13 apostles or 12?

[Lost]

Rev 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"
Since christianity is based on Paul mainly and he regarded himself as an apostle shouldn't they have made an extra spot for him or did they just drop out one of the others to make room for him?
Hadn't John heard of Paul when he wrote Revelation?

[emjohnson]

How about Barnaabas? Maybe he should have made it 14...

Acts 14:14
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd...

Hey...Acts 14:14...14th Apostle.

[Lost]

How about Barnaabas? Maybe he should have made it 14...

Acts 14:14
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd...

Hey...Acts 14:14...14th Apostle.

What did Barnabas write?
What were his doctrines?
I think Paul rates a wee bit more highly than Barnabas in the development of church doctrines.
In fact take Paul put out of the equation and most of the christian church's doctrines vanish and with it most of the NT, and most of the confusion.
Paul definately should be the thirteenth apostle or maybe a bit higher up the ladder since we hardly hear a thing about most of the other dudes.
Maybe John was popping Paul in there in the 12 foundations and leaving one of the other all-so-ran apostles out?
Come to think of it, apart from the mention in 2 Peter which is not always viewed as authentic, none of the apostles seem to mention Paul at all, in fact never.
Maybe when the original apostles wrote their stuff Paul hadn't got going yet?

[timspong]

Christ only ever appointed 12 apostles (excluding Judas). The one appointed by drawing lots does not count IMO. The apostles were acting prematurely before they were indwelt with the HS.

[outcast]

Good question lost, The scripture that you have selected is speaking about the Original 12 Apostles, not Judas but Mathias, that is why the qualifications for the original 12 Apostles were to have been with Jesus from the babtisim of John and be a eye witness of His ressurection.
Acts 1:16-22, key verse 22.

thus proving that those qualifications for a Apostle were only for the first 12 Apostles not the cessation of the office !!because they were to have their names written on the wall of the New city Jerusalem.!!!!!!!!!!!!

second these qualifications given in Acts would disqualify Apostle Paul because at that time He was murdering Christians and against Jesus.::

The original 12 were the Eminent Apostles or super Apostles, even paul said so 2Corrinthians 11:5, 2 corr. 12:11:lol:

[Lost]

Good question lost, The scripture that you have selected is speaking about the Original 12 Apostles, not Judas but Mathias, that is why the qualifications for the original 12 Apostles were to have been with Jesus from the babtisim of John and be a eye witness of His ressurection.
Acts 1:16-22, key verse 22.

thus proving that those qualifications for a Apostle were only for the first 12 Apostles not the cessation of the office !!because they were to have their names written on the wall of the New city Jerusalem.!!!!!!!!!!!!

second these qualifications given in Acts would disqualify Apostle Paul because at that time He was murdering Christians and against Jesus.::

The original 12 were the Eminent Apostles or super Apostles, even paul said so 2Corrinthians 11:5, 2 corr. 12:11:lol:

thanks for the replies.
There is so much to learn - the NT is a very strange book and the cause of much conflict and debate.

[DukeOfEastaboga]

Acts 1:26 Matthias replaces judas. End of disscussion all bow at the power of Crosswalk.com's search of the bible and my ability to use it. JUST KIDDING except about the acts 1:26 thing thats real.

[Lost]

Acts 1:26 Matthias replaces judas. End of disscussion all bow at the power of Crosswalk.com's search of the bible and my ability to use it. JUST KIDDING except about the acts 1:26 thing thats real.

thanks but that doesn't really address the original question.

[Norrin Radd]

How about Barnaabas? Maybe he should have made it 14...

Acts 14:14
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd...

Hey...Acts 14:14...14th Apostle.

Gal. 1:19 -- 15th

Rom. 16:7 -- 16th and 17th

[Zguy28]

"Apostle" and "apostle". Subtle but profound difference.

[Crow]

This thread is being moved to Unorthodox Theology

[Norrin Radd]

"Apostle" and "apostle". Subtle but profound difference.

Except that there is no such distinction in the Greek mss.

[Sparko]

Lost, if you reject Paul's writings, do you then reject the writings of his companion, Luke? if so do you reject the gospel of Luke and Acts also?

[Sparko]

:bump:
Lost? Do you reject Luke's writings as well?

[Lost]

:bump:
Lost? Do you reject Luke's writings as well?

At the moment I think that the historical records of what Jesus (or whatever his name was back then) are probably accurate but I do not trust the interpretations and doctrines that are added to them by those who wrote the NT and those who added to it and "corrected" it.

So to answer your question: Luke would have been tainted by Paul's ideas but presumably his historical facts in "Luke" should be reasonably accurate I hope - just not necessarily anything else in "Luke".

At the moment I see no reason to trust those who compiled the stuff that went into the NT, no reason at all - they had complete control over what they did and they abused their power whenever they could.

[Sparko]

At the moment I think that the historical records of what Jesus (or whatever his name was back then) are probably accurate but I do not trust the interpretations and doctrines that are added to them by those who wrote the NT and those who added to it and "corrected" it.

So to answer your question: Luke would have been tainted by Paul's ideas but presumably his historical facts in "Luke" should be reasonably accurate I hope - just not necessarily anything else in "Luke".

At the moment I see no reason to trust those who compiled the stuff that went into the NT, no reason at all - they had complete control over what they did and they abused their power whenever they could.

But both Luke and Peter confirm that Paul is indeed an apostle apointed by Jesus. Luke reports (historically) Paul's conversion and teachings being accepted by the other apostles and the church and Peter confirms that his teachings are scripture in his epistle.

You can't accept any of the rest of the bible as authoritive if you reject Paul. It all ties together. So if you reject Paul, you basically reject everything else too.

[Lost]

But both Luke and Peter confirm that Paul is indeed an apostle apointed by Jesus. Luke reports (historically) Paul's conversion and teachings being accepted by the other apostles and the church and Peter confirms that his teachings are scripture in his epistle.

You can't accept any of the rest of the bible as authoritive if you reject Paul. It all ties together. So if you reject Paul, you basically reject everything else too.

In a way but not quite - it is possible to accept most of the historical facts as being correct but not necessarily agree with all the added stuff like their take on events, interpretations of what was said and done.
This is a starting point altho one could also doubt the historical record as well.
If one is looking at christianity from the outside then it is a wise starting point just as it would be for any other religion.
I would expect any person considering going into christianity to question absolutely everything.

As it is written - if one is going to build a building then it is best to count the cost first and again it is necessary to build on rock or very solid foundations.

If the building is pretty much already built as in christianity then it is wise to do a thorough check of the foundations - that means all of the foundations not just the pretty exterior walls.

[Sparko]

In a way but not quite - it is possible to accept most of the historical facts as being correct but not necessarily agree with all the added stuff like their take on events, interpretations of what was said and done.
This is a starting point altho one could also doubt the historical record as well.
If one is looking at christianity from the outside then it is a wise starting point just as it would be for any other religion.
I would expect any person considering going into christianity to question absolutely everything.

As it is written - if one is going to build a building then it is best to count the cost first and again it is necessary to build on rock or very solid foundations.

If the building is pretty much already built as in christianity then it is wise to do a thorough check of the foundations - that means all of the foundations not just the pretty exterior walls.

The thing is, that the people that built the foundation, also built the walls in this case, so you can't go around playing biblical smorgasbord with the new testament. If they are proven reliable on the historical info, why would they not be reliable on the metaphysical info?

[Lost]

The thing is, that the people that built the foundation, also built the walls in this case, so you can't go around playing biblical smorgasbord with the new testament. If they are proven reliable on the historical info, why would they not be reliable on the metaphysical info?

I consider that most of the walling was built by the early church not necessarily by the Messiah.
All things must be considered suspect until proven sound.
The RCC completely lost it's credibility and it's right to be called "The Church" imho and therefore a prudent person would bring into question all of it's doctrines and ideas and canon.
As the Messiah is reported to have said "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit". The rcc produced much bad fruit imho and therefore I consider it bad. A wise person should come to no other conclusion.

[sylvius]

If they are proven reliable on the historical info, why would they not be reliable on the metaphysical info?

did you check up on Mary's virginity?

[sylvius]

The thing is, that the people that built the foundation, also built the walls in this case, so you can't go around playing biblical smorgasbord with the new testament. If they are proven reliable on the historical info, why would they not be reliable on the metaphysical info?

Sparko, again,
is the virgin birth proven historical fact?