-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Our Need to Study and Learn from Others
- Thread starter Dr. K.R. Allen
- Start date
Steve,
The Greek word is "apostolos." Another form of the word is "apostello" (transliterated forms since I cannot type Greek directly into the screen by this program).
As for apostello we see it in places like Matthew 2:16 where the word is translated properly as "sent." This is where we get the common or secondary sense of the term of something or someone sent. The question then becomes by whom? We see for example those sent out directly by Jesus in Matt. 10:5 where again we see the specific form of "apostello" (more technically in this case, "apesteilen"). In this case we see they were sent forth directly by Christ.
We see that Timothy would be one sent forth by Paul to Ephesus. Timothy was not sent forth directly by Christ but directly by Paul. We find Timothy being sent or guided in regard to location and service by Paul in several places (1 COr. 4:17; 16:10; Phil. 2:19; 1st Tim. 1:3). In such cases Timothy was "one sent forth" or an agent of Paul or a representative of Paul. Thus, there is a matter of first order or primary order, Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus who was directly sent forth by Jesus, and secondary or the more common sense of the term of being sent forth under the authority of an apostle of the apostolic witness. If the terms first and secondary confuse you then substitute "sent forth directly and under the authority of Christ" and "sent forth by and under the authority of another, such as with the directly commissioned apostles from Christ." It a little longer to write all of that and thus most today use the term "apostle" for those sent by Christ and "messengers" for those who go forth underneath the authority of the existing apostolic witness such as with what we have in Scripture. Primary would refer to the apostles of Christ and secondary would refer to those who follow under the apostles. But again if the terminology there confuses you then refer back to the longer sentences.
A good example of this "messenger" terminology is John 13:16 where the term is translated by many of translators in the common or general sense of the term. They do this because as language scholars they recognize it to be the best translation of the word through etymological and contextual analysis.
The KJV & NASB & RSV & ASV has "he who is sent"
ESV & NIV & NLT & NOR & GSPD "messenger"
The verse itself reads: "Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him."
So, in succinct form here, the term can be simply messenger but then if that is the term used context has to define a messenger of whom. For some it was they were direct messengers sent forth by Christ himself. For others they were messengers of the apostles, or the secondary messengers who took the apostolic message and took it further.
The hierarchy breaks down this way:
-Jesus sent forth apostles or messengers. They are underneath his authority and spoke for him.
-The apostles sent forth messengers and those messengers are not greater than the ones who sent them, i.e. they stand underneath or beneath their witness and authority.
And that brings me back to my question. I'm still confused as to where you stand and why you stand wherever you stand. Do you think a "messenger" today can stand on the same level as the original direct messengers of Christ whose writings were preserved and recorded for the entire body of Christ for all ages.
Let's use Dr. Rolland and Dr. Heidi Baker an example. I'm certainly thrilled for the news I hear of their mercy ministry where the Spirit is using them to do wonderful things for others. I'm ever so thankful.
But would you (and Ali) say they are direct representatives of Christ (primary or first order apostles) or are they apostles/messengers of the existing apostolic witness that we find preserved in Scripture? And if they are on the same level of authority as were the apostles or prophets who wrote our NT canon (like the writings of Paul, Peter, John, etc) then my questions are:
(1) Should we then be preserving their words for the entire body of Christ so the whole body can submit to their words like we do the rest of Scripture?
(2) How do we determine (by what standard do we use) if they are indeed on the same level as the direct apostles of Christ and what writings or teachings by them needs to be included as more additions to existing Scripture?
(3) If you or both of you believe they are on the same level of authority as the direct apostles then how are you submitting and obeying their teachings?
The Greek word is "apostolos." Another form of the word is "apostello" (transliterated forms since I cannot type Greek directly into the screen by this program).
As for apostello we see it in places like Matthew 2:16 where the word is translated properly as "sent." This is where we get the common or secondary sense of the term of something or someone sent. The question then becomes by whom? We see for example those sent out directly by Jesus in Matt. 10:5 where again we see the specific form of "apostello" (more technically in this case, "apesteilen"). In this case we see they were sent forth directly by Christ.
We see that Timothy would be one sent forth by Paul to Ephesus. Timothy was not sent forth directly by Christ but directly by Paul. We find Timothy being sent or guided in regard to location and service by Paul in several places (1 COr. 4:17; 16:10; Phil. 2:19; 1st Tim. 1:3). In such cases Timothy was "one sent forth" or an agent of Paul or a representative of Paul. Thus, there is a matter of first order or primary order, Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus who was directly sent forth by Jesus, and secondary or the more common sense of the term of being sent forth under the authority of an apostle of the apostolic witness. If the terms first and secondary confuse you then substitute "sent forth directly and under the authority of Christ" and "sent forth by and under the authority of another, such as with the directly commissioned apostles from Christ." It a little longer to write all of that and thus most today use the term "apostle" for those sent by Christ and "messengers" for those who go forth underneath the authority of the existing apostolic witness such as with what we have in Scripture. Primary would refer to the apostles of Christ and secondary would refer to those who follow under the apostles. But again if the terminology there confuses you then refer back to the longer sentences.
A good example of this "messenger" terminology is John 13:16 where the term is translated by many of translators in the common or general sense of the term. They do this because as language scholars they recognize it to be the best translation of the word through etymological and contextual analysis.
The KJV & NASB & RSV & ASV has "he who is sent"
ESV & NIV & NLT & NOR & GSPD "messenger"
The verse itself reads: "Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him."
So, in succinct form here, the term can be simply messenger but then if that is the term used context has to define a messenger of whom. For some it was they were direct messengers sent forth by Christ himself. For others they were messengers of the apostles, or the secondary messengers who took the apostolic message and took it further.
The hierarchy breaks down this way:
-Jesus sent forth apostles or messengers. They are underneath his authority and spoke for him.
-The apostles sent forth messengers and those messengers are not greater than the ones who sent them, i.e. they stand underneath or beneath their witness and authority.
And that brings me back to my question. I'm still confused as to where you stand and why you stand wherever you stand. Do you think a "messenger" today can stand on the same level as the original direct messengers of Christ whose writings were preserved and recorded for the entire body of Christ for all ages.
Let's use Dr. Rolland and Dr. Heidi Baker an example. I'm certainly thrilled for the news I hear of their mercy ministry where the Spirit is using them to do wonderful things for others. I'm ever so thankful.
But would you (and Ali) say they are direct representatives of Christ (primary or first order apostles) or are they apostles/messengers of the existing apostolic witness that we find preserved in Scripture? And if they are on the same level of authority as were the apostles or prophets who wrote our NT canon (like the writings of Paul, Peter, John, etc) then my questions are:
(1) Should we then be preserving their words for the entire body of Christ so the whole body can submit to their words like we do the rest of Scripture?
(2) How do we determine (by what standard do we use) if they are indeed on the same level as the direct apostles of Christ and what writings or teachings by them needs to be included as more additions to existing Scripture?
(3) If you or both of you believe they are on the same level of authority as the direct apostles then how are you submitting and obeying their teachings?
This presents a problem
Allegedly the Roman Catholic Church had a direct chain from Jesus.
But we know there doctrine
1. Disagrees with people on the alleged chain between the Church Father's and the present day pope.
2. Disagrees with the record of what Jesus said and did in the scripture.
So Roman Catholicism failed to maintain a chain of proper doctrine, they changed, removed or added to the original doctrine in numerous ways. They might have a chain but it is a chain of ever-increasing corruption of what Jesus taught.
___________________________
I do not claim to be a protestant because the English non-Catholic state religion was based off a preference of divorce, murder and serial monogamy over polygyny or non-serial monogamy.
From what I understand of what I heard, Martin Luther suggested polygyny without a divorce or a monogamous relationship without a divorce and the Catholic Church required monogamy without a divorce and without polygyny.
But English Church-state protestantism chose a worse option monogamy with divorces and murder and no polygyny.
__________________________
Now when great and famous non-catholic denominational founders started there religion they (in terms of authority) broke off from the Roman Catholic Church. This creates a great problem. Can John Calvin for instance lay claim to a chain of individuals directly from Jesus?
__________________________
When someone corrects something new based on the original Bible they have to start an entirely new chain.
hence I am just as much or more of an apostle than John Calvin when it comes to God sending me out to teach the doctrine of Biblical polygyny. Unless John Calvin taught Biblical polygyny. If he did it would be great value for me to know when I talk to Presbyterians and it would be greatly appreciated as it would require them to divorce the chain from Calvin at least in part or agree with me on polygyny.
I would argue that I am sent out directly by Jesus (in spirit) to teach what he directly taught me from the chain of physical scripture. I am using the term chain metaphorically to mean a chain of copying the same way as people use the chain of leadership metaphorically with the Roman Catholic Church.
On the other hand I am not sent out directly to teach a chain of imaginary tradition of imaginary sayings that I did not actually hear Jesus say on how to interpret scripture because I unlike Peter was not there to have additional knowledge of Jesus that is not present in the Bible today.
The first Church would have had access to this oral teaching that is not available today and by it a special means to interpret scripture which I do not have to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church claims to have it and which the Roman Catholic Church does not have either to the extent they claim to have it. I have some means to bits and pieces of it through earlier writers (as they may have been closer to Jesus virgin birth and resurrection (time-wise)and I would be able to see their interpretation in a sense through their writings) but the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) imagined bits and pieces of it that were not there. My wording is not exactly perfect as I am using many metaphors or analogies in this specific post which I hope people can understand.
________________________
If a Pastor that has no Abrahamic Genetic lineage, nor spiritual chain of leadership tracing directly to Jesus over many centuries simply declares that he should get the tithe because..... he has just as much basis to get the tithe as I do because I as well could simply declare myself to be the top of the chain just as he declared himself to be the top of the chain, since when they broke off from the RCC (or broke off from some other earlier denomination allegedly tracing back to before 100 A.D.) just discovered Christianity on there own reading the Bible they simply placed themself on the top of a new chain that does not trace back to Jesus.
He might try to argue he is not the top of the chain but closer to the origin then me but if for instance the chain traced back to John Calvin, I could say well just as John Calvin started a chain from "nowhere" I to can start a chain from "nowhere."
Allegedly the Roman Catholic Church had a direct chain from Jesus.
But we know there doctrine
1. Disagrees with people on the alleged chain between the Church Father's and the present day pope.
2. Disagrees with the record of what Jesus said and did in the scripture.
So Roman Catholicism failed to maintain a chain of proper doctrine, they changed, removed or added to the original doctrine in numerous ways. They might have a chain but it is a chain of ever-increasing corruption of what Jesus taught.
___________________________
I do not claim to be a protestant because the English non-Catholic state religion was based off a preference of divorce, murder and serial monogamy over polygyny or non-serial monogamy.
From what I understand of what I heard, Martin Luther suggested polygyny without a divorce or a monogamous relationship without a divorce and the Catholic Church required monogamy without a divorce and without polygyny.
But English Church-state protestantism chose a worse option monogamy with divorces and murder and no polygyny.
__________________________
Now when great and famous non-catholic denominational founders started there religion they (in terms of authority) broke off from the Roman Catholic Church. This creates a great problem. Can John Calvin for instance lay claim to a chain of individuals directly from Jesus?
__________________________
When someone corrects something new based on the original Bible they have to start an entirely new chain.
hence I am just as much or more of an apostle than John Calvin when it comes to God sending me out to teach the doctrine of Biblical polygyny. Unless John Calvin taught Biblical polygyny. If he did it would be great value for me to know when I talk to Presbyterians and it would be greatly appreciated as it would require them to divorce the chain from Calvin at least in part or agree with me on polygyny.
I would argue that I am sent out directly by Jesus (in spirit) to teach what he directly taught me from the chain of physical scripture. I am using the term chain metaphorically to mean a chain of copying the same way as people use the chain of leadership metaphorically with the Roman Catholic Church.
On the other hand I am not sent out directly to teach a chain of imaginary tradition of imaginary sayings that I did not actually hear Jesus say on how to interpret scripture because I unlike Peter was not there to have additional knowledge of Jesus that is not present in the Bible today.
The first Church would have had access to this oral teaching that is not available today and by it a special means to interpret scripture which I do not have to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church claims to have it and which the Roman Catholic Church does not have either to the extent they claim to have it. I have some means to bits and pieces of it through earlier writers (as they may have been closer to Jesus virgin birth and resurrection (time-wise)and I would be able to see their interpretation in a sense through their writings) but the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) imagined bits and pieces of it that were not there. My wording is not exactly perfect as I am using many metaphors or analogies in this specific post which I hope people can understand.
________________________
If a Pastor that has no Abrahamic Genetic lineage, nor spiritual chain of leadership tracing directly to Jesus over many centuries simply declares that he should get the tithe because..... he has just as much basis to get the tithe as I do because I as well could simply declare myself to be the top of the chain just as he declared himself to be the top of the chain, since when they broke off from the RCC (or broke off from some other earlier denomination allegedly tracing back to before 100 A.D.) just discovered Christianity on there own reading the Bible they simply placed themself on the top of a new chain that does not trace back to Jesus.
He might try to argue he is not the top of the chain but closer to the origin then me but if for instance the chain traced back to John Calvin, I could say well just as John Calvin started a chain from "nowhere" I to can start a chain from "nowhere."
DTT,
I'll ask you the same question then. If you can be sent directly in the same sense as were those who were apostles (or prophets) of Christ then can you write Scripture that needs to be preserved for the entire body of Christ for all time like the NT apostles/prophets did? If not why not and if so how would anyone know and determine that you or your words needed to be added to Scripture as another book to the bible?
I do believe people are sent forth by the Spirit today to do the work of ministry. God indeed calls out workers for the gospel and send them forth. But what I am trying to discover is if you believe someone can be an apostle or a prophet in the same sense as were those directly sent by Christ then if they wrote Scripture and it was preserved by the providence of God for the whole body of Christ then what about today if someone can carry on the same type of work as a direct representative for Christ?
I'll ask you the same question then. If you can be sent directly in the same sense as were those who were apostles (or prophets) of Christ then can you write Scripture that needs to be preserved for the entire body of Christ for all time like the NT apostles/prophets did? If not why not and if so how would anyone know and determine that you or your words needed to be added to Scripture as another book to the bible?
I do believe people are sent forth by the Spirit today to do the work of ministry. God indeed calls out workers for the gospel and send them forth. But what I am trying to discover is if you believe someone can be an apostle or a prophet in the same sense as were those directly sent by Christ then if they wrote Scripture and it was preserved by the providence of God for the whole body of Christ then what about today if someone can carry on the same type of work as a direct representative for Christ?
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
I meant sent directly to do ministry.
Was John Calvin for instance sent directly?
If not then how come Presbyterians consider the chain of leadership so important in spite of the fact (for I assume it would be a fact if he was not sent directly) that John Calvin was not given authority by being directly sent from God?
If he was sent directly then how come Presbyterians consider the chain of leadership so important on account of that someone could suddenly be sent directly who is not on a chain tracing back to the first Presbyterians, just as John Calvin was not on a chain of leadership tracing back to the Roman Catholic Church (on account of he was separated from the Roman Catholic Church?)
I am not advocating Roman Catholicism here.
If not then how come Presbyterians consider the chain of leadership so important in spite of the fact (for I assume it would be a fact if he was not sent directly) that John Calvin was not given authority by being directly sent from God?
If he was sent directly then how come Presbyterians consider the chain of leadership so important on account of that someone could suddenly be sent directly who is not on a chain tracing back to the first Presbyterians, just as John Calvin was not on a chain of leadership tracing back to the Roman Catholic Church (on account of he was separated from the Roman Catholic Church?)
I am not advocating Roman Catholicism here.
A
Anonymous
Guest
DTT,
The "chain" connecting any individual or organization directly back to the original Apostles or to Jesus or as some claim to John the Baptist is tenuous at best. There are not, to my knowledge, accurate, substantiated records that will prove an uninterrupted transferrance of apostolic authority to anyone or any ecclesiatical organization in existance today. There are many that claim such connection, but in my reading, I have not seen sufficient documentation to support the claims. You may have read my earlier assertion that the Catholic church never had apostolic authority. I stand by that statement. Purity, whether moral or doctrinal, never comes forth from corruption.
Regarding current authority and having THE Biblical faith, that is determined by our calling from God and our adherence to His Word with genuine submission to the Holy Spirit's leadership in compliance with His Word.
The "chain" connecting any individual or organization directly back to the original Apostles or to Jesus or as some claim to John the Baptist is tenuous at best. There are not, to my knowledge, accurate, substantiated records that will prove an uninterrupted transferrance of apostolic authority to anyone or any ecclesiatical organization in existance today. There are many that claim such connection, but in my reading, I have not seen sufficient documentation to support the claims. You may have read my earlier assertion that the Catholic church never had apostolic authority. I stand by that statement. Purity, whether moral or doctrinal, never comes forth from corruption.
Regarding current authority and having THE Biblical faith, that is determined by our calling from God and our adherence to His Word with genuine submission to the Holy Spirit's leadership in compliance with His Word.
keith;
thanks for taking the time to explain your understanding on apostles. i honestly had not realized that it was possible to complicate and compartmentalize the issue to such a degree.
please understand that while i disagree with you, i am not arguing with you. we will not agree, but i will simply tell you what i see in the Scriptures.
when i read:
1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
and
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
i see giftings, not offices. Eph 4:11 by itself does look more like offices for specific individuals, but it seems to me that we cannot ignore 1Cr 12:28 which lists some of the same things but includes things that do not look like offices to me. so i have to conclude that they are giftings that the Lord would use in building His church. i also see no reason to believe that He does not desire, and will not use those same giftings today. that we may not (it is not mine to judge) have any apostles today of pauls caliber may be simply due to the fact that He may not have the same raw material to work with as He had with paul. that none of us measure up in the way that paul did and cannot become the world changer that he was. it is because of our failure, not because He has no desire for greater impact.
as i said, i see giftings. i believe that altho He bestows giftings to "prime the pump", as it were, what He really desires is that we all mature to ministering in all of the giftings. not seeing ourselves as victims of whatever gifting He would bestow or not bestow upon us, but as growing, faithful ministers who carry His heart for our fellow man and can be trusted to walk in close fellowship with Him and minister as an extention of Him. He as the head, we as His body.
sorry, but i just will not accept a "sending out" that is not ordained of the Lord. man is waaay above his paygrade if he is doing anything more than recognizing the working of the Holy Spirit in someones life and partnering with Him in recognizing the focus or area of that persons ministry. i believe that paul would be severely distressed to be told that he had his own apostles.
again, you are not going to see it this way unless you are convicted of the Spirit that this view of authority is true, and i am not going to see it your way unless the Spirit convicts me of your teaching. as i wrote in another post, if we both keep our focus on our Head we will come into agreement on everything at some point. of course, if we are more focused on our own point of view, we will never agree with Him, much less each other.
do you represent a group, who represents a group, who represents a group....................who represents an apostle, who represented Yeshua?
how can He be your head with so much confusion in between you and Him?
i freely admit that i am not an admirable representative, but i know who i represent.
thanks for taking the time to explain your understanding on apostles. i honestly had not realized that it was possible to complicate and compartmentalize the issue to such a degree.
please understand that while i disagree with you, i am not arguing with you. we will not agree, but i will simply tell you what i see in the Scriptures.
when i read:
1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
and
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
i see giftings, not offices. Eph 4:11 by itself does look more like offices for specific individuals, but it seems to me that we cannot ignore 1Cr 12:28 which lists some of the same things but includes things that do not look like offices to me. so i have to conclude that they are giftings that the Lord would use in building His church. i also see no reason to believe that He does not desire, and will not use those same giftings today. that we may not (it is not mine to judge) have any apostles today of pauls caliber may be simply due to the fact that He may not have the same raw material to work with as He had with paul. that none of us measure up in the way that paul did and cannot become the world changer that he was. it is because of our failure, not because He has no desire for greater impact.
as i said, i see giftings. i believe that altho He bestows giftings to "prime the pump", as it were, what He really desires is that we all mature to ministering in all of the giftings. not seeing ourselves as victims of whatever gifting He would bestow or not bestow upon us, but as growing, faithful ministers who carry His heart for our fellow man and can be trusted to walk in close fellowship with Him and minister as an extention of Him. He as the head, we as His body.
the first thing that jumps out at me is " that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. "
sorry, but i just will not accept a "sending out" that is not ordained of the Lord. man is waaay above his paygrade if he is doing anything more than recognizing the working of the Holy Spirit in someones life and partnering with Him in recognizing the focus or area of that persons ministry. i believe that paul would be severely distressed to be told that he had his own apostles.
again, you are not going to see it this way unless you are convicted of the Spirit that this view of authority is true, and i am not going to see it your way unless the Spirit convicts me of your teaching. as i wrote in another post, if we both keep our focus on our Head we will come into agreement on everything at some point. of course, if we are more focused on our own point of view, we will never agree with Him, much less each other.
really keith, who ELSE is there for any of us to be a representative of?
do you represent a group, who represents a group, who represents a group....................who represents an apostle, who represented Yeshua?
how can He be your head with so much confusion in between you and Him?
i freely admit that i am not an admirable representative, but i know who i represent.
were all of paul's words preserved?
i guess that we are going to have to be led of the Spirit in the same way that the people who preserved the Scripture were led.
i attempt (sometimes i am not very good at it) to submit to the teachings of the Almighty no matter whose mouth they come out of.
Steve,
I'm still not clear as to what you mean by this. Does this mean you do think there are more books that should be classified as part of the Bible today than the commonly called 66 books?
And does that mean you do or would accept new books into the canon in the future? That is what I am trying to understand. If so what standard is being used to determine what you think is Scripture or has been added to Scripture if you think there are more books than the 66 books that are normally within the canon as used by Evangelical/Protestants. You may not believe there are any more books and if so fine but I cannot seem to grasp what you truly believe on that.
As for the point about representatives of representatives of representatives that is not how I see it. I see people either as either directly sent forth by a live physical discussion with Christ (the first apostles) and then those who take the apostolic witness today and are sent forth with that witness (what we call secondary or second order apostles or messengers). Both are called by the Spirit but only one group actually spoke live to Jesus Christ, which were the first apostles who walked and talked to him. That was my point about the "sent forth ones."
21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 NIV 2011
This will go along way toward settling disputes about which books go in.
When someone like the watchtower society incorrectly predicted the "second coming" of Christ or makes some other false prophesy when speaking prophetically assume they are not the ones to follow for spiritual advice. This essentially eliminates the books of Islam (as interpreted by Muslims I have talked to), the Mormons (incorrect translation of book of Abraham done "prophetically") the Baha'i (I could write about this but do not want to confuse people going into details, I will just say they clearly fail the test), the Jehovah witnesses(false "coming" of Christ), Budhism (wrong guess about what will happen to people after they die refuted by the resurrection of Jesus) etc.
If someone says they are a newly appointed prophet ask them if they are willing to take the prophet test
, would they bet their life on their prophetic abilities 
:?:
Do not forget the other prophet test in Deuteronomy 13 that goes with the one in Deuteronomy 18.
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 NIV 2011
This will go along way toward settling disputes about which books go in.
When someone like the watchtower society incorrectly predicted the "second coming" of Christ or makes some other false prophesy when speaking prophetically assume they are not the ones to follow for spiritual advice. This essentially eliminates the books of Islam (as interpreted by Muslims I have talked to), the Mormons (incorrect translation of book of Abraham done "prophetically") the Baha'i (I could write about this but do not want to confuse people going into details, I will just say they clearly fail the test), the Jehovah witnesses(false "coming" of Christ), Budhism (wrong guess about what will happen to people after they die refuted by the resurrection of Jesus) etc.
If someone says they are a newly appointed prophet ask them if they are willing to take the prophet test
, would they bet their life on their prophetic abilities :?:Do not forget the other prophet test in Deuteronomy 13 that goes with the one in Deuteronomy 18.
i am not aware of any at present
as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. that would include allowing Him to do any cotton-picking thing that He wants to do. if He wants to write a sequel to His own Word, He has my permission.
i completely agree that this is the scarey part, the place where the train has left the tracks on so many occasions. i am just dumb enough to believe that when the Almighty decides to mess with our comfortable leather-bound thats-all-He-wrote Bible, that He will be up to the task of communicating it to us. whether we will be up to the task of recieving it remains to be seen. as per usual, most will not. just as in Yeshua's day, most of the scholars will be able to "prove" that it just ain't so.
since paul was converted after the death and resurection of Yeshua and did not have his discussions with the pre-dead Yeshua, (why we need that distinction is beyond me, i guess that a relationship with Him now is supposed to be inferior?) that would seem to relegate him to your assumed "secondary" catagory. but since he was the most prominently used apostle of all, i am sure that you have figured out a very clever way to shoe-horn him in with the "primary" apostles. i await enlightenment.
Jesus Christ did speak live to Paul. That is my point. As the resurrected Lord he spoke to him on Damascus road and Jesus is in a literal, physical body and thus there was a live conversation between he and Paul, likely to have been around 3 years of it as well where he learned directly from Christ just like the first apostles were with him for around three years.
As for future revelations I am not opposed to that since we know there will arise two prophets as described in the book of Revelation. I happen to think when they prophesy they will give perfect clarity to the entire book of Revelation and clear up a lot of what is mysterious to so many of us today.
Yet, if I understand your answer, I agree in that I do not see any books or any revelations today (from the time of their death until now) that are equal to the original revelations given to the apostles and prophets who wrote the OT and NT. Thus I do not find anything to be missing from our 66 books we currently have; those are sufficient and efficient for the Lord's people.
the fact that Yeshua appeared to paul in His resurected body must have been really interesting for paul, but does it increase his legitimacy? about as much as oral roberts 700 foot Jesus did for him.
i honor and respect paul for what he taught and did. he was a true representative of our Lord.
to believe that saul was a disciple of Yeshua's and learned from Him while He walked the earth and then became the chief persecutor of his fellow disciples untill his run-in with Yeshua is an unreasonable assumption, in my opinion.
but i can see that it is the only possibility that will fit him into your category of primary apostle. sorry, it just does not work for me. :?
i see him very much as a "primary" apostle because of how the Lord was able to use him. there were many other disciples that fell into your "primary" category whose work and words we have no record of.
i am gonna go with forest gump here; "primary is as primary does"
:? Huh?
I don't think that is what I said was it? I'm certainly not of that persuasion of thought. Paul was not a follower of Christ until after the Damascus road experience. And then it was after that where Christ taught him directly and then he went forth on the mission after being taught directly by Christ.
It was actually the other way around, Paul was a disciple of a devout Pharisee, he then persecuted the church as he did not believe in the resurrected Messiah, and then while in route to persecute the church he met the live, physical, literal Jesus and then was trained by him for some time and then he went forth on his mission.
WHEW
sure glad that that was an unreasonable assumption to you also!
so you are saying that Yeshua did not recieve a glorified body in the ascension, but kept His living, breathing, eating, walking through walls, teleporting body for 3 years as He hung around teaching paul?
sure glad that that was an unreasonable assumption to you also!
so you are saying that Yeshua did not recieve a glorified body in the ascension, but kept His living, breathing, eating, walking through walls, teleporting body for 3 years as He hung around teaching paul?
Well I don't have his body here to run a scientific test on to describe it :lol: But we know he was in a literal physical body because he still had the scars on him that he showed to Thomas. So however one wants to define that body so long as it retains physical properties of some sort then so be it.
My point is that Jesus Christ actually spoke to and commissioned the first apostles directly (face to face), i.e. he was physically present and directing them to go forth with his teachings he gave to them. Paul would be counted in that first group of apostles because he was visited by Jesus Christ personally and then trained by Christ for a period of time and sent forth.
Paul seemed to think that seeing Christ face to face had something to do with his apostleship: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?". He made this point in Galatians 1:1 as well. He was sent forth as a messenger by direct commission from Christ Jesus.
My point is that Jesus Christ actually spoke to and commissioned the first apostles directly (face to face), i.e. he was physically present and directing them to go forth with his teachings he gave to them. Paul would be counted in that first group of apostles because he was visited by Jesus Christ personally and then trained by Christ for a period of time and sent forth.
Paul seemed to think that seeing Christ face to face had something to do with his apostleship: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?". He made this point in Galatians 1:1 as well. He was sent forth as a messenger by direct commission from Christ Jesus.
okay, let me skip past a couple of things and put forth a scenario that will help me understand your position;
if tomorrow 1,000 men were to walk out of the mountains of iran and claim that Yeshua had been physicaly with them and teaching them for the last 3 years and was sending them unto the world, what, in your doctrine, would preclude you from accepting them into your "primary" apostle catagory?
if tomorrow 1,000 men were to walk out of the mountains of iran and claim that Yeshua had been physicaly with them and teaching them for the last 3 years and was sending them unto the world, what, in your doctrine, would preclude you from accepting them into your "primary" apostle catagory?
maybe that question was not taken seriously?
i am still having a problem with the teaching that paul is the 13th original (primary) apostle.
please help me out here, i have always understood that Yeshua's body changed from his living, breathing body to his heavenly body in what is known as the "ascencion".
do i have that wrong?
if i have it wrong, when did it change?
i am still having a problem with the teaching that paul is the 13th original (primary) apostle.
please help me out here, i have always understood that Yeshua's body changed from his living, breathing body to his heavenly body in what is known as the "ascencion".
do i have that wrong?
if i have it wrong, when did it change?
Oooopppsss, sorry Steve. I did not realize I failed to post there. Sometimes they all run together and I miss one here or there.
Your two questions, one from the first about revelation today if one were to see Christ on a mountain, and the second, the issue of Christ's body, and the connection of that to Paul seeing the resurrected Christ form a trilogy of ideas that I think reveals the tension you have here that is causing some confusion.
But let me see if I understand you thus far right. Tell me if I am correct on this or not. You seem to be suggesting that Christ's resurrection body makes him something different and thus if we say that one has to directly see and be commissioned by Christ in his bodily form that even Paul would be disqualified because he only saw and received his commission from Christ in the resurrection body? Is that the idea behind what you are asking? You use the terms "living,breathing body" to the "heavenly body" to convey this distinction, right? If the definition of an apostle is having to see Christ physically then how would Paul be an apostle since he only saw Christ in what you claim was a "heavenly body," am I on target with the issue your asking?
Your two questions, one from the first about revelation today if one were to see Christ on a mountain, and the second, the issue of Christ's body, and the connection of that to Paul seeing the resurrected Christ form a trilogy of ideas that I think reveals the tension you have here that is causing some confusion.
But let me see if I understand you thus far right. Tell me if I am correct on this or not. You seem to be suggesting that Christ's resurrection body makes him something different and thus if we say that one has to directly see and be commissioned by Christ in his bodily form that even Paul would be disqualified because he only saw and received his commission from Christ in the resurrection body? Is that the idea behind what you are asking? You use the terms "living,breathing body" to the "heavenly body" to convey this distinction, right? If the definition of an apostle is having to see Christ physically then how would Paul be an apostle since he only saw Christ in what you claim was a "heavenly body," am I on target with the issue your asking?
yes, the big word there would be the "if".
i do not see that distinction but am not focused on it at this point.
if paul was taught by Yeshua in his "living, breathing body", as you stated, the question from me is when did that body change?
or does he still have that body today and can teach and make primary apostles face to face at the present time?