Day Of Pentecost - What Actually Happened?

No, but I'd definitely say one of the "requirements" to be an Apostle as named in Scripture, is to be named an Apostle in Scripture, though.

The oft mis-cited 'proof-text' for what you, no doubt, are attempting to show is I Cor. 9:1ff. This verse does not say Paul was an Apostle, because he had seen the Lord, any more than does I Cor. 15:6 say that there were 500 apostles, that saw Jesus, here and that was only part of the 'total' number of apostles, based on what I Cor. 15:7, says with the use of the phrase "all the Apostles." This is faulty exegesis, at best (and bad eisegesis, at worst), IMO.

It would seem very unlikely that Epaphroditus was around to see the Lord after his resurrection, yet he is called an apostle, as I have previously indicated. One example is enough to contradict the 'all or nothing' idea, that is here lying just beneath the surface.

Paul asks 4 "stand alone" questions (all of which expect an answer of "Yes!") in I Cor. 9:1, as he amasses the evidence, where for two complete chapters, he is 'defending' his ministry and what he practices. (I Cor. 8:1- 9:27) One of these questions is not dependant on another, for its answer, here. However, as he puts them together, Paul is using this to 'vindcate' his apostleship, as it were. (v.2)

No Paul did not say he was the last. However, on the chronological list he gives here, he is the last in order. And he is probably the last, up to this time. However, it should be obvious that one cannot take this in an absolute sense, for John would see the Lord some 30-40 years later than this letter when he was exiled on Patmos. Again, ditto to the "all or nothing" idea, here.

And I'm also pretty sure God, the Holy Spirit, knew all about what would later transpire, :thumbs: and hence did not make any contradiction, when He inspired Paul to pen the words in I Cor. 15, as well.

Ed

 

I missed that... Good catch... :thumbs:

 

You keep referring to folks seeing the Lord, what is your definition of an Apostle?

Is the John the Revelator the same John who laid on Jesus' breast?

 

Actually, I did not bring this up at all, but merely responded to this implied notion from a post of another. I've never said on the BB (or anywhere else, at least now for many years), although I would at one time have erroneously, mistakenly, and ignorantly said that one had to have seen the Lord, to be an apostle. I now have more wisdom, and this is even recognized by some of my fellow Church members. In fact, just a week or so ago, one acknowledged my increased wisdom, by saying that I am a real wise guy! :thumbs:

One sent forth, or one sent out from, which is the literal meaning of the Greek word "apostolos."

I believe so, as apparently did virtually all the early church. However, one could have two Scriptural objections to this.

The first is that the disciple who leaned on Jesus' breast is nowhere said to be John.

The second is that the author of the Revelation is not said to be John, the Son of Zebedee.

BTW, the "Revelator" here is Jesus; the receptor of Jesus' revelation is John. :thumbs:

Ed