias was chosen in his room, and took his place, and made up the number twelve; a metaphorical phrase, setting forth the honour, dignity, and authority of their office and ministry, by which they should be judging the twelve tribes of Israel;

As an aside, he has no problem accepting Matthias as one of the Apostles. Of course, this becomes plainly obvious when one considers that "the Twelve" often had differing numbers of people being referred to kind of like....

I'm not necessarily a fan of Gill. Gill was a hyper-Calvinist. Something I totally despise. However, many of his arguments are worthy of consideration. This is not one of them.

...this. Because the 1st, 2nd and 34th chapters of Numbers (among other places) lists out the tribes of Israel. Strangely, they come up with a number other than twelve.

There are accuracy issues with the book of Numbers as well as Ester, and Nehemiah. I don't throw the baby out the bath water. There is no doubt that what has survived didn't come from the hand of Moses or Nehemiah themselves. There is plenty of room to find issues here and there with "numbers". Yet, don't reject the ideal of the 12 tribes themselves or insist that when Christ said "12 tribes"... its just a generic reference to the totality of Israel. Such is nonsense. The 12 tribes have their origins in the 12 patriarchs. Do you believe there are really just 12 patriarchs?

 

[christundivided]

What was a "fabrication"? That Matthias had been a disciple of Jesus from the beginning? I'm sure that if Peter fabricated that particular fact, someone else would have called him on it.

Or do you mean that their methodology was "fabricated"? If so, so what? It's no different than every other job search in history: the disciples wanted Judas' replacement to have experience comparable to Judas - though with less theft and betrayal, I'm sure.

I'm glad you admit that you don't care whether they fabricated the method or not. Just earlier you seemed to have considered the method divine. Thanks for changing your requirement.

In fact, the only "fabrication" I see here is your fabrication of reasons that Matthias was a bad choice for the apostles to make - an argument for which you have exactly zero evidence.

I've already provided the evidence. Evidence you reject.

The next time you have a choice to make.... then by all means....cast a lot for the outcome. Will you do that? You'll be following a good biblical example and we know God's providence will provide for you exactly what God wants to happen. Let me give you an example something you might want to consider.

Lets say you're  choosing to play Russian Roulette with either a water pistol or a Smith and Wesson 44 magnum. Both are valid choices. One will get you wet. The other might get you killed.

What would think about Providence then?

*shrug* There have been many holocausts, but if you talk about "the Holocaust," people will generally know which one you mean.

Not necessarily. It just depends on who knows about what.

There are many philosophers, but if you cite "the philosopher," those versed in philosophical studies and literature will know you mean Aristotle.

Or maybe a "peer-reviewed academic journal"

In other words, there are many times that there is X, but there are also special or distinctive cases of X. There's nothing "double-minded" about that. It's just everyday language. And "apostle" was, after all, simply an everyday word for a messenger. In fact, the Latin synonym was missio, from which we get "missionary."

Even more reason to consider "the 12" as being significant. The "grouping" establishes whom you're talking about. Its called "rank" and "order".

Yes, the lot LIES. Not every roll of the dice is God's choice.

I guess this one just got by Him. Whoops!

Got to love it...... Might it just be that God wants the "gambler" to find failure? Might that be "Providence"? In such a way. God has his way. On the other hand, just because God has his way in such a thing..... doesn't means the same method can accurately choice an apostles.

You still haven't answered it you want to be a Marketing Manager for the city of Las Vegas. You would be good at it. I can see the slogans now.

Come, roll the dice, it doesn't matter if the dice are loaded or not. God will have his way (Pro 16:33  The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. )

They even inferred that God had to have controlled that choice... by intervening in the choice of the lot.

In other words, they were good theologians, with a right understanding of God's omnipotence.

Again. Having His way.... is not an approval of the choice. Nor more than God having his way with Sin is an approval of sin. Even you silly Calvinists know better.

Really. And you happen to know what distinguished Barsabbas and Matthias, that would have enabled the apostles to favour one or the other without resorting to lot?  Perhaps you could share this enlightenment with the theologians.

There was nothing to favor. Its wasn't their choice to make. Nor more than Peter was right leading the disciples to go fishing after Christ died. Maybe Peter did cast lots to determine if he should go fishing or not. If he had, I am sure you would have considered it a great decision.

He wasn't on his own. They all participated. Do you think that Peter's impulsiveness was unknown to the other disciples? Are you somehow under the impression that he held them in some sort of Svengali-like sway that prevented even one of them from asking, "Uh, Peter, are you sure this is the right idea?"

Not necessarily a "Svengali" sway. How about a "Postural" sway? How many of them went fishing with Peter after Christ had already appeared to them twice? Do you think any of them said... Peter, This might be a bad idea .

Of course not. That's ridiculous. The fact that they went through with his idea is prima facie evidence that they agreed.

Yeah, just like when Peter's disciples went along with him when he removed himself from fellowship among the Gentiles.

The misappropriation of other verses in Judges by silly Christians doesn't somehow negate the validity of the disciples' actions in this instance.

They don't have to go to Judges to find it. They just have to follow Peter's example. Make a speech, share one verse of Scripture, pray, and roll the dice to see if God wants the church to have a new million dollar sanctuary. Providence would preclude any reason to consider ...

Luk 14:28  For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?
Luk 14:29  Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30  saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.'

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]

As an aside, he has no problem accepting Matthias as one of the Apostles. Of course, this becomes plainly obvious when one considers that "the Twelve" often had differing numbers of people being referred to kind of like....

I'm not necessarily a fan of Gill. Gill was a hyper-Calvinist. Something I totally despise. However, many of his arguments are worthy of consideration. This is not one of them. [/quote]

So you'll listen to any argument that agrees with your preconceived notions but automatically reject any argument that disagrees with said notions regardless of what the overwhelming majority of Christendom believes.

Logically, how is what you are doing any different than what Coffee is doing regarding the canon?

[quote author=christundivided]

...this. Because the 1st, 2nd and 34th chapters of Numbers (among other places) lists out the tribes of Israel. Strangely, they come up with a number other than twelve.

There are accuracy issues with the book of Numbers as well as Ester, and Nehemiah. I don't throw the baby out the bath water.[/quote]

Ahh...accept the parts you agree with. Discount the parts you object to. On this basis, you really should stop being so critical of Coffee. He's just doing the same thing you are.

[quote author=christundivided]There is no doubt that what has survived didn't come from the hand of Moses or Nehemiah themselves.[/quote]

Jesus clearly thought that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. (sarcasm alert)

But Abraham said,

 

[Ransom]

christundivided said:

I'm glad you admit that you don't care whether they fabricated the method or not. Just earlier you seemed to have considered the method divine. Thanks for changing your requirement.

I don't know whose post you're reading, but I never "changed" anything.

I've already provided the evidence. Evidence you reject.

I reject it because it is no evidence of anything.

The next time you have a choice to make.... then by all means....cast a lot for the outcome. Will you do that?

Sure . . . if, after the due use of the regular means of decision making, I am left with multiple equal options, I am happy to do just that.

Tell you what . . . I'll flip a coin and decide whether to buy a package of spaghetti or linguine tonight for dinner. Deal?

Lets say you're  choosing to play Russian Roulette with either a water pistol or a Smith and Wesson 44 magnum. Both are valid choices. One will get you wet. The other might get you killed.

What would think about Providence then?

Oh, come on.

If you think that holding a water pistol and a revolver to my head are equal options, you're admitting to being a bigger idiot than I had previously suspected.

Even more reason to consider "the 12" as being significant. The "grouping" establishes whom you're talking about. Its called "rank" and "order".

So Matthias was added to the apostleship of one order, while Paul was an apostle of another. I said nothing differently.

Got to love it...... Might it just be that God wants the "gambler" to find failure?

The apostles had a choice between Matthias and Barsabbas, two presumably equal options. How does choosing Matthias over Barsabbas (or vice versa) constitute a failure?

On the other hand, just because God has his way in such a thing..... doesn't means the same method can accurately choice an apostles.

It accurately chose Matthias, and we have pretty much only your ipse dixit claiming they failed.

You still haven't answered it you want to be a Marketing Manager for the city of Las Vegas. You would be good at it. I can see the slogans now.

Fantasize all you want. You've commited a category error. The disciples weren't gambling, they were casting a lot to choose between two candidates. They put up no stakes and stood to lose nothing.

Again. Having His way.... is not an approval of the choice.

And based on the biblical evidence, it's not a disapproval either. You are arguing from silence.

There was nothing to favor. Its wasn't their choice to make.

Hence the lottery. Duh!

Nor more than Peter was right leading the disciples to go fishing after Christ died. Maybe Peter did cast lots to determine if he should go fishing or not. If he had, I am sure you would have considered it a great decision.

I suppose that the only "right" decision in their mind was to sit around doing nothing until they starved, unless they had explicit instructions.

I mean, sheesh - what were they supposed to do, sit on their bedside until they ran out of money?

Not necessarily a "Svengali" sway. How about a "Postural" sway? How many of them went fishing with Peter after Christ had already appeared to them twice? Do you think any of them said... Peter, This might be a bad idea .

Obviously none of them thought it was a bad idea. Nor, it seems, did Jesus - he met them on the beach and cooked them breakfast - and didn't condemn them once for "running ahead" or some such nonsense for deciding to ply their trade without his permission.

Yeah, just like when Peter's disciples went along with him when he removed himself from fellowship among the Gentiles.

Another category error. Paul rebuked Peter for compromising the Gospel and potentially splitting the church into Jewish and Gentile factions. No corruption of the Gospel was at stake by choosing Matthias.

 

[Ransom]

Nota bene: When you begin with faulty assumptions, such as the unstated assumption that Christians may not make important decisions without getting some kind of special leading from God (which has its roots in the Holiness movement of the 19th century, not the Bible), you get the kind of nonsense that christundivided is pushing.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Theology matters.