What is your belief about when the church started?

All of the writers were Apostles or they were associated with an Apostle. Unless we agree with your argument, in which case Luke was not associated with an Apostle and Paul was not associated with an Apostle. That leaves us with very few NT books.

 

Interesting, to say the least! What Apostle was Moses associated with? Joshua? David? Ruth? Esther? Solomon? Isaiah? Daniel? Etc., etc., etc.

And where does the bible say "Apostolic association" is necessary for God to use a man to pen His inspired word? I must have missed that one.

God spoke through a bush and a donkey in the OT. Were they associated with an Apostle?

 

I believe that Paul was an Apostle, but not one of the twelve. He was in no wise inferior to the twelve, but had his own apostleship. PreachtheWord's statement may have started the discussion about Paul being one of the twelve:

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. Latreia, amidst his chagres of:

seems to have completely missed the point. And he thinks I am confused?

 

DocCas said

DocCas, you often chide others for not reading posts carefully. Please read mine carefully. I clearly said

Even seminarians who have not yet graduated generally know that apostles did not write the OT.

DocCas, those who consider Paul an BIG A postle have given evidence for their view on this thread. Note C.S. Murphy's evidence:

Note Latreia's evidence:

Rather than respond to the evidence you have tried to redirect the topic to whether Paul was one of the twelve rather than whether he was a BIG A postle. Now you have tried to belittle my statement by bringing the OT into the discussion, which I clearly did not mean. I don't expect you to be able to prove a negative (i.e. Paul was not a BIG A postle), but I wish you would directly address the evidence that has been presented rather than trying to redirect the conversation and belittle those who disagree with you.

 

I would be interested some exegesis of this passage by you to show how you understand this passage restricts Christ's headship until after the resurrection. Secondly, I would remind you that technically the church could have come into existence after His resurrection and still have been in existence before Pentecost. That is not my position, but I know a few who take that view.

As far as I know, this is not in dispute by anyone.

Does this mean He gave no spiritual gifts before the resurrection?

I have a problem understanding why you would not acknowledge the power to heal the sick and cast out demons as a spiritual gift.

[ October 03, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

This is very interesting.

If Paul were here he would feel the need to write the second letter to the Corinthian Church and to the Galatian Church in defense of his Aapostleship.

I believe Paul was definitely an Apostle:

Galatians 1.11-12

I believe the church was gathered from among the believers receiving the baptism of John. I believe they became a church when Jesus gathered them.

As to whether they knew these things; I don't know, sometimes I am slow in discerning the will of God for myself. But consider that all things were spoken to them concerning this will and then Christ said:

"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14.25-26

This body Christ was "...yet present with..." was the church.

They believed in Christ before the resurrection, how else could John baptize them having preached belief on the one to come after him. They entered into the same belief Abraham did, who we are told received Isacc: "Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure." Heb. 11.19

They must have believed something.

(Shoot me but I also think John knew something of the church from Mk. 1.8; John 1.33; Lk. 3.16; Mt. 3.11 and John 3.29).

God bless you all in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

 

Even seminarians who have not yet graduated generally know that apostles did not write the OT. </font>[/QUOTE]Swaimj, I am sorry you were so offend by my little jest. However, the question remains, if the presense of an Apostle is necessary for the inscripturation of God's word, then do you not consider the OT to be equally as authoritative as the New?

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I did note that, but, of course, it does not address the issue, does it? Paul had great authority as a man sent by God, and as a man used for the inscripturation of about 1/3 of the New Testament. But that does not make him the replacement for Judas, nor does it negate the Apostolic Office held by Matthias. Also note that Paul did not meet the requirements given by Peter in Acts 1 as he did not accompany the others from the time of John's Baptism.

</font>[/QUOTE]Again, either Paul was the replacement for Judas instead of Matthias, or he was not. I contend he was not on the basis of Peter's requirements, and that Matthias was considered by the other 11 as one of them, not Paul.

Again I apologize for offending you so, but, of course, I did deal with the evidence, and stated it. If the bible is not all given by inspiration of God, or if the NT is more inspired than the OT due to the presense of Apostles, did God fail to mention that fact? I don't think so. I believe the writings of Paul are as authoritative as any other scripture, not because Paul was an Apostle (he wasn't) but because God inspired the writings of Paul just as He did the rest of the bible. It is not a writer's title or his association with an Apostle which makes his writings authoritative, but his association with the Almighty!

 

DocCas, again I find your response lacking in substance. There is really nothing to respond to directly, but I do want to point out the poor methods of argumentation that you are using.

First, you use this little ploy at the beginning of your post and again at the end:

and

DocCas, I am not the least bit offended by your jest or your post. You made a sarcastic reply to me (which I consider an acceptable form of humor when used in moderation--goodness knows Paul used it) and I replied with a little sarcasm, followed by a to indicate I meant no offense. Be careful DocCas, if you judge my sarcasm to be an indication of offense taken, I have to wonder what you intend when you use sarcasm toward others.

Secondly, though I have pointed out that no one is arguing that Paul was one of the twelve, you continue to attack us for the view. Example:

Thirdly, though I pointed out that I connected apostleship with the NT and not the OT, you continue to argue about that saying

No one here has espoused the view that apostles wrote the OT or that the OT is inferior to the NT. This is a strawman that springs from your imagination.

Fourthly, rather than respond to C.S. Murphy's statement

You assert

How can Paul's claim that he is the least of the apostles be irrelevant to the question of whether he is an apostle?

Fifthly, you conclude your response by inserting a restatment of your assertion

Sorry DocCas, but assertions do not constitute proof and they are not persuasive.

Looking forward to your reply!

[ October 03, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: swaimj ]

 

One small correction, at least one person on this thread has espoused the idea the Paul rather than Matthias was supposed to be the twelfth apostle.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000053

In case that is not clear, Preach the Word also stated on another topic:

The proposed relevance of that to when the church started seems to be that the apostles were not set in the church until Pentecost and that the selection of Matthias was out of order. That is NOT my position, just my understanding of how that is supposed to relate to this discussion.

 

But where in the text is the proof Matthias was chosen out of order.
Was there some correction given to Peter? Something else I missed?

 

rlvaughn,

Thanks for the clarification. I missed that statement on the part opf PTW.

And thank you also for the respectful way in which you pointed it out.

Maybe DocCas can learn from you. I certianly hope he does. It would help things around here IMO.

[ October 03, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Latreia ]

 

[ October 03, 2002, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Latreia ]

 

Thank you for taking the time to post that personal attack. May God richly bless you.

 

That's better already, Doc. Thanks!

BTW, you need to understand that I did not attack you as a person. The comment is directed at the way you communicate. Ad hominem is literally "against the man", not against the way the man commuicates". So to characterise my words as a personal attack are inacurate. You may have taken them personally, but they are not intended to be personal. If that is how they came off then I apologise.

[ October 03, 2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Latreia ]

 

Well, I don't think there is any proof. But having read some on the subject, what I remember is that (1) Matthias is not mentioned again, (2) Peter was acting before the giving of the Holy Spirit, etc., (3) some objections about casting losts, and (4) that some of Paul's claims to apostleship (e.g. Gal. 1:1) are [veiled] references that he instead of Matthias was to be apostle. Again I wonder, even if one could prove that Paul rather than Matthias should have been the twelfth apostle, how would that prove the church didn't start until Pentecost?

 

You know, I really don't know how to respond to your posts. In another thread I was castigated for not offering an apology for what many consider my caustic manner, and here I am castigated for offering such an apology. I wasn't aware that offering, or not offering, the apology was the issue here!

But the point I was making was, there are 17 people in the NT called "apostle." Do all hold the same office? Do all have the same authority? If so, what is the difference between "the twelve" and "the other five?" Was Paul numbered with "the twelve" or was Matthias? Was the elevation of Matthias a mistake, as was claimed in this thread or not? Whose name will be on the twelve foundations of the Heavenly City? Paul's or Matthias'? I have not "attacked" anyone, unless you consider a question to be an "attack," but I have, repeatedly, asked for clarification, which, so far, has not been forthcoming. In fact, so far, all I have seen being addressed is me, my manner, and my apology.

I understood your assertion to be that the presence of an Apostle was necessary for the inscripturation of the NT. My question was, if your assertion is true, did God use a substantially different methodology for the inscripturation of the OT?

You assert

How can Paul's claim that he is the least of the apostles be irrelevant to the question of whether he is an apostle?</font>[/QUOTE]But that is the crux of the entire question! Was Paul one of the Apostles, one of the Twelve or was he an apostle, a "sent one" but not one of The Twelve? I.E., whose name will be on the foundation of the Heavenly City?

Sorry DocCas, but assertions do not constitute proof and they are not persuasive.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, I thought I had supported, from scripture, my position that Paul was not one of The Twelve, that Matthias was, that the other 11 accepted him as such, and that the bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God says he was, but, if that is not enough, I am at a loss on how to convince you. If John 20:24, Matthew 28:16, Acts 1:26, 2:14 and 6:2 don't convince you, what will?

[ October 04, 2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

You're all wrong!!!

Church started at 9:00am and 11:00am, and then again at 6:00pm

 

Just goes to show what you know! Every right thinking Baptist knows the evening service starts at 6:30!

 

Well, I don't think there is any proof. But having read some on the subject, what I remember is that (1) Matthias is not mentioned again, (2) Peter was acting before the giving of the Holy Spirit, etc., (3) some objections about casting losts, and (4) that some of Paul's claims to apostleship (e.g. Gal. 1:1) are [veiled] references that he instead of Matthias was to be apostle. Again I wonder, even if one could prove that Paul rather than Matthias should have been the twelfth apostle, how would that prove the church didn't start until Pentecost?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I have seen these type remarks in other debates, but they don't really hold up to scrutiny.
Also, my position from the start is the Church started before Pentecost. Scripture clearly bears this out - despite 6 pages of discussion!