Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The "current program" seems to tolerate, and in some cases, advocate sinful behavior.

Which just means that we've passed the litmus test for accurately preaching Paul's gospel, because He was accused of teaching the same thing.

I prefer the "real program".

You prefer lies.

The OAs were already in Jerusalem, while Paul was visiting in the foreign lands.
Jesus had commanded the apostles..."
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
"Go ye into all the world."
Your inferring that they decided not to "go into all the world".
Eventually they did go into all the world, as most died in far away lands, refuting the "circumcision only" thesis.

JudgeRightly:
I think, as Scripture states, that they recognized, after Paul went into them to explain his doctrine to them, that preaching to gentiles would be ineffective for them, since the doctrine they were taught directly by Christ was different (with similarities) to what Paul was given, and as such, agreed with him, that he would go to the uncircumcision, and they to the circumcision, Israel.

It is written..."Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" (Acts 15:24)
Their doctrines were the same.
Salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.


JudgeRightly:
Why would Paul or Barnabas stop teaching at synagogues where the Jews there did not believe in Christ the Savior, and were effectively Gentiles?

They stopped only after the Israelites showed they didn't believe in Christ the Savior.

JudgeRightly:
What laws were abolished?

The priesthood, circumcision, dietary rules, tithing, feast keeping, sabbath days, etc.

JudgeRightly
Why do you continue to deny what Jesus said?
The Twelve taught that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead, before He was crucified?

Nope.
Jesus died for our sins and was raised form the dead after He was killed on the cross.

JudgeRightly
Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.“Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart.And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. - Luke 9:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke9:1-6&version=NKJV

Or could it be that there were two different gospels, one that Jesus taught the Twelve, called the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, where Jesus was to be the King and Israel's Messiah, and another, called the gospel of the grace of God, where Jesus was crucified, buried, and was raised, so that the entire world could be reconciled to God, and be saved from eternal suffering in hell?

Same gospel.
Obey and live forever, versus, you can obey and live forever.
One presentation from the perspective before His resurrection and one from the perspective after His resurrection.


JudgeRightly
Not what I asked. Why won't you let it do so for you?

I do.

JudgeRightly
Why does the Bible not mention, except in passing in a very few instances, such mission trips done by the Twelve? You'd think that since Jesus Himself told them to go into the world, such missions would have been the main focus of the Bible, but instead, we have Paul going into the world, while the Bible shows the Twelve staying in Jerusalem for the majority of the rest of their lives.
I'm not saying that the Twelve didn't go on mission trips, only that the Bible minimizes those trips, but magnifies the trips Paul went on, and that it does so for a reason, which you so far seem ignorant of, or have ignored.

It is because the bible's words were completed before they "went into the world".

Fix your post. As Derf said, you've made it extremely difficult for anyone to respond to it.

How can anyone not believe the Lord's apostles were part of His body?

Because the Bible shows that they aren't, but part of a different program.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You make much of the number 12, but it doesn't help you if Paul could be one of those twelve--and I don't see anything the proves he couldn't be.
It is surely your doctrine that prevents you from seeing it. The text of scripture is clear as can be. There is NOTHING in the bible, whatsoever, that would suggest anything other than that Matthias replaced Judas - nothing.

Mat 19:28 was obviously spoken to more than twelve of His disciples, or Matthias and Joseph Barsabas would not qualify.
You're stretching here. It doesn't make any difference how many people heard Him say it. He's talking about twelve of the them sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It isn't me that made much of the number twelve is was Jesus. In fact, throughout the bible the number twelve is associated with human government and with Israel in particular. So much so that you can pretty much assume that any reference to the number twelve anywhere in the bible is a reference to Israel starting from the point at which Jacob had twelve sons.

But if both qualified so well that a lot needed to be cast to decide, then of all the people to whom Jesus said, "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones...", some of them will NOT sit on one of those thrones, Joseph Barsabas being the prime example.
Thank you Capt. Obvious.

So what?
Therefore Jesus' words didn't mean that everybody that heard them would sit on one of the 12 thrones, even if they faithfully followed Him (unless the meaning is more the position shared by a larger group than twelve, and "12 thrones" is figurative--in which case your argument is even weaker).
Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas wasn't going to last and I'd be very surprised to learn that you believe that He didn't know that Matthias would replace Judas at some point, not that it matters! How many people heard Him say it is completely irrelevant. There wasn't ever going to be more than twelve apostles. In other words, there isn't any reason at all to think He wasn't making referrence to the twelve apostles, regardless of who was going to be occupying Judas's seat. Even if there were no Body of Christ and Israel's Kingdom Gospel had endured to this day, there would still be twelve and only twelve apostles.

Let's consider the "numbered with the eleven apostles" phrase. Matthias isn't the only one it is used of in Acts 1. Judas was the other one.
For he [Judas] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [Acts 1:17 KJV] But Mat. 19:28 specifically speaks of "in the regeneration", usually taken to mean after the restoration of all things, but certainly AFTER the apostles have all died. Therefore Judas could also be resurrected and participate--except that he is excluded. By whom is he excluded? Not by the apostles themselves, but by the judgment of Christ. If Jesus can exclude one that He chose Himself, then surely He can exclude someone that He didn't choose.
Irrelevant.

There is no evidence that Jesus did so. The only reason to even postulate the possibility is because you have some doctrine to protect. There is exactly zero biblical evidence that Matthias was in anyway unqualified or rejected by anyone, most especially the risen Jesus Christ.

The interesting thing about Rev 21:14 is that the names aren't recorded.
I feel an argument from silence coming on.

So Paul might well be one of the names--you don't know any more than I do.
Yes, I absolutely do know, for a fact, that Paul's name is not one of them. The reason I know this is because I let the text of scripture determine my doctrine and so I have NO REASON to think that it won't be Matthias' name there. Not only to I not have any affirmative evidence to suggest that Paul's name would be there, there is a ton of evidence that it won't be. Paul's ministry was very specifically NOT to Israel and the foundations being discussed in Revelation 21 are the foundations of the New Jerusalem. It was Peter and the Twelve that agreed with Paul that they would stay in Jerusalem and minister to Israel while Paul did the opposite and left Jerusalem and minister to gentiles.

To assert without the shadow of doubt one (Matthias) over the other (Paul) is to add to scripture...or at least to interpret scripture by your system, which is something you guys are telling me not to do. Be consistent and don't do it yourselves.
WHAT?

THIS ENTIRE POST OF YOURS IS BASED ON NON-BIBILICAL CONJECTURE!!!! (All caps is for emphasis only - not yelling!!)

It is Jesus' own words, as well as John's Revelation, that proves that the Twelve are associated with Israel. They will not only be named on the capital city's foundations but sit on thrones judging "The twelve tribes of ISRAEL" and it is Galatians 2 that tells me that Paul COULD NOT HAVE BEEN one of the Twelve because, not only was he told, by revelation, to go explain his gospel to the Twelve, but his ministry was NOT to Israel and that the Twelve's gospel and ministry was exactly, specifically and exclusively that!

Clete

P.S. No time to respond this morning to your other post. I'll get to it as soon as time allows.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You make much of the number 12, but it doesn't help you if Paul could be one of those twelve--and I don't see anything the proves he couldn't be.

Since Clete already addressed this, I'll just say again that there is no evidence that indicates that he should be, only evidence that Matthias took over Judas's office, and in agreement with Clete, the only reason to think Paul was the twelfth is to satisfy the needs of one's doctrines.

Mat 19:28 was obviously spoken to more than twelve of His disciples, or Matthias and Joseph Barsabas would not qualify. But if both qualified so well that a lot needed to be cast to decide, then of all the people to whom Jesus said, "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones...", some of them will NOT sit on one of those thrones, Joseph Barsabas being the prime example. Therefore Jesus' words didn't mean that everybody that heard them would sit on one of the 12 thrones, even if they faithfully followed Him (unless the meaning is more the position shared by a larger group than twelve, and "12 thrones" is figurative--in which case your argument is even weaker).

Clete addressed this sufficiently in his post.

Let's consider the "numbered with the eleven apostles" phrase. Matthias isn't the only one it is used of in Acts 1. Judas was the other one.

So is Peter, just a few verses after Matthias was numbered "with the eleven."

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. - Acts 2:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:14&version=NKJV

By your same reasoning that Matthias possibly couldn't be the twelfth, so too you could reason that Peter wasn't one of the Twelve, using that verse.

But scripture, being the word of God, is clear. Luke, inspired by God to write Acts, included Peter "with the eleven." Who were the eleven, if not for James, John, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thomas, Andrew, Simon, Philip, Matthias, James son of Alphaeus, and Judas Thaddeus. At that point in time, Paul wasn't even in the picture. He doesn't show up until later.

In other words, God had already considered Matthias to be the Twelfth, because "he was numbered with the eleven" just as Peter stood up "with the eleven."

I'm willing to wager that if this doesn't convince you, Derf, that "The Twelve" were Peter and the eleven people I just listed, not including Paul, then nothing at all will convince you, because you are so committed to your belief that Paul was the twelfth, and not Matthias that you're not willing to give it up. I advise you to humble yourself and ask God for understanding.

For he [Judas] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [Acts 1:17 KJV] But Mat. 19:28 specifically speaks of "in the regeneration", usually taken to mean after the restoration of all things, but certainly AFTER the apostles have all died. Therefore Judas could also be resurrected and participate--except that he is excluded. By whom is he excluded? Not by the apostles themselves, but by the judgment of Christ. If Jesus can exclude one that He chose Himself, then surely He can exclude someone that He didn't choose.

You're grasping at straws, hoping to find a rescue device for your doctrine.

The problem is that, by all indications, Judas is in Hell. He never repented of what he did, at least according to Scripture. Whether he did so and it's just not recorded is unknown, but it's almost completely certain that he didn't.

The other problem is that the twelve, who had the authority to act as they saw fit, determined that Judas Iscariot's position as the twelfth was now empty, and needed to be filled. They COULD have left it empty, if Judas were to return as the twelfth. But they didn't, and they chose someone else to fill that role, and scripture clearly indicates that the one they chose was accepted by God as the twelfth to replace Judas.

The interesting thing about Rev 21:14 is that the names aren't recorded. So Paul might well be one of the names--you don't know any more than I do. To assert without the shadow of doubt one (Matthias) over the other (Paul) is to add to scripture...or at least to interpret scripture by your system, which is something you guys are telling me not to do. Be consistent and don't do it yourselves.

Supra.

Do you think Paul can't write to the Jews even if He agreed not to "go" to the the Jews?

Do you have any evidence that he would, when he had repeatedly made clear that His calling was to the Gentiles?

Invalid. Assumes that the replacement had to be made immediately but God often has a different timetable than men.

As indicated by Acts 2:14, mentioned above, the decision had already been made by God by that point, and the only rational explanation is that Matthias was the one chosen, unless you're willing to argue that Paul was numbered with the eleven, despite him being completely hostile to the believers at that time.

Can you point to the scripture that tells exactly how many were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues that day, and what were their names?

Irrelevant.


Meaning, something had changed, that required God to choose someone other than the Twelve to accomplish His goals.

Did he? What about Barnabas and Silas?

What about them?

Circular.

It's not.

You assume it was different because of your doctrine that says it was different.

Rather, we're not assuming it was different. The only assumption is that God's word means what it says. Our evidence to the former is that the Bible shows huge differences between what Paul taught and what the Twelve taught.

Jesus and the Twelve taught that one must keep the law.
Paul taught don't keep the law, or you'll be cursed.

Jesus and the Twelve told their converts to give up everything they had.
Paul collected offerings from his converts to give to the congregation of Israel, who had given everything up but were struggling to live, because Christ had not returned yet.

Jesus and the Twelve taught "ye must be born again."
Paul taught we are a new creature, that the old man is dead, so put on the new man.

Jesus and the Twelve taught faith plus works.
Paul taught "grace through faith."

James wrote, "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
Paul wrote, "to him who does not work but believes... his faith is accounted for righteousness.

A few verses before the above, James challenges the notion that Abraham wasn't justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar.
A few verses after the above, Paul states, unequivocally, that if Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Jesus and the twelve believed that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the Twelve ("If John remains until I return" and "you will not make it through all the cities of Israel before I return"), but Christ clearly did not do so.
Paul states almost explicitly that Israel has been cut off until the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

Jesus and the Twelve teach that believers will go through the Great Tribulation, which isn't comforting.
Paul taught that we will be caught up before it, and that his words should be a comfort to believers.

Jesus and the Twelve taught and preached what was recorded in the scriptures of their day (what we today call the Old Testament).
Paul taught and preached what he called a mystery, something that had never been revealed, that was kept secret since before the world was.

The twelve never referred to what they taught as "my gospel."
Paul, on the other hand, CONSTANTLY referred to what he taught as "my gospel" and "I, not the Lord, say."

I could go on and on with the differences, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

But Paul was instrumental in teaching them something else,

Thanks for conceding one of the points we've been making.

as Peter tells us in 2 Pet 3:15. These were hard things for Peter to swallow, but swallow them he had to.

Why were they hard to swallow, if they're part of the same thing he with the eleven were teaching?

You'd think if it were part of the same gospel, it would just slot right into what Peter and the eleven were teaching. But in many cases, as I listed above, what Paul taught directly contradicts what the twelve and even what Jesus Himself taught!

Or perhaps explaining why he kept including Gentiles, which they were supposed to in Jerusalem, according to Peter's vision, but they were reticent to do.
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [Acts 15:9 KJV]
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. [Acts 15:11 KJV]
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. [Acts 15:12 KJV]

You seem to keep forgetting that Acts 15 took place about 14 years after Paul's conversion. They had convened to resolve the conflicts they had encountered, whether the Gentiles whom Paul had converted (to the Body of Christ) should keep the law, which was part of the New Covenant.

There's no mention of Paul explaining his "gospel" to the twelve, only explaining how God was working miracles among the Gentiles.

Just as with the four gospels, which sometimes each only contain some portions of events that are included or excluded in the other books, so too does Acts 15 and Galatians 2 give different parts of the whole.

Just Peter calling it "the gospel":

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [Acts 15:7 KJV]

"Gospel" just means "good news."

That's what I've been saying. Peter didn't get that they were supposed to be including the Gentiles that believed, even though they weren't following the whole law (and especially circumcision). But if you read Paul's description, Peter really DID get it--he was hanging out with Gentiles and living like the Gentiles. The problem was that Peter pretended NOT to be living like the Gentiles when the men from James came.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [Galatians 2:14 KJV]
Peter was living like a Gentile--he wasn't following the Jewish law! Peter definitely "got it", but then he backslid into law-keeping to put on a show for those from Jerusalem.

The problem was that Peter was being a hypocrite.

He taught "keep the law" yet lived like he didn't have to keep the law.

Paul agreed to go to the Gentiles with same good new Peter was preaching to the Jews.

No, he didn't.

He agreed to go to the Gentiles, yes. But not with the same good news.

There's a reason Paul makes the distinction:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter . . . and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. - Galatians 2:7,9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7,9&version=NKJV

The "gospel for the uncircumcised" and "gospel for the circumcised" were given to two different people. What more indication do you need to tell you that they're different?

If they were the same gospel, why not just say "But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel had been committed to me, as it was to Peter..."?

Why make a distinction at all unless they are actually two different gospels?

Not without revealing the weakness of your position.

That being?

You mean they didn't need to appoint Matthias? I'd agree with that.

Clete was asking "why the need for Paul?" not "why not appoint Matthias?"

Nope, just your interpretation/system.

False.

You should combat it harder.

We are.


Good.

You said "explicitly".

Here is what I said again:

So what? "He was numbered with the eleven apostles" is explicit. He's part of that group of apostles, the TWELVE Apostles who will sit upon TWELVE thrones over the TWELVE tribes of Israel in the coming Kingdom in the New Jerusalem which has TWELVE gates.

When the Bible says something specific like that, you should pay attention, not dismiss it.

See what I said above near the beginning of this post.

Can you elicit what you meant?

Supra.

Why would I think that?

Do you not recognize the figure of speech?

Can you give me scripture?

Acts 2:14.

Ok. He was willing to wait another year for Israel. Why wouldn't He be willing to wait another year for #12?

Because the Holy Spirit asked for a year to work, to fertilize.

That's entirely what Pentacost was about!

Do you not see the connection?

Here, let me show you:

He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ” - Luke 13:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke13:6-9&version=NKJV

The owner of the fig tree is Jesus.
The groundskeeper is the Holy Spirit.
The three years refers to Jesus' ministry, which was 3 years long.
He came for three years, and found no fruit. Israel, whom He ministered to for three years, produced no fruit, and He even said it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it will be for the three cities in which He did most of his miracles in, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
He wanted to cut down the tree, but his groundskeeper requested another year to work on it. The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus' disciples at Pentacost, and nearly a year later, Israel had completely rejected her Messiah, even going so far as to kill His mesengers, so God cut off unbelieving Israel, and grafted in the Body of Christ. That was when Christ confronted Saul on his way to Damascus.

Numerology is an inexact science.

Sure. But even so, there is significance in certain numbers. Take the number three for example.

You can make it say a whole lot of stuff.

Sure, but when certain numbers in the Bible are consistently used in conjunction with certain things, it becomes a pattern that should at the very least be investigated, not simply dismissed out of hand.

Circular--that's the current issue, isn't it? Whether scripture actual indicates Matthias was the one being chosen by Jesus?

Supra.

See my other post(s), above, about this.

Supra.

That's pretty hard to read. If you reply to the whole post of someone, then select the point where you want to comment and hit "enter". The editor will add in the right stuff to keep your postings separate from theirs.

I'm not even going to bother. He needs to fix it himself.

That doesn't say how many spoke in tongues, just how many stood up. There were undoubtedly more than 12 in the upper room.

Agreed. But the fact remains, "Peter stood up with the eleven" is not referring to "Peter and a random group of eleven people."

1 + 11 = 12 in both Peter's case and Matthias's case.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
That's pretty hard to read. If you reply to the whole post of someone, then select the point where you want to comment and hit "enter". The editor will add in the right stuff to keep your postings separate from theirs.
Yeah, I had some trouble posting that time.
Somehow the formatting deleted the author I was responding to and I had to insert the name "JudgeRightly" before each paragraph.
I also had to change the font.
It turned into a mess. 😞
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The evidence that maybe Paul is Judas's authentic replacement are Paul's 13 (and maybe 14, which is the OP's topic) letters /epistles in the New Testament.

Whereas nobody has ever heard from Matthias ever again.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Interesting question.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason why there would have to have been a hard dead line. I'm content with believing that there was a transitional period when the growth of the Kingdom was diminishing while the growth of the Body of Christ was increasing.

If I had to put an outer limit to the timing of it, while I couldn't be dogmatic about it at all, it seems to me that anyone who was born under the dispensation of law could have become saved under that dispensation for as long as they lived.
You don't think being in Christ is being in the kingdom?
It is written..."Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" (Co 1:13)
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I can't agree.

Can you present any evidence to the contrary?

You don't think being in Christ is being in the kingdom?

Which kingdom?

It is written..."Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" (Co 1:13)

That's the overarching Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of Israel is a kingdom of it's own, that falls under the umbrella of the Kingdom of God.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [is] of the LORD. [Proverbs 16:33 KJV]

But the disciples, not exercising their authority to select Judas's replacement, as you would have us believe they had, instead only determined the candidates, and left the choice to the casting of lots.
Actually, that is exactly what the Bible says. Why are you always doubting the plain text of the Word of God?
No one would have thought to include Saul as one of the choices, but Jesus didn't choose his disciples based on how well they knew the law, or history of the nation, or other scholarly achievements. We don't really know what criteria He used. So when the disciples decided they needed to pick from those that had been with them the whole time, that seemed wise, but it might not have been necessary, nor appropriate. In fact, perhaps the biggest requirement was that Jesus chose them.
You sure do speculate a lot. Immediately prior to Jesus' ascension, Jesus trained the eleven for "forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God". Do you really think that the criteria for Judas Iscariot's replacement was not discussed during that time?

Also note that Jesus has told them prior:

Matt 10:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(10:23) But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

So Jesus clearly told them that His return was to be soon (of course, we know that something else intervened).
One way to get the lot to be cast the way you want is to make sure there are only options that you approve of. Since Saul wasn't on the list, and the list didn't have a "wait for now to fill the office" option, the lot might not have been a valid one in Jesus' mind. And since this is the last time you hear of lot casting in the bible to make a decision for the church, perhaps they realized it wasn't the right method for such decisions--certainly not for decisions where they had the authority, because such authority would not require the casting of lots to find out the decision--that's the opposite of exercising authority.

LOL.
Jesus gave them full authority on earth.
Paul didn't meet the apostles' requirements. He did meet Jesus' requirements.
And how exactly do you KNOW this?

Paul was a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, remember?

1Tim 1:12-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:12) And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; (1:13) Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

You don't support that Paul was blaspheming the Holy Spirit, do you?

Mark 3:29 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:29) But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
He knew His will, He WAS a witness of the resurrection, as much as any other apostle was, and He taught him.
And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. [Acts 22:14 KJV]
But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. [Acts 20:24 KJV]
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: [1 Corinthians 11:23 KJV]
The choice of Matthias was urgent and Paul was a LONG way off....
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
That doesn't say how many spoke in tongues, just how many stood up. There were undoubtedly more than 12 in the upper room.
Acts 2:4 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I never said that ONLY the eleven were "filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues". The point is that Matthias was ONE of those filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Acts 2:4 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I never said that ONLY the eleven were "filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues". The point is that Matthias was ONE of those filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues.
And thus you can't use it as a sign of him being Christ's choice to replace Judas.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I understand you are using other evidence, which you feel is telling you that, but using his speaking in tongues with the others at Pentecost is not one of those, as you've just admitted.
There is plenty of evidence for the proper selection of Mattias.
You are searching in the dark for reasons to doubt what scripture plainly says.
 

Derf

Well-known member
There is plenty of evidence for the proper selection of Mattias.
You are searching in the dark for reasons to doubt what scripture plainly says.
That's interesting you would say that, after you provided a piece of non-evidence. Makes me wonder if I can trust what you tell me.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Actually, that is exactly what the Bible says. Why are you always doubting the plain text of the Word of God?

You sure do speculate a lot. Immediately prior to Jesus' ascension, Jesus trained the eleven for "forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God". Do you really think that the criteria for Judas Iscariot's replacement was not discussed during that time?
You have evidence for that, or are you speculating?
Also note that Jesus has told them prior:

Matt 10:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(10:23) But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

So Jesus clearly told them that His return was to be soon (of course, we know that something else intervened).
I don't see the connection.
Jesus gave them full authority on earth.
We've been through this. If they had full authority, and were using it, they wouldn't need to cast lots.
And how exactly do you KNOW this?
That Paul met Jesus' requirements to be an apostle? You're joking, right?
Paul was a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, remember?

1Tim 1:12-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:12) And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; (1:13) Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

You don't support that Paul was blaspheming the Holy Spirit, do you?

Mark 3:29 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:29) But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
I'm not seeing the connection here, either.
The choice of Matthias was urgent and Paul was a LONG way off....
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Can you present any evidence to the contrary?
Derf's citing of Acts 2:4 is sufficient for me..."Acts 2:4 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Which kingdom?
God's kingdom.
That's the overarching Kingdom of God.
So you serve two kings?
The Kingdom of Israel is a kingdom of it's own, that falls under the umbrella of the Kingdom of God.
The nation of Israel is just another man-ruled part of the earth that is ruled by the prince of the power of the air now. (Eph 2:2)
If, when, they decide to forsake sin, they will be welcomed into God's kingdom, in Christ Jesus.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Can you explain why not?
You quoted Acts 2:4 (KJV)..."And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
All of them received the Holy Ghost, and all of them spoke in tongues.
 
Top