Was Paul One of the Twelve?

[christundivided]

[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.

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]

You did include Gill. Obviously you reject Gill at times. None of us agree 100 percent with everyone we quote... on everything they say. Don't call me on it when you are in the same boat.

I do believe that every individual has the right and obligation to make their own informed choices. I don't fault "Coffee" for making a choice. I do think it was a bad choice.

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.

Vic, you should really give up. I don't blindly accept the entirety of the Protestant canon as being without error.

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

Yep. He did. Yet, the oldest OT texts that survive are not that OLD. You obviously know nothing about it. In fact, the oldest complete texts are found in the LXX. I bet the bible yo use doesn't reference LXX renderings.

Wait...Jesus didn't mean that but He wasn't referring to all of Israel when He talked about the "twelve tribes". I thought you took the words of Jesus seriously? What's that proverb about a double-minded man....

First, don't be a copy cat... Second, its not in "proverbs". Its found in a NT book written by some "James". We really don't know who this "James" actually is...

I'm not even referencing what could be a scribal error. They list out the tribes in Numbers (and other places) and their list has more than twelve names on it. That's not a transcription error.

Never said you were. There more errors than just something being "transcribed".

Yes...that would be in accordance with how the terminology is used elsewhere in the Bible. So we can either wave away the rest of the Scriptural witness (your solution) or accept that sometimes "twelve tribes" isn't talking about a particular number (the correct solution).

I didn't wave away anything worth having. No, the twelve tribes means "twelve tribes".

[quote author=christundivided]The 12 tribes have their origins in the 12 patriarchs. Do you believe there are really just 12 patriarchs?

1. Adam 2. Noah 3. Shem 4. Ham 5. Japheth 6. Abraham

7. Issac 8. Jacob 9. Reuben 10. Simeon 11. Levi 12. Judah

13. Dan 14. Naphtali 15. Gad 16. Asher 17. Issachar 18. Zebulun

19. Joseph 20. Benjamin 21. Manasseh 22. Ephraim

Would you like me to keep going? (You can also look in Numbers and see that they list 14 patriarchs just in chapter 34.  )[/quote]

You really are "numb".

Act_7:8  And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

David is referenced as a patriarch. Abraham is referenced as a patriarch. Yet, they are not "the 12 patriarchs."

 

[christundivided]

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.

I don't believe such. I made the important decision today to take a bath. I also made the important decision to go to work. I also made an important decision to have an argument with Ransom. I didn't cast a lot or even pray about whether I should or should not do this. Nor do I believe it has anything to do with divine direction from God. So don't peddle you false assumptions onto me.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]

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?

You did include Gill. Obviously you reject Gill at times. None of us agree 100 percent with everyone we quote... on everything they say. Don't call me on it when you are in the same boat. [/quote]

I cited Gill specifically because you consistently use him for your citations. He definitely wouldn't be the first (or even fifth) commentator I would go to.

[quote author=christundivided]

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.

Vic, you should really give up. I don't blindly accept the entirety of the Protestant canon as being without error. [/quote]

Yet you have absolutely no basis for assuming error on this point except for the fact that it will not allow for your personal strained reading of the text. Again, we are not talking about a scribal error where a "12" gets copied as something else. We are talking about lists of names (in multiple places) that make highly the interpretation you are attempting to force into the text, an interpretation that runs counter to the overwhelming consensus in the Church.

[quote author=christundivided]

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

Yep. He did.[/quote]

So you are wrong about the authorship of God's personal revelation or God Himself is confused about the authorship?

[quote author=christundivided]Yet, the oldest OT texts that survive are not that OLD. You obviously know nothing about it. In fact, the oldest complete texts are found in the LXX. [/quote]

Like I obviously know nothing about the question of original language regarding Matthew's gospel, right?  :

Would you like to know why "complete" isn't necessarily that big a deal when discussing validity of texts?

[quote author=christundivided]I bet the bible yo use doesn't reference LXX renderings.[/quote]

Ignoratio elenchi

[quote author=christundivided]

Wait...Jesus didn't mean that but He wasn't referring to all of Israel when He talked about the "twelve tribes". I thought you took the words of Jesus seriously? What's that proverb about a double-minded man....

First, don't be a copy cat... Second, its not in "proverbs". Its found in a NT book written by some "James". We really don't know who this "James" actually is...[/quote]

1 - Using your own words to challenge the claims you make isn't being a "copy cat". It's showing the inconsistency and error you unknowingly display in your own responses.
2 - Proverbs are a particular genre of literature. The book Proverbs was named for this genre because it largely consists of these literary devices. You can find proverbs within many other types of literature.
3 - The authorship of James is irrelevant to the discussion.

[quote author=christundivided]

I'm not even referencing what could be a scribal error. They list out the tribes in Numbers (and other places) and their list has more than twelve names on it. That's not a transcription error.

Never said you were. There more errors than just something being "transcribed". [/quote]

In multiple books? Multiple authors? Across two languages? Hundreds of years apart? Across both the Old and New Testaments?

I'm curious. Have you read any of the available ancient Jewish literature so that you have an understanding of how they thought and what they believed? Any of the Talmud? A few midrashes? Perhaps patristic writings?

[quote author=christundivided]

Yes...that would be in accordance with how the terminology is used elsewhere in the Bible. So we can either wave away the rest of the Scriptural witness (your solution) or accept that sometimes "twelve tribes" isn't talking about a particular number (the correct solution).

I didn't wave away anything worth having. No, the twelve tribes means "twelve tribes". [/quote]

Then deal with the passages in question instead of just ignoring them. (Oh yeah...there are about a dozen (irony) passages that say you are wrong you are going to have to deal with.)

[quote author=christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]The 12 tribes have their origins in the 12 patriarchs. Do you believe there are really just 12 patriarchs?

1. Adam 2. Noah 3. Shem 4. Ham 5. Japheth 6. Abraham

7. Issac 8. Jacob 9. Reuben 10. Simeon 11. Levi 12. Judah

13. Dan 14. Naphtali 15. Gad 16. Asher 17. Issachar 18. Zebulun

19. Joseph 20. Benjamin 21. Manasseh 22. Ephraim

Would you like me to keep going? (You can also look in Numbers and see that they list 14 patriarchs just in chapter 34.  )[/quote]

You really are "numb".

Act_7:8  And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

David is referenced as a patriarch. Abraham is referenced as a patriarch. Yet, they are not "the 12 patriarchs."[/quote]

Odd....it's almost like....

....the phrase is symbolically referring to something else. 

 

[christundivided]

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?

I'm glad that you chosen to reply to almost every single sentence I posted. I did flip a coin a few times and got almost as many heads as I did tails. So... by Divine Providence, I'm not going to do the same.

That's not really equal choices. (to carry on with your requirement). Lets examine this further. What sauce are going to use?

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.

Never said they were equal. That is your own fabricated requirement. I said "valid". Yet, I am glad you used the comparison. I think my water gun analogy would be applicable to choosing between Matthias and Paul. Matthias would be the water gun and Paul would be the 44 Magnum. Both are valid choices but one certainly is more useful, more powerful, and more valuable to Christianity than Matthias.

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?

There's one more choice. One you conveniently ignore. They could have not made a choice. Choose... to not choose. Let God handle it. He handled it without them to start with. He didn't need them to make His choice for Him.

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.

Sure they stood to lose. It was a good start to doing things their own way.

Besides, you're the one that first quoted Proverbs 16:33. You didn't restrict that quote to only be referencing "equal choices". Remember?

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

Hence the lottery. Duh!

And... you make the lot cast.... to be God's choice. Duh!

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

How many days did they wait AFTER THIS RANSOM? Did they go FISHING...... THEN. Did the Holy Ghost meet them down by the sea while they had their nets in the water? How did they KEEP from STARVING? You haven't thought this through. They didn't go fishing because they were out of FOOD.

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.

I imagine it turned out for the good. God is like that. He often fixes our mistakes. Our Lord has done the same for me a time or two in my life. Yet, I don't ignore the "mistake".

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.

Thanks for making my point. The corruption of the Gospel was at stake in Paul's rebuke of Peter. Yet, Paul was the only one to stand up to Peter. Even more reason to see that many just blindly followed Peter in anything he choose to do. No doubt they embraced those jealous Jews who despised God's gift of grace to the Gentiles. There is very little doubt the church at Jerusalem had MANY issues. Even when they did interact with the Gentiles, they want to "rule" over the Gentiles.

 

[rsc2a]

christundivided said: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.

Clearly, God would never trust the outcome to lots.

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?

This actually seems to be a perfect application of Proverbs 18:18.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Never said they were equal. That is your own fabricated requirement. I said "valid". Yet, I am glad you used the comparison. I think my water gun analogy would be applicable to choosing between Matthias and Paul. Matthias would be the water gun and Paul would be the 44 Magnum. Both are valid choices but one certainly is more useful, more powerful, and more valuable to Christianity than Matthias. [/quote]

That's not how Christianity works.

 

[christundivided]

....the phrase is symbolically referring to something else. 

Vic, you win. Its all just like you say it is. Keep up the good fight of faith. Christ has obviously chosen you for a special mission here on planet Earth. I personally believe that mission may have something to do with "zombie apocalypse". I see a PS3 with your name on it, a pack of cheese doodles, and a case of Old Milwaukee. On the other hand, I see a foggy city that looks a lot like the "Vatican". I'm going to "cast a lot" shortly and make a choice.

Regardless of the outcome, God's Providence will have its way. I'm just not silly enough to believe God has left such things up to a "roll of the dice".

 

[christundivided]

This actually seems to be a perfect application of Proverbs 18:18.

So there was a fight over Matthias and Justus?

It sure looked like a setup to me.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Never said they were equal. That is your own fabricated requirement. I said "valid". Yet, I am glad you used the comparison. I think my water gun analogy would be applicable to choosing between Matthias and Paul. Matthias would be the water gun and Paul would be the 44 Magnum. Both are valid choices but one certainly is more useful, more powerful, and more valuable to Christianity than Matthias.

That's not how Christianity works.

[/quote]

Sure it is. God just does the changing. He uses the least among us for the most. Paul is a perfect example of this.

Mat 23:11  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Never said they were equal. That is your own fabricated requirement. I said "valid". Yet, I am glad you used the comparison. I think my water gun analogy would be applicable to choosing between Matthias and Paul. Matthias would be the water gun and Paul would be the 44 Magnum. Both are valid choices but one certainly is more useful, more powerful, and more valuable to Christianity than Matthias.

That's not how Christianity works.

Sure it is. God just does the changing. He uses the least among us for the most. Paul is a perfect example of this.

Mat 23:11  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.[/quote]

Begin in 1 Cor 12, then go back to chapter one (start around v.10), flip to Romans 12, work your way up to the Beatitudes, then I'll give you some more.

 

[Ransom]

christundivided said:

I think my water gun analogy would be applicable to choosing between Matthias and Paul. Matthias would be the water gun and Paul would be the 44 Magnum. Both are valid choices but one certainly is more useful, more powerful, and more valuable to Christianity than Matthias.

And, in due time, they had them both.  Great!

The only problem here is your problematic assumption that Matthias vs. Paul was an either/or alternative, when history shows us it was not.

There's one more choice. One you conveniently ignore.  They could have not made a choice.

Sure . . . but what was wrong with the choice they made?

You're assuming, falsely again, that they were somehow disobedient by making a choice instead of shoving their thumbs up their butts and waiting for some specific instructions from God.  If that's the case, show us the instructions they disobeyed.

Of course, no such instructions are in evidence.

Sure they stood to lose. It was a good start to doing things their own way.

Again, the false assumption that it was wrong for them to take the initiative.

How many days did they wait AFTER THIS RANSOM? [blah blah blah

I don't care. Once again, this is just another manifestation of your false assumption that they shouldn't have gone fishing because they had no instructions from God to go fishing.

I imagine it turned out for the good. God is like that. He often fixes our mistakes.

Yeah, geez . . . it's a good thing God pulled their fat out of the fire, otherwise a bunch of fishermen going to catch some fish would have destroyed the Church, and the Apostles would have ended up selling themselves on the street in little spangly cowboy costumes. We wouldn't want to settle for God's second best!

. . . is what I would say if I bought into your false assumption that they weren't allowed to do anything until God gave them instructions.

Thanks for making my point.

You go right on ahead believing that, boobala.

 

[christundivided]

The only problem here is your problematic assumption that Matthias vs. Paul was an either/or alternative, when history shows us it was not.

History shows no such thing. It simply show a choice made by Peter. A choice that Peter had no right/authority to make.

You're assuming, falsely again, that they were somehow disobedient by making a choice instead of shoving their thumbs up their butts and waiting for some specific instructions from God.  If that's the case, show us the instructions they disobeyed.

They exercised authority they had no right to exercise. I bet if Peter had stood up and said. "Let's vote on what percentage of the donation we all get to split".... You'd have an issue with it wouldn't you? Just because they choose what they did.... doesn't make it right.

How many days did they wait AFTER THIS RANSOM? [blah blah blah

I don't care. Once again, this is just another manifestation of your false assumption that they shouldn't have gone fishing because they had no instructions from God to go fishing.

No, you're the one that implied they would have starved if they DIDN'T go fishing. That was your assumption. Its is obvious that they didn't stare despite the fact they didn't continue to fish.

I imagine it turned out for the good. God is like that. He often fixes our mistakes.

Yeah, geez . . . it's a good thing God pulled their fat out of the fire, otherwise a bunch of fishermen going to catch some fish would have destroyed the Church, and the Apostles would have ended up selling themselves on the street in little spangly cowboy costumes. We wouldn't want to settle for God's second best!

LOL. You are funny. How you took what I said and turned into this is amazing. Its a good thing that Christ intervened and got them back on track. I mean he did show up didn't he? He did change their direction didn't he? I imagine he was just strolling through the neighborhood at the time and said to Himself..... I miss Peter and the gang. I think I'll go teach them a lesson.

. . . is what I would say if I bought into your false assumption that they weren't allowed to do anything until God gave them instructions.

Not so. They were told to "wait". They certainly were not told to preach to each other and cast lots for Judas's replacement. They had been warned that should take action until they received power from God. Its interesting to note that they didn't decide to do much of anything else but appoint Matthias to his position. If they were free to do whatever seemed good to them.... Why not do MORE. Why not just go ahead and preach in the synagogues? Why not begin to perform miracles and cast out demons. Why WAIT for anything Ransom? 

The word "wait" means absolutely nothing to you. My children have done the same thing from time to time. Unless I named absolutely everything they should be "waiting on"......they took it to mean "wait" only involves something they don't care about doing.

 

[Ransom]

History shows no such thing. It simply show a choice made by Peter. A choice that Peter had no right/authority to make.

According to what instructions?

They exercised authority they had no right to exercise.

According to what instructions?

Not so. They were told to "wait".

Not so. They were told to wait in Jerusalem:

And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. (Luke 24:49)

Did they stay in the city? Yep.
Were they were clothed with power from on high? Yep.
Mission accomplished.

Does Jesus tell them to stay in Jerusalem and do nothing else? Nope.

If there is a family emergency, and I am told to stay at home and answer the phone in case there's news, am I disobeying my instructions if I bide the time by watching TV, playing the piano, dealing a hand of solitaire, making a snack, or inviting my girlfriend over to watch a movie? Of course not! The only instruction I have to obey is "answer the phone," and the only way I can disobey it is by making myself unreachable on the phone.

And that is exactly what we see in the first two chapters of Acts.  Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem - in other words, don't leave town. In the meantime, the first Christians were meeting together in their upper room for prayer - in other words, the church was functioning as the church. If part of the function of the church was to appoint enough elders to lead the church, then 120 of them decided to appoint Matthias to succeed Judas Iscariot. 

Where was all this done? In Jerusalem, where they were staying, in accordance with Jesus' command.

"Stay in the city" doesn't mean "don't vote for another apostle."

They certainly were not told to preach to each other and cast lots for Judas's replacement.

"Not told to preach" does not mean "told not to preach."

They had been warned that should take action until they received power from God.

"Don't leave Jerusalem" doesn't mean "do nothing at all."

Its interesting to note that they didn't decide to do much of anything else but appoint Matthias to his position.

Another argument from silence. For all you know, they did many things in their upper-room gatherings that Luke simply didn't regard as newsworthy in the same way.

If they were free to do whatever seemed good to them.... Why not do MORE. Why not just go ahead and preach in the synagogues? Why not begin to perform miracles and cast out demons. Why WAIT for anything Ransom?

They didn't wait. They got together to worship.

The word "wait" means absolutely nothing to you.

The word "wait" means "wait."  Again you neglect that Jesus' specific orders were "wait in Jerusalem," and not "wait in Jerusalem and do nothing else until you receive further instructions."

My children have done the same thing from time to time. Unless I named absolutely everything they should be "waiting on"......they took it to mean "wait" only involves something they don't care about doing.

I frankly don't give a crap what fool instructions you give to your children.

 

[christundivided]

Not so. They were told to wait in Jerusalem:

Did they stay in the city? Yep.
Were they were clothed with power from on high? Yep.
Mission accomplished.

Does Jesus tell them to stay in Jerusalem and do nothing else? Nope.

Gill wrote and any common sense theologian would agree....

But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem; for the space of ten days; here they were to continue during that time, and not depart thence; yea, they were to sit there, as the word used signifies: they were to sit still, and be silent; they were not to begin to preach; they were only to attend to prayer and Christian conversation, and to wait for the Spirit, the promise of the Father; and who also is designed in the following clause:

And that is exactly what we see in the first two chapters of Acts.  Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem - in other words, don't leave town. In the meantime, the first Christians were meeting together in their upper room for prayer - in other words, the church was functioning as the church. If part of the function of the church was to appoint enough elders to lead the church, then 120 of them decided to appoint Matthias to succeed Judas Iscariot. 

Let see... they were told to stay still and pray. "wait" meant more than just to stay in the city. They were to wait on something. They needed to be still, pray and wait on the Holy Ghost for power and direction. Somehow you're attempting to turn this command to "tarry" into "just go about you normal business" just don't "leave the city".

Another argument from silence. For all you know, they did many things in their upper-room gatherings that Luke simply didn't regard as newsworthy in the same way.

Appointing an apostle was news worthy. That's for sure. I imagine if they had gone about establish a church hierarchy, that would have been news worthy. Obviously they didn't..... since they later weren't prepared to even support the simple ministry of making sure church members weren't getting neglected. They appointed an apostle and then proceeded to do little or nothing. They should have done nothing.

If they were free to do whatever seemed good to them.... Why not do MORE. Why not just go ahead and preach in the synagogues? Why not begin to perform miracles and cast out demons. Why WAIT for anything Ransom?

They didn't wait. They got together to worship.

Man what foresight and authority. They actually "worshiped" God? Who would of thunk that that would establish such a baseline of activity.... even to the point they felt confident in casting lots for an apostle. What ingenuity!!!

Don't even pretend that appointing an apostle and "worshiping God" are in the same category of activity.

My children have done the same thing from time to time. Unless I named absolutely everything they should be "waiting on"......they took it to mean "wait" only involves something they don't care about doing.

I frankly don't give a crap what fool instructions you give to your children.

Yeah, a father has to tell his children to wait sometimes. Usually because they are trying to do something they shouldn't be doing. Maybe something they are not prepared for....or something they don't understand.

What were they to wait FOR Ransom?

Why would "waiting" for the power of the Holy Ghost make such a difference? Do you have some wonderful insight on why waiting for such "power" might change ANYTHING?

I know you know the Scriptures enough to know that word "power" and "authority" go hand in hand. You know the debate over Matthew 28:18.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Gill wrote and any common sense theologian would agree....[/quote]

Wait....you're quoting Gill again?!?!

[quote author=christundivided]But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem; for the space of ten days; here they were to continue during that time, and not depart thence; yea, they were to sit there, as the word used signifies: they were to sit still, and be silent; they were not to begin to preach; they were only to attend to prayer and Christian conversation, and to wait for the Spirit, the promise of the Father; and who also is designed in the following clause: [/quote]


So Gill adds to the text. What's your point?

[quote author=christundivided]Let see... they were told to stay still and pray. "wait" meant more than just to stay in the city. They were to wait on something. They needed to be still, pray and wait on the Holy Ghost for power and direction. Somehow you're attempting to turn this command to "tarry" into "just go about you normal business" just don't "leave the city". [/quote]

Ahh...now you are the one adding to the text.

[quote author=christundivided]Appointing an apostle was news worthy. That's for sure. I imagine if they had gone about establish a church hierarchy, that would have been news worthy.[/quote]

So you agree with Ransom?

[quote author=christundivided]Obviously they didn't..... since they later weren't prepared to even support the simple ministry of making sure church members weren't getting neglected.[/quote]

I really think you don't understand what the problems were in Acts 6.

[quote author=christundivided]They appointed an apostle and then proceeded to do little or nothing. They should have done nothing. [/quote]

Scripture please? Or is this more stuff you are just making up?

[quote author=christundivided]Man what foresight and authority. They actually "worshiped" God? Who would of thunk that that would establish such a baseline of activity.... even to the point they felt confident in casting lots for an apostle. What ingenuity!!!

Don't even pretend that appointing an apostle and "worshiping God" are in the same category of activity. [/quote]

Actually, they are very much in the same category.

[quote author=christundivided]Why would "waiting" for the power of the Holy Ghost make such a difference? Do you have some wonderful insight on why waiting for such "power" might change ANYTHING?[/quote]

Now you are just making incoherent statements. I'm reminded of the people who think that loud = true.

[quote author=christundivided]I know you know the Scriptures enough to know that word "power" and "authority" go hand in hand. You know the debate over Matthew 28:18.[/quote]

I've found that the vast majority of the "debate" you know about regarding Scripture is really just a matter of where you disagree with the consensus of the Church.

 

[Ransom]

Gill wrote and any common sense theologian would agree....

Gill has made the same mistake as you: he added to Scripture. He is wrong.

Let see... they were told to stay still and pray. "wait" meant more than just to stay in the city. They were to wait on something. They needed to be still, pray and wait on the Holy Ghost for power and direction.

You have made the same mistake as Gill: you added to Scripture. You are wrong.

Somehow you're attempting to turn this command to "tarry" into "just go about you normal business" just don't "leave the city".

I quoted the ESV, which says (accurately) "stay." If you insist on reverting to the English of the KJV (probably because it gives you opportunity to obfuscate), then it's not going to help you: the everyday meaning of "tarry" is, basically, "linger" or "stay put."  So yes, that is in fact the literal meaning of "tarry" - don't leave Jerusalem.

Appointing an apostle was news worthy. That's for sure.

As pertains to the recipient of Luke's letter, yes, it was. I'm glad you agree.

I imagine if they had gone about establish a church hierarchy, that would have been news worthy. Obviously they didn't..... since they later weren't prepared to even support the simple ministry of making sure church members weren't getting neglected.

They had a church hierarchy. There were the apostles, and there were the rest of the 120 believers who met in the upper room. A little later, when the church was much larger and they needed to delegate their philanthropic duties, they instructed the church to select deacons as well.

According to Acts 6, they actually did this to make sure church members weren't getting neglected, and you take this to mean they weren't prepared to do this.

You gotta laugh. You seem to have trouble distinguishing positive and negative. Do you get a little confused at traffic lights, too?

They appointed an apostle and then proceeded to do little or nothing. They should have done nothing.

I'm still waiting to see evidence of these instructions they "should have" followed, but didn't. I'm going to take your absence of evidence as evidence of absence, pretty soon.

Don't even pretend that appointing an apostle and "worshiping God" are in the same category of activity.

They are in the same category of activity: the normal operation of a local assembly. Churches have leaders. The Bible has instructions on choosing them.

I know you know the Scriptures enough to know that word "power" and "authority" go hand in hand. You know the debate over Matthew 28:18.

28:18? You mean the verse that says Jesus has all power, and therefore the disciples were given their marching orders to go baptizing, teaching and making disciples?

More of the usual operations of a local church assembly, you mean?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Gill has made the same mistake as you: he added to Scripture. He is wrong.

It's called Eisegesis. 

No, not Isa Jesus.  Isa no Jesus.  Isa Jar Jar.