Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:
An argument could be made that there are no apostles today, simply because one requirement of an apostle by biblical definition, is that an apostle has to be a direct witness to Christ's life or resurrection.


B. W. wrote:
How was Paul a direct witness to the resurrection of Christ?

Galatians 1:11-12:

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul, on his way to Damascus, was a direct witness to the resurrected Jesus Christ.
1Corinthians 9:1:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Paul was a witness TO the resurrected Christ, he was NOT a witness to the ACTUAL Resurrection.

PaulSacramento wrote:Paul was a witness TO the resurrected Christ, he was NOT a witness to the ACTUAL Resurrection.

Splitting hairs.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Paul was a witness TO the resurrected Christ, he was NOT a witness to the ACTUAL Resurrection.

Splitting hairs.

No Byblos, Paul is correct. I didn't even notice it when I posted. Let me reword it to show what I actually meant:

An argument could be made that there are no apostles today, simply because one requirement of an apostle by biblical definition, is that an apostle has to be a direct witness to Christ's life or the resurrected Christ.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Paul was a witness TO the resurrected Christ, he was NOT a witness to the ACTUAL Resurrection.

Splitting hairs.

No Byblos, Paul is correct. I didn't even notice it when I posted. Let me reword it to show what I actually meant:

An argument could be made that there are no apostles today, simply because one requirement of an apostle by biblical definition, is that an apostle has to be a direct witness to Christ's life or the resurrected Christ.

FYI: My comment (of splitting hairs) was in reference to Paul being an apostle (or not), not in reference to what you said per se.

It seems to be clear that not only does Paul view himself as an apostle, the others did as well.

PaulSacramento wrote:It seems to be clear that not only does Paul view himself as an apostle, the others did as well.

Exactly.

Byblos, you lost me.

I think the criteria for being an apostle was never really clear BUT it seems to me that an apostle was someone that received the call directly from Christ either in person when he was alive or via resurrected appearance.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think the criteria for being an apostle was never really clear BUT it seems to me that an apostle was someone that received the call directly from Christ either in person when he was alive or via resurrected appearance.

Paul that's pretty much what I meant here:

An argument could be made that there are no apostles today, simply because one requirement of an apostle by biblical definition, is that an apostle has to be a direct witness to Christ's life or the resurrected Christ.

orthotomeo is the Greek word you see, but I am fluent with Greek!! It can also mean to "teach right" Thus making the English translation correct. If you go back to your bilos.com/2_..etc page and do some more research, you will see that I am in fact correct!!

The texts you place side by side can give the impression that Paul was a "false prophet" ... I disagree. When I count the individuals that were Apostles in scripture, I count at least 14 "different" people.

1st John.
The alternate definitions are not literal, but are only reflective of the other translations. The literal meaning is straightly cutting. Since the word only occurs once in the entire NT, its hard to compare its usage. (from temnō, "to cut" and 3717 /orthós, "straight") But for all intents, we should rightly handle the owrd.

The purpose was not to show Paul a false prophet. He isn't. In fact he is THE apostle Jesus hand picked to teach us today.

B. W. wrote:What is the purpose of an Apostle and what defines that office?

-[/quote]I don't think there are official apostles today. The word simply means, one who is sent.
Paul says, For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office. (Romans 11:13)
Pauls calling is to administer his office.
For the 12 it was to administer their's. In that sense they are equal apostles. But it is what they are called to that makes the distinctions. You can say that a captain of the football team and a captain in the Army are both captains. But it is what they are captains of that makes all the difference.

So, Paul is absolutely OUR apostle TODAY. Not Peter, not James, not Matthew. And that will be the case until,.......Romans 11:25.

B. W. wrote:

RickD wrote:An argument could be made that there are no apostles today, simply because one requirement of an apostle by biblical definition, is that an apostle has to be a direct witness to Christ's life or resurrection.

How was Paul a direct witness to the resurrection of Christ?

Byblos wrote:Just a quick note that Paul did in fact consider and call himself an apostle (Romans 11:13).

What is the purpose of an Apostle and what defines that office?
-
-
-

I had a deep thought and 1 Cor 12:28 and maybe to the end of the chapter. The Jewish law of agency comes to my mind, and since the person has been delegated the role of apostle... well then he is.

Also. The 11 did not choose Mathias. The conditions were someone who had been with Jesus since the beginning. They cast lots calling on the kardiagnosta (heart knower) to choose. And the lot fell to Mathias.
Since Jesus has just been with them 40 days, good chance they were instructed.