Answering old threads thread Part II

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's my line!

The fact is that they had been doing so but then stopped following it at all, and intentionally so, in response to Paul's divinely directed trip to Jerusalem to explain "his gospel" to them. (Gal. 2:6-9)
Almost every one of them died outside Palestine, outside the Levant. This is inconsistent with them intentionally stopping the Great Commission.

Unresponsive.
The sentence this was in response to was that he did NOT go to the Gentiles at first but to the Jews, which, if your doctrine is correct, was Peter's (and the rest of the Twelve) job per the Great Commission.
And Paul's. If he was an Apostle equal to all the others. He would have inherited the Great Commission. Of course He also received the Great Commission direct from Our Lord, Who revealed to Paul direct revelation, confirming Paul to be a genuine Apostle and not just a bishop like Matthias.

No! If that were the case then there wouldn't have been any need for him to go and explain it to them. Nor would there have been any need for his apostolic ministry.


Unresponsive.


If that were so, there wouldn't have been any need for Paul in the first place as my first point established. The Twelve were devout to the point of death (exile in the case of John) and had not only been directly trained by Christ but had been given the authority to preach outside of Israel per the Great Commission and had been given the Holy Spirit so as to not have to worry about knowing just what to say or how to say it nor any other consideration related to their competency for the job.

In short, there was no need for Paul at all - if your doctrine is correct.

In effect, the existence of Paul's apostolic position and ministry proves your doctrine false - by itself.
Is Paul's Apostleship substantively distinct from all the other Apostles?

If it isn't distinct it's actually equal to all the others.

Why then was Acts written?

Where did Paul come from?

All the new converts to the faith, who lived far away from Palestine, who were ethnic Gentiles, who lived around all Gentiles, and who first heard the Palestinian Gospel from those converted by Peter in Acts 2:9-11, perhaps read a copy or two of the Gospels which we have in our Bibles. But the only Apostle who ever comes around, if I'm in Galatia or Greece is some guy named Paul. He's not in the Gospel account I heard or read. Not even in Luke's Gospel, and Luke and Paul are attached at the hip.

Acts is Paul's backstory. It's the prequel to his letters. More than anything it establishes that the first generation Church had every reason to believe Paul was an Apostle equal with all the others.

I keep telling everyone that all I want from people is just a hint of actual substance but its as if they don't believe me.

Clete
Do me a favor and if this response isn't substantial, can you instead of berating me, can you point out where I'm lacking? so that I can provide you with substantive content in the future?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If he was an Apostle equal to all the others.

That is what you need to establish.

Something you haven't done yet.

Of course He also received the Great Commission direct from Our Lord,

Book, chapter, verse, please.

Paul's "dispensation" was not the Great Commission given to the twelve Apostles who would sit on twelve thrones ruling over the twelve tribes in the city with twelve walls...

His dispensation was as ONE apostle to the gentiles, as a member of ONE body, under ONE Lord and Head, with ONE baptism.

Is Paul's Apostleship substantively distinct from all the other Apostles?

YES. See above.

If it isn't distinct it's actually equal to all the others.

Why then was Acts written?

Acts was written as a transitional book to show that God had pivoted from working directly with His nation to working with the Gentiles as a result of His nation's rejection of Him.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Almost every one of them died outside Palestine, outside the Levant. This is inconsistent with them intentionally stopping the Great Commission.
No, it isn't.

There were Jews all over that area of the world and they continued to minister to those groups throughout their lives.

And Paul's. If he was an Apostle equal to all the others. He would have inherited the Great Commission. Of course He also received the Great Commission direct from Our Lord, Who revealed to Paul direct revelation, confirming Paul to be a genuine Apostle and not just a bishop like Matthias.
Not only was Matthias chosen in accordance with the qualification spelled out by Peter but the Eleven had been given broad authority to act in Christ's absence, even to the forgiveness or retention of sins. Also, Matthias received God's own endorsement when he received the Holy Spirit along with the rest of the Twelve.

Is Paul's Apostleship substantively distinct from all the other Apostles?
Almost completely so, as I have already established.

If it isn't distinct it's actually equal to all the others.
As I said, I've already established that it was quite distinct. Paul himself distanced himself from the other Apostles, insisting that he did not recieve his gospel from any man, nor was he taught it but he received by direct divine revelation which is a claim no other Apostle made and an event that would have no purpose or explanation unless what he received was significantly different, which of course it was.

Have you ever thought through what Christianity would look like if Paul's epistles weren't in the bible?

You'd be practicing Messianic Judaism!

Why then was Acts written?
If Acts weren't written, none of Paul's epistles would be considered scripture because they contradict the rest of the bible all over the place. Paul would have been dismissed as a heretic if not for the historical record provided by Luke when he wrote the book of Acts.

Where did Paul come from?

All the new converts to the faith, who lived far away from Palestine, who were ethnic Gentiles, who lived around all Gentiles, and who first heard the Palestinian Gospel from those converted by Peter in Acts 2:9-11, perhaps read a copy or two of the Gospels which we have in our Bibles. But the only Apostle who ever comes around, if I'm in Galatia or Greece is some guy named Paul. He's not in the Gospel account I heard or read. Not even in Luke's Gospel, and Luke and Paul are attached at the hip.

Acts is Paul's backstory. It's the prequel to his letters. More than anything it establishes that the first generation Church had every reason to believe Paul was an Apostle equal with all the others.
You're arguing my doctrine here.

Do me a favor and if this response isn't substantial, can you instead of berating me, can you point out where I'm lacking? so that I can provide you with substantive content in the future?
It wasn't horrible but mostly your post was just you stating your opinions. Do you really not know how to make an argument? Perhaps its more difficult for you because you don't place the same authority in the scriptures as I do and so they don't carry the same weight in your mind and you think that your personal opinions are just as substantive as God's own words. That doesn't sound to me like it could possible be true of anyone but I can find no other explanation for why you seem incapable of substantiating your positions with something other than showing up to state them as fact.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Almost every one of them died outside Palestine, outside the Levant. This is inconsistent with them intentionally stopping the Great Commission.
Their "great commission" was to the twelve tribes of Israel, just like the Lord's had been.

John 20:21 (AKJV/PCE)​
(20:21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)​
(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And Paul's. If he was an Apostle equal to all the others.
IF he was an apostle equal?

2Cor 11:5 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:5) For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.​
He would have inherited the Great Commission.
That is you begging the question, as per usual.

Paul was given a "greater commission" for the body of Christ.

Of course He also received the Great Commission direct from Our Lord, Who revealed to Paul direct revelation, confirming Paul to be a genuine Apostle and not just a bishop like Matthias.
Matthias was an apostle just like the other eleven. Why do you attempt to "downgrade" him.
Is Paul's Apostleship substantively distinct from all the other Apostles?
Without any doubt whatsoever!
If it isn't distinct it's actually equal to all the others.
If is most clearly and obviously distinct. So much so that the Peter, James and John agreed to separate their ministry from his. See Gal 2.
Why then was Acts written?
To document the fall of Israel and new and different apostle Paul and his mission.
Where did Paul come from?
Tarsus.
All the new converts to the faith, who lived far away from Palestine, who were ethnic Gentiles, who lived around all Gentiles, and who first heard the Palestinian Gospel from those converted by Peter in Acts 2:9-11, perhaps read a copy or two of the Gospels which we have in our Bibles. But the only Apostle who ever comes around, if I'm in Galatia or Greece is some guy named Paul. He's not in the Gospel account I heard or read. Not even in Luke's Gospel, and Luke and Paul are attached at the hip.
Luke was following the twelve until Acts 16. Then he switched.

Acts 16:7-13 (AKJV/PCE)​
(16:7) After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. (16:8) And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. (16:9) And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. (16:10) And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. (16:11) Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next [day] to Neapolis; (16:12) And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, [and] a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. (16:13) And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted [thither].​
Note the CHANGE in PRONOUNS before and after verse 9!

Also, this is one of the reasons that Peter disappears from that point on to the end of the book of Acts.
Acts is Paul's backstory.
Acts documents the fall of Israel from start to finish.
It's the prequel to his letters.
In a sense that is true, otherwise Paul would have been completely rejected since his epistles are so very different than all that came before him.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
That's my line!

The fact is that they had been doing so
Then you agree that Peter could have been laying the same foundation as Paul?
but then stopped following it at all, and intentionally so, in response to Paul's divinely directed trip to Jerusalem to explain "his gospel" to them. (Gal. 2:6-9)
No, they didn't stopped following it at all, because they were still taking the gospel to those in Jerusalem (first part of the Great Commission). They had already taken it to Samaria (third part of the Great Commission). Since Paul writes to churches he didn't plant, someone else was laying foundations.

So if Peter was at one time laying foundations, and someone besides Paul was also laying foundations, it could very well be that Peter was still laying foundations. So let's see where Peter might have gone to lay foundations.

How about Antioch? Peter was chastised by Paul because when Peter was in Antioch (not part of Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria), and some from James came there, Peter quit communing with the Gentiles. This was before Paul chastised him, showing that Peter communed with the Gentiles previously.

Why was Peter in Antioch? Partly because those who had heard the gospel from him were carrying it to Antioch:
[Act 11:19 KJV] Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
[Act 11:20 KJV] And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
[Act 11:21 KJV] And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
[Act 11:22 KJV] Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

First someone besides Peter went. Then Barnabas went. Then Barnabas got Paul to go to Antioch. Then, somewhere along the line, Peter made it there. Before Peter made it to Antioch, the foundation was laid by men from Cyprus and Cyrene. Barnabas went to confirm those Gentiles in the faith. Paul helped with that, and eventually men from Jerusalem ("from James", according to Galatians) went to make sure all of the Gentiles were circumcised.

Unresponsive.
The sentence this was in response to was that he did NOT go to the Gentiles at first but to the Jews, which, if your doctrine is correct, was Peter's (and the rest of the Twelve) job per the Great Commission.
Peter's and Paul's (and the rest of the apostles).
No! If that were the case then there wouldn't have been any need for him to go and explain it to them. Nor would there have been any need for his apostolic ministry.
Unless he was actually Judas's replacement, chosen by Christ, personally. Or if the others weren't quite as willing to suffer what Paul was to suffer, at least not yet.
Unresponsive.


If that were so, there wouldn't have been any need for Paul in the first place as my first point established. The Twelve were devout to the point of death
How do you know this? What is your source to know that the twelve (save John) were devout to the point of death?
(exile in the case of John) and had not only been directly trained by Christ but had been given the authority to preach outside of Israel per the Great Commission and had been given the Holy Spirit so as to not have to worry about knowing just what to say or how to say it nor any other consideration related to their competency for the job.
Right.
In short, there was no need for Paul at all - if your doctrine is correct.
Yet there he is. But if you say there are other foundations (surely you acknowledge that Peter was laying SOME kind of foundation, right), then you contradict Paul.

[1Co 3:11 KJV] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

In effect, the existence of Paul's apostolic position and ministry proves your doctrine false - by itself.
I don't see how. Peter and friends stayed in Jerusalem until persecution came (stoning of Stephen), then many (Philip is a good example, not to mention those in the verses I cited above) went outside of Jerusalem and Judea, but to the Jews only. Then some went to the Gentiles. All this was before Paul went to Antioch. But Peter and the 11 still stayed, at least until James bar-Zebedee was killed by Herod and Peter almost was. Why do you think persecution was needed to get them out of Jerusalem?
I keep telling everyone that all I want from people is just a hint of actual substance but its as if they don't believe me.

Clete
I think you sincerely want good conversation, but you lack the patience to engage people where they are.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Unless he was actually Judas's replacement, chosen by Christ, personally. Or if the others weren't quite as willing to suffer what Paul was to suffer, at least not yet.

It's like this passage doesn't even exist for you...

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,And let no one live in it’;and,‘Let another take his office.’ “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This all happened a YEAR before Paul's encounter.

Matthias was Judas's replacement. Simple as that.

How do you know this? What is your source to know that the twelve (save John) were devout to the point of death?

Because every single one of them except for John was martyred for their beliefs.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Then you agree that Peter could have been laying the same foundation as Paul?
What?

Is this a real question?

If so, it demonstrates that you and I are speaking different languages. I can find no mental path to that question.

No, they didn't stopped following it at all, because they were still taking the gospel to those in Jerusalem (first part of the Great Commission). They had already taken it to Samaria (third part of the Great Commission). Since Paul writes to churches he didn't plant, someone else was laying foundations.
That isn't what the bible teaches, as I have already established. Your stating an opposing opinion doesn't count as a rebuttal to a biblical argument.

So if Peter was at one time laying foundations, and someone besides Paul was also laying foundations, it could very well be that Peter was still laying foundations. So let's see where Peter might have gone to lay foundations.
Unresponsive and irrelevant.

How about Antioch? Peter was chastised by Paul because when Peter was in Antioch (not part of Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria), and some from James came there, Peter quit communing with the Gentiles. This was before Paul chastised him, showing that Peter communed with the Gentiles previously.
Again, you present evidence that supports my doctrine and not yours. Peter was trying to play both sides of the fence and Paul called him out on this hypocrisy. If everyone was preaching the same stuff, there would not have been two sides of a fence for Peter to play and that whole episode could never have happened.

Why was Peter in Antioch? Partly because those who had heard the gospel from him were carrying it to Antioch:
[Act 11:19 KJV] Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
[Act 11:20 KJV] And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
[Act 11:21 KJV] And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
[Act 11:22 KJV] Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Peter going to Antioch is neither in dispute nor relevant to the topic at hand. What exactly are you even trying to argue?

First someone besides Peter went. Then Barnabas went. Then Barnabas got Paul to go to Antioch. Then, somewhere along the line, Peter made it there. Before Peter made it to Antioch, the foundation was laid by men from Cyprus and Cyrene. Barnabas went to confirm those Gentiles in the faith. Paul helped with that, and eventually men from Jerusalem ("from James", according to Galatians) went to make sure all of the Gentiles were circumcised.
Okay, so what?

You seem to be arguing MY doctrine!

Do you think we aught to be preaching a gospel where the church might send someone to make sure everyone gets circumcised?

Put another way, do you practice according to the gospel that James preached (a gospel which the bible states had been "committed to Peter" by the way, and to which Peter instinctively defaulted) or do you practice according to Paul's gospel?

Peter's and Paul's (and the rest of the apostles).
Is this you stating that you don't intend to respond to the actual argument?

Unless he was actually Judas's replacement, chosen by Christ, personally.
Which I have already established biblical is definitely not the case.

Or if the others weren't quite as willing to suffer what Paul was to suffer, at least not yet.
A notion that you have exactly zero evidence for and which would contradict the fact that all twelve of them had been given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (a Jewish feast day, by the way).

How do you know this? What is your source to know that the twelve (save John) were devout to the point of death?
Are you denying that's its true?

The ancient history concerning the Apostle's deaths is admittedly somewhat less than iron clad but...

Peter was crucified upside down.
Andrew was crucidied.
Marthoma Christians in India claim that Thomas was pierced through with the spears of four soldiers.
Philip was put to death by a Roman Proconcul in retaliation for having converted the proconcul's wife.
Matthew's death is in dispute. Some reports say he was not martyred, while others say he was stabbed to death in Ethiopia.
There are various accounts of how Matholomew met his death, with martyrdom being the common denominator.
Josephus reported that James was stoned and then clubbed to death.
Simon was killed after refusing to sacrifice to a Sun god.
Matthias was burned to death.
Andrew was also burned to death.
John is the only one believed to have dies a natural death but did so in exile.

That's eleven of the twelve. There is confusion because there are at least three people named James in the New Testament, two of which were Apostles, and their histories are muddled.

As for citing a source, I don't have a specific one to cite you. If you deny that this is the well accepted history of the church and has been for many centuries then I'd say the extraordinary claim is yours and thus so is the burden of proof.

As for me, I count it as an enormous point for me that you're having to stretch so far as to question to devoutness of the Twelve and throw their martyrdom into doubt in an attempt suggest that they were, at least initially, cowards to the extent that it was necessary for God to replace them with Paul!

Is there even one other Christian at any point in the history of the church or even of the whole history of planet Earth that has ever even implied such a thing?

Right?

What do you mean, "Right."?

That "Right" just contradicted everything you've said up to this point!

Yet there he is.
Exactly!

But if you say there are other foundations (surely you acknowledge that Peter was laying SOME kind of foundation, right), then you contradict Paul.
No, you just aren't following the simplest of logic.

News flash!
Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, Derf!

When Jesus went to Heaven, the idea was for the Twelve to spread the gospel that Jesus and the Twelve had already been preaching and which Peter did preach in Acts 2. This process was underway when a certain man named Saul started putting every Christian he could find into prison or killing them outright. At the same time Stephen is presenting "irresistible wisdom" to the leaders of Israel and then gets murdered for his trouble at which time we see Christ standing (i.e. in judgment) in response to this event and goes and coverts Saul on the road to Domascus.

In short, the very Jewish foundation that Peter and the Twelve were laying was stopped when Israel was cut off for unbelief. God, having cut off Israel (Israel being the people of the circumcision - not a coincidense), turned instead to the Gentiles and through the converted Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin (again no coincidence), now called Paul, begins a new foundation laying project called "The Body of Christ".

[1Co 3:11 KJV] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Is this you trying to argue that Paul was undermining his own ministry when he stated explicitly...

Romans 15:20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation,

or were you hoping that I was just somehow unware that this passage existed?

I don't see how.
I just showed you how.

Peter and friends stayed in Jerusalem until persecution came (stoning of Stephen), then many (Philip is a good example, not to mention those in the verses I cited above) went outside of Jerusalem and Judea, but to the Jews only. Then some went to the Gentiles. All this was before Paul went to Antioch. But Peter and the 11 still stayed, at least until James bar-Zebedee was killed by Herod and Peter almost was. Why do you think persecution was needed to get them out of Jerusalem?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit that the Twelve recieved at Pentecost had left them or is it that you believe that the Holy Spirit was just inspiring them to be dilitory to the point that some of them had to be murdered to get them off their backsides in Jerusalem?

That, was a rhetorical question. Obviously neither is true. The point being that your doctrine simply ignores the fact that the Twelve had been given the Holy Spirit and would therefore not be prone to the errors of judgment that you are suggesting took place. Indeed, they would be utterly immune to such errors.

I think you sincerely want good conversation, but you lack the patience to engage people where they are.
If by "were they are" you mean lazy, stupid or boring, then yes, you're quite right. I have no patience for people who don't have the brains or wherewithall required to escape a wet paper bag.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Then you agree that Peter could have been laying the same foundation as Paul?
Peter and the eleven were simply continuing to build on the foundation of the law and the prophets. Virtually everything that Jesus is quoted as saying in the "four gospels" (M,M,L&J) came from the law and the prophets.
Unless he was actually Judas's replacement, chosen by Christ, personally.
It's stunning that we have to go over this ridiculous nonsense time and time again. NO, Paul was NOT the replacement for Judas. Paul was NOT qualified!
  • Firstly, at that time Paul was an UNBELIEVER.
  • Secondly, Paul did not meet the requirements:
    Acts 1:21-22 (AKJV/PCE)(1:21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (1:22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
  • Thirdly, scripture makes it clear that Matthias was God's choice in that "he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Acts 1:25
    And he received the Holy Spirit just like the other eleven. Acts 2.
Scripture gives no reason to doubt that Matthias was the correct choice to replace Judas, unless the goal is to downgrade the unique and different ministry that God gave to Paul.
I don't see how. Peter and friends stayed in Jerusalem until persecution came (stoning of Stephen), then many (Philip is a good example, not to mention those in the verses I cited above) went outside of Jerusalem and Judea, but to the Jews only. Then some went to the Gentiles.
Where is your scripture for that?
All this was before Paul went to Antioch. But Peter and the 11 still stayed, at least until James bar-Zebedee was killed by Herod and Peter almost was. Why do you think persecution was needed to get them out of Jerusalem?
Because they were to convert Jerusalem first (being the capital of the nation of Israel). Once it was clear that Jerusalem was NOT going to accept their Messiah and their kingdom, the "great commission" was cancelled... then God gave the mystery of Christ to Paul (and Christianity was born).
I think you sincerely want good conversation, but you lack the patience to engage people where they are.
That is funny coming from someone that will not actually engage at all.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
It's like this passage doesn't even exist for you...

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,And let no one live in it’;and,‘Let another take his office.’ “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” And they proposed two:
Let's say your children gave you 2 choices. 1. Bring home pizza for dinner, or 2. Take everbody out for burgers. Let's also say that you had other plans (grilling steaks).

So the children cast lots to see which one of their 2 choices you had to do. The lot lands on pizza.

Do you bring home pizza or do you grill steaks?
Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This all happened a YEAR before Paul's encounter.

Matthias was Judas's replacement. Simple as that.
Only simple if you've already decided that God's choice was to let the apostles choose the candidates, when He might have had other plans.
Because every single one of them except for John was martyred for their beliefs.
How do you know this?

Besides James, tell me your source(s) for any other apostle's martyrdom.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Let's say your children gave you 2 choices. 1. Bring home pizza for dinner, or 2. Take everbody out for burgers. Let's also say that you had other plans (grilling steaks).

So the children cast lots to see which one of their 2 choices you had to do. The lot lands on pizza.

Do you bring home pizza or do you grill steaks?
WOW, what a dumb post!
Only simple if you've already decided that God's choice was to let the apostles choose the candidates, when He might have had other plans.
What makes you think that Jesus did not bring up the replacement of Judas during His FORTY DAY training course on the kingdom?

Do you disagree with their requirements? Do you think that there were tons of people that met these requirements?

Jesus made it clear that THEY (i.e., the eleven) had the authority to make these types of decisions. After all, they will be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The scripture never once gives any hint that they chose incorrectly, so why do you keep trying to make that claim?
 

Derf

Well-known member
WOW, what a dumb post!
Thanks!
What makes you think that Jesus did not bring up the replacement of Judas during His FORTY DAY training course on the kingdom?
What makes you think he did?
Do you disagree with their requirements? Do you think that there were tons of people that met these requirements?
I'm not the one who decides what the requirements are. Are you? Were the apostles? If you say yes, then you're begging the question. If you say no, then you're agreeing with me.
Jesus made it clear that THEY (i.e., the eleven) had the authority to make these types of decisions. After all, they will be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Remember Narnia, how all 4 thrones had to be filled by sons of Adam and daughters of Eve? And if one wasn't filled, Narnia wouldn't see spring again? How do we know that it doesn't require all 12 thrones to be filled by a direct choice of Jesus Christ for them to have that authority? You're arguing from silence.
The scripture never once gives any hint that they chose incorrectly, so why do you keep trying to make that claim?
Yes, it does. Compare these two scriptures:
[Tit 1:1 KJV] Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
[2Pe 1:1 KJV] Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Tell me from those two verses how Peter and Paul have different offices, different authority?

And I notice you left out my question about sources for the apostles' martyrdoms. Any reason for that omission?
 

Right Divider

Body part
What makes you think he did?
Why would He not? He instructed them for FORTY DAYS about the kingdom. That kingdom needed twelve apostles for twelve tribes. So why would Jesus leave out this important information on the replacement of Judas Iscariot?
I'm not the one who decides what the requirements are. Are you?
Why do you ask stupid questions? YOU were the one doubting their decision.
Were the apostles? If you say yes, then you're begging the question. If you say no, then you're agreeing with me.
I have no idea what you're talking about. They made a decision based on a very detailed requirement. Do you think that they just made it up on their own? Scripture given no indication that they did anything incorrectly.
Remember Narnia, how all 4 thrones had to be filled by sons of Adam and daughters of Eve? And if one wasn't filled, Narnia wouldn't see spring again? How do we know that it doesn't require all 12 thrones to be filled by a direct choice of Jesus Christ for them to have that authority? You're arguing from silence.
As usual, you do not understand what the argument from silence means.
Yes, it does. Compare these two scriptures:
[Tit 1:1 KJV] Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
[2Pe 1:1 KJV] Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Tell me from those two verses how Peter and Paul have different offices, different authority?
I don't judge the difference based on ONLY TWO VERSES OF SCRIPTURE. I judge it based on the totality of all the scripture.

You think that you can just find a verse here or there to argue against the entire rest of the Bible (and particularly Paul's epistles).

Again, I will remind you that Peter disappears about halfway through the book of Acts. If they both had equal and continuing ministries, that would be quite odd. But it's not odd, because the ministry to the twelve was being discontinued. The reason for that was twofold:
  • First, Israel's rebellion again Christ and His kingdom was causing their program to be delayed (i.e., put on hold until a future time).
  • Second, God was beginning a NEW program through the apostle Paul that had previously hidden from everyone.
Rom 11:25-27 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (11:27) For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
And I notice you left out my question about sources for the apostles' martyrdoms. Any reason for that omission?
Yes, the reason is that I'm not involved in that discussion.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Why would He not? He instructed them for FORTY DAYS about the kingdom. That kingdom needed twelve apostles for twelve tribes. So why would Jesus leave out this important information on the replacement of Judas Iscariot?
As I said, it's an argument from silence.
Why do you ask stupid questions? YOU were the one doubting their decision.

I have no idea what you're talking about. They made a decision based on a very detailed requirement. Do you think that they just made it up on their own? Scripture given no indication that they did anything incorrectly.

As usual, you do not understand what the argument from silence means.
hmmmm
I don't judge the difference based on ONLY TWO VERSES OF SCRIPTURE. I judge it based on the totality of all the scripture.
meaning your system drives your understood scripture, rather than scripture driving your understanding.
You think that you can just find a verse here or there to argue against the entire rest of the Bible (and particularly Paul's epistles).

Again, I will remind you that Peter disappears about halfway through the book of Acts. If they both had equal and continuing ministries, that would be quite odd. But it's not odd, because the ministry to the twelve was being discontinued. The reason for that was twofold:
  • First, Israel's rebellion again Christ and His kingdom was causing their program to be delayed (i.e., put on hold until a future time).
  • Second, God was beginning a NEW program through the apostle Paul that had previously hidden from everyone.
All that may be true, but the other apostles were still involved in its spread, albeit reluctantly to the gentiles. The program might have changed, but the gospel didn't.

The hidden part was that Gentiles and Jews would be fellow heirs.

Except the ministry of the 12 wasn't discontinued, else they wouldn't have all been martyred, save John.
Rom 11:25-27 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (11:27) For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
In other words, the Jews were blinded to the gospel of Paul, right?
Yes, the reason is that I'm not involved in that discussion.
ok. But do you have an opinion?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Yes, do you have a real answer?

How about if you just answer it, instead of "finding a mental path" to it?
No.

You've now gone pretty much totally unresponsive.

Way to go, Derf! You managed to run out of substance the moment you clicked "Post reply" on one singular post! Since then, you've called into question the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit, the devoutness, ability and competence of the Twelve Apostles and equated the use of the biblical record with arbitrarily deciding one's doctrine in advance.

The effect is that I get to chalk up just one more instance where those who disagree with my doctrine don't have a rational leg to stand on, as has been my unbroken experience for over two decades now.
 

Right Divider

Body part
As I said, it's an argument from silence.
It's a perfectly reasonable deduction from the facts.
meaning your system drives your understood scripture, rather than scripture driving your understanding.
That is ridiculous, like most of what you write.
All that may be true, but the other apostles were still involved in its spread,
The "other apostles" were NOT spreading the gospel of the grace of God.
They were spreading the gospel of the kingdom.
albeit reluctantly to the gentiles.
Again, DOCUMENT this in scripture.
The program might have changed, but the gospel didn't.
Wrong.
The hidden part was that Gentiles and Jews would be fellow heirs.
This is in the BODY OF CHRIST.
The kingdom of Israel was not the body of Christ.

The mystery of Christ is still hidden from you.
Except the ministry of the 12 wasn't discontinued, else they wouldn't have all been martyred, save John.
Again, a claim without an argument.
In other words, the Jews were blinded to the gospel of Paul, right?
The Jews were blinded to their own kingdom gospel and their Christ.
ok. But do you have an opinion?
No.
 
Last edited:
Top