Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I said Paul was the last of the original ambassadors of Christ, the last of the apostles who laid the foundation of God's house, and among the foundational apostles who wrote the New Testament.

Ohio,

Yes you did.

You listed 3, Peter, John, Paul, of the foundational 12+1 who authored books in the New Testament.

How about those who authored books in the NT who were not of the foundational 12+1?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, author of Hebrews, James, Jude.

That would be twice as many authors nonfoundational as foundational and yet I'm sure we would agree that their accounts and letters are foundational .

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Yes you did.

You listed 3, Peter, John, Paul, of the foundational 12+1 who authored books in the New Testament.

How about those who authored books in the NT who were not of the foundational 12+1?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, author of Hebrews, James, Jude.

That would be twice as many authors nonfoundational as foundational and yet I'm sure we would agree that their accounts and letters are foundational .

Drake

This is my understanding:

Matthew (Levi) was one of the 12.
Mark was with the 12, and gave us Peter's Gospel. Mark was a connecting link between Peter and Paul.
Luke was with Paul for many years, almost exclusively. (2 Tm 4.11)
Hebrews was authored by Paul, and written by Luke. (My conclusion)
James and Jude, brothers of the Lord, "saw Jesus" and believed following the resurrection.

Had Stephen, Barnabas, Timothy or Titus written accounts, probably the early church would have received those as well.

Initially the books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were not readily included in the NT canon, until church fathers gathered to gather all the evidences.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is my understanding:

Matthew (Levi) was one of the 12.
Mark was with the 12, and gave us Peter's Gospel. Mark was a connecting link between Peter and Paul.
Luke was with Paul for many years, almost exclusively. (2 Tm 4.11)
Hebrews was authored by Paul, and written by Luke. (My conclusion)
James and Jude, brothers of the Lord, "saw Jesus" and believed following the resurrection.

Had Stephen, Barnabas, Timothy or Titus written accounts, probably the early church would have received those as well.

Initially the books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were not readily included in the NT canon, until church fathers gathered to gather all the evidences.

Ok. We could debate authorship in another thread. But no need for this thread bacause it is clear that the NT is not made up exclusively of the 12+Paul. Also, that leaves 8 of the 12 who did not contribute to the NT canon. Therefore, the correlation between apostles and authors of the NT is not established. Like the giving of gifts to the Body so also is the NT scripture given to us, it is the Holy Spirit that compels.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. We could debate authorship in another thread. But no need for this thread because it is clear that the NT is not made up exclusively of the 12+Paul. Also, that leaves 8 of the 12 who did not contribute to the NT canon. Therefore, the correlation between apostles and authors of the NT is not established. Like the giving of gifts to the Body so also is the NT scripture given to us, it is the Holy Spirit that compels.

Drake

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

On the first, the argument was not about apostles writing the NT, but whether that was an exclusive function to the 12+Paul.

On the second, there is no debate among main stream evangelical or fundamental. ., only Catholics would include other writings. We can agree the NT is complete.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

On the first, the argument was not about apostles writing the NT, but whether that was an exclusive function to the 12+Paul.

On the second, there is no debate among main stream evangelical or fundamental. ., only Catholics would include other writings. We can agree the NT is complete.

Drake

The Lord himself confirmed that after Revelation there was to be no more direct revelation (Rev 22:18). This basically coincided with the end of the life of the last of the original Apostles, John.

I believe it is no coincidence that after that time the Church recognized no believer as an Apostle.

Seems pretty clear that if you were a first century Apostle, you could potentially write Scripture. No more new Scripture, no need of any new apostles. Do we need teachers, shepherds, church planters? Yes. But we don't need apostles in the sense of the original ones. Their mission has been completed and their special authority no longer exists. If would be unreasonable and irresponsible for the Church to think otherwise. There is a reason only fringe groups like the LCM have Apostles. Every one of them has abuse their "authority."

To quibble that there are still "sent ones" that raise up churches so therefore we can have someone like Lee who thought he was in charge of everything is crazy reasoning.

Lesson clear enough? Duh!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To quibble that there are still "sent ones" that raise up churches so therefore we can have someone like Lee who thought he was in charge of everything is crazy reasoning.

Lesson clear enough? Duh!

Lee did the word "apostle" a great disservice claiming that any member could be "sent," and thus an apostle. It was just typical of the semantic word games he loved to play.

He did this purposely to discredit those the church has always accepted as legitimate NT apostles.

I understand that "apostle" is a transliteration of the Greek "apostolos," but the real meaning of this word is closer to ambassador. The apostles were ambassadors of Christ.

In this regard, those who do not properly represent Christ and speak for Him as the Head of the body, should be "recalled" by the Sender, and disqualified.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

If God calls you and sends you, then you are an apostle.

If God calls you to write scripture and complete the word of God then that is your calling. You can be an apostle without being called to write scripture. That is my understanding.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. We could debate authorship in another thread. But no need for this thread bacause it is clear that the NT is not made up exclusively of the 12+Paul. Also, that leaves 8 of the 12 who did not contribute to the NT canon. Therefore, the correlation between apostles and authors of the NT is not established. Like the giving of gifts to the Body so also is the NT scripture given to us, it is the Holy Spirit that compels.

Drake

Fair point, there is no scriptural basis to say that the term "apostle" is equated with the writers of scripture. Certainly some that wrote did claim to be apostles and did claim to be called to write the scripture. But others that were apostles did not write scripture and didn't claim that calling.

The closest equivalent I can find is "the fellowship of the apostles" which the saints kept prior to the NT being completed.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fair point, there is no scriptural basis to say that the term "apostle" is equated with the writers of scripture. Certainly some that wrote did claim to be apostles and did claim to be called to write the scripture. But others that were apostles did not write scripture and didn't claim that calling.

The closest equivalent I can find is "the fellowship of the apostles" which the saints kept prior to the NT being completed.

Accurate summary ZNP.

[Drake]

Igzy >”The reason Drake and those like him want people to believe Lee was an apostle is to confer to him the authority to order the Church around, and thus confirm their own decisions to let him define their lives. I.e. misery loves company. Lee couldn't convince enough people by the power of his teachings, so he has to co-opt the authority of an apostle to intimidate people into following him. For this cause he has the willing accomplices like Drake and other stubborn true believers, who say to themselves, If I have to follow Lee then everyone else does too. ”

Igzy,

What odd beliefs you own about me. Accomplices. Intimidated, letting others define my life..... ?

You apparently are bent on defining me on your terms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news... I don’t fit your description.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

What odd beliefs you own about me. Accomplices. Intimidated, letting others define my life..... ?

You apparently are bent on defining me on your terms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news... I don’t fit your description.

Thanks
Drake

Are you now then willing to answer my question about whether Titus Chu is an apostle or not?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

What odd beliefs you own about me. Accomplices. Intimidated, letting others define my life..... ?

You apparently are bent on defining me on your terms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news... I don’t fit your description.

Thanks
Drake

Nothing odd about them at all. They describe the mindset of a person in a controlling religious group, especially one who has been there for a long time. Do some research on the subject. There is nothing odd about the description at all. A lot of people fit it. It's a pity, but it's a fact.

Now, either you fit the description or you are pretending to. But either way the shoe fits.

Now, tell me again why you are right about apostles and 99% of the Church is wrong...

Here's another thing, just so there is no confusion.

I'm not trying to convince you. I know I can't.

I'm interested in the people that are watching.

And I think I give them credit for being more intelligent than you do.

If someone has a true believer mindset (or a incurable troll mindset, whichever it is), I know I'll never convince those people, and I'm not trying to.

Just to make things clear.

Now, where were we? Oh yes, you are right about apostles and the vast majority of the Church is dead wrong. Right. Please continue...