You make much of the number 12, but it doesn't help you if Paul could be one of those twelve--and I don't see anything the proves he couldn't be.
Since Clete already addressed this, I'll just say again that there is no evidence that indicates that he should be, only evidence that Matthias took over Judas's office, and in agreement with Clete, the only reason to think Paul was the twelfth is to satisfy the needs of one's doctrines.
Mat 19:28 was obviously spoken to more than twelve of His disciples, or Matthias and Joseph Barsabas would not qualify. But if both qualified so well that a lot needed to be cast to decide, then of all the people to whom Jesus said, "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones...", some of them will NOT sit on one of those thrones, Joseph Barsabas being the prime example. Therefore Jesus' words didn't mean that everybody that heard them would sit on one of the 12 thrones, even if they faithfully followed Him (unless the meaning is more the position shared by a larger group than twelve, and "12 thrones" is figurative--in which case your argument is even weaker).
Clete addressed this sufficiently in his post.
Let's consider the "numbered with the eleven apostles" phrase. Matthias isn't the only one it is used of in Acts 1. Judas was the other one.
So is Peter, just a few verses after Matthias was numbered "with the eleven."
But
Peter, standing up
with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. - Acts 2:14
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:14&version=NKJV
By your same reasoning that Matthias possibly couldn't be the twelfth, so too you could reason that Peter wasn't one of the Twelve, using that verse.
But scripture, being the word of God, is clear. Luke, inspired by God to write Acts, included Peter "with the eleven." Who were the eleven, if not for James, John, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thomas, Andrew, Simon, Philip, Matthias, James son of Alphaeus, and Judas Thaddeus. At that point in time, Paul wasn't even in the picture. He doesn't show up until later.
In other words, God had already considered Matthias to be the Twelfth, because "he was numbered with the eleven" just as Peter stood up "with the eleven."
I'm willing to wager that if this doesn't convince you, Derf, that "The Twelve" were Peter and the eleven people I just listed, not including Paul, then nothing at all will convince you, because you are so committed to your belief that Paul was the twelfth, and not Matthias that you're not willing to give it up. I advise you to humble yourself and ask God for understanding.
For he [Judas] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [Acts 1:17 KJV] But Mat. 19:28 specifically speaks of "in the regeneration", usually taken to mean after the restoration of all things, but certainly AFTER the apostles have all died. Therefore Judas could also be resurrected and participate--except that he is excluded. By whom is he excluded? Not by the apostles themselves, but by the judgment of Christ. If Jesus can exclude one that He chose Himself, then surely He can exclude someone that He didn't choose.
You're grasping at straws, hoping to find a rescue device for your doctrine.
The problem is that, by all indications, Judas is in Hell. He never repented of what he did, at least according to Scripture. Whether he did so and it's just not recorded is unknown, but it's almost completely certain that he didn't.
The other problem is that the twelve, who had the authority to act as they saw fit, determined that Judas Iscariot's position as the twelfth was now empty, and needed to be filled. They COULD have left it empty, if Judas were to return as the twelfth. But they didn't, and they chose someone else to fill that role, and scripture clearly indicates that the one they chose was accepted by God as the twelfth to replace Judas.
The interesting thing about Rev 21:14 is that the names aren't recorded. So Paul might well be one of the names--you don't know any more than I do. To assert without the shadow of doubt one (Matthias) over the other (Paul) is to add to scripture...or at least to interpret scripture by your system, which is something you guys are telling me not to do. Be consistent and don't do it yourselves.
Supra.
Do you think Paul can't write to the Jews even if He agreed not to "go" to the the Jews?
Do you have any evidence that he would, when he had repeatedly made clear that His calling was to the Gentiles?
Invalid. Assumes that the replacement had to be made immediately but God often has a different timetable than men.
As indicated by Acts 2:14, mentioned above, the decision had already been made by God by that point, and the only rational explanation is that Matthias was the one chosen, unless you're willing to argue that Paul was numbered with the eleven, despite him being completely hostile to the believers at that time.
Can you point to the scripture that tells exactly how many were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues that day, and what were their names?
Irrelevant.
Meaning, something had changed, that required God to choose someone other than the Twelve to accomplish His goals.
Did he? What about Barnabas and Silas?
What about them?
It's not.
You assume it was different because of your doctrine that says it was different.
Rather, we're not assuming it was different. The only assumption is that God's word means what it says. Our evidence to the former is that the Bible shows huge differences between what Paul taught and what the Twelve taught.
Jesus and the Twelve taught that one must keep the law.
Paul taught don't keep the law, or you'll be cursed.
Jesus and the Twelve told their converts to give up everything they had.
Paul collected offerings from his converts to give to the congregation of Israel, who had given everything up but were struggling to live, because Christ had not returned yet.
Jesus and the Twelve taught "ye must be born again."
Paul taught we are a new creature, that the old man is dead, so put on the new man.
Jesus and the Twelve taught faith plus works.
Paul taught "grace through faith."
James wrote, "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
Paul wrote, "to him who does not work but believes... his faith is accounted for righteousness.
A few verses before the above, James challenges the notion that Abraham wasn't justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar.
A few verses after the above, Paul states, unequivocally, that if Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Jesus and the twelve believed that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the Twelve ("If John remains until I return" and "you will not make it through all the cities of Israel before I return"), but Christ clearly did not do so.
Paul states almost explicitly that Israel has been cut off until the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in."
Jesus and the Twelve teach that believers will go through the Great Tribulation, which isn't comforting.
Paul taught that we will be caught up before it, and that his words should be a comfort to believers.
Jesus and the Twelve taught and preached what was recorded in the scriptures of their day (what we today call the Old Testament).
Paul taught and preached what he called a mystery, something that had never been revealed, that was kept secret since before the world was.
The twelve never referred to what they taught as "my gospel."
Paul, on the other hand, CONSTANTLY referred to what he taught as "my gospel" and "I, not the Lord, say."
I could go on and on with the differences, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
But Paul was instrumental in teaching them something else,
Thanks for conceding one of the points we've been making.
as Peter tells us in 2 Pet 3:15. These were hard things for Peter to swallow, but swallow them he had to.
Why were they hard to swallow, if they're part of the same thing he with the eleven were teaching?
You'd think if it were part of the same gospel, it would just slot right into what Peter and the eleven were teaching. But in many cases, as I listed above, what Paul taught directly contradicts what the twelve and even what Jesus Himself taught!
Or perhaps explaining why he kept including Gentiles, which they were supposed to in Jerusalem, according to Peter's vision, but they were reticent to do.
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [Acts 15:9 KJV]
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. [Acts 15:11 KJV]
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. [Acts 15:12 KJV]
You seem to keep forgetting that Acts 15 took place about 14 years after Paul's conversion. They had convened to resolve the conflicts they had encountered, whether the Gentiles whom Paul had converted (to the Body of Christ) should keep the law, which was part of the New Covenant.
There's no mention of Paul explaining his "gospel" to the twelve, only explaining how God was working miracles among the Gentiles.
Just as with the four gospels, which sometimes each only contain some portions of events that are included or excluded in the other books, so too does Acts 15 and Galatians 2 give different parts of the whole.
Just Peter calling it "the gospel":
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [Acts 15:7 KJV]
"Gospel" just means "good news."
That's what I've been saying. Peter didn't get that they were supposed to be including the Gentiles that believed, even though they weren't following the whole law (and especially circumcision). But if you read Paul's description, Peter really DID get it--he was hanging out with Gentiles and living like the Gentiles. The problem was that Peter pretended NOT to be living like the Gentiles when the men from James came.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [Galatians 2:14 KJV]
Peter was living like a Gentile--he wasn't following the Jewish law! Peter definitely "got it", but then he backslid into law-keeping to put on a show for those from Jerusalem.
The problem was that Peter was being a hypocrite.
He taught "keep the law" yet lived like he didn't have to keep the law.
Paul agreed to go to the Gentiles with same good new Peter was preaching to the Jews.
No, he didn't.
He agreed to go to the Gentiles, yes. But not with the same good news.
There's a reason Paul makes the distinction:
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter . . . and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. - Galatians 2:7,9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7,9&version=NKJV
The "gospel for the uncircumcised" and "gospel for the circumcised" were given to two different people. What more indication do you need to tell you that they're different?
If they were the same gospel, why not just say "But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel had been committed to me, as it was to Peter..."?
Why make a distinction at all unless they are actually two different gospels?
Not without revealing the weakness of your position.
That being?
You mean they didn't need to appoint Matthias? I'd agree with that.
Clete was asking "why the need for Paul?" not "why not appoint Matthias?"
Nope, just your interpretation/system.
False.
You should combat it harder.
We are.
Good.
Here is what I said again:
So what? "He was numbered with the eleven apostles" is explicit. He's part of that group of apostles, the TWELVE Apostles who will sit upon TWELVE thrones over the TWELVE tribes of Israel in the coming Kingdom in the New Jerusalem which has TWELVE gates.
When the Bible says something specific like that, you should pay attention, not dismiss it.
See what I said above near the beginning of this post.
Can you elicit what you meant?
Supra.
Do you not recognize the figure of speech?
Can you give me scripture?
Acts 2:14.
Ok. He was willing to wait another year for Israel. Why wouldn't He be willing to wait another year for #12?
Because the Holy Spirit asked for a year to work, to fertilize.
That's entirely what Pentacost was about!
Do you not see the connection?
Here, let me show you:
He also spoke this parable:
“A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ” - Luke 13:6-9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke13:6-9&version=NKJV
The owner of the fig tree is Jesus.
The groundskeeper is the Holy Spirit.
The three years refers to Jesus' ministry, which was 3 years long.
He came for three years, and found no fruit. Israel, whom He ministered to for three years, produced no fruit, and He even said it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it will be for the three cities in which He did most of his miracles in, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
He wanted to cut down the tree, but his groundskeeper requested another year to work on it. The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus' disciples at Pentacost, and nearly a year later, Israel had completely rejected her Messiah, even going so far as to kill His mesengers, so God cut off unbelieving Israel, and grafted in the Body of Christ. That was when Christ confronted Saul on his way to Damascus.
Numerology is an inexact science.
Sure. But even so, there is significance in certain numbers. Take the number
three for example.
You can make it say a whole lot of stuff.
Sure, but when certain numbers in the Bible are consistently used in conjunction with certain things, it becomes a pattern that should at the very least be investigated, not simply dismissed out of hand.
Circular--that's the current issue, isn't it? Whether scripture actual indicates Matthias was the one being chosen by Jesus?
Supra.
See my other post(s), above, about this.
Supra.
That's pretty hard to read. If you reply to the whole post of someone, then select the point where you want to comment and hit "enter". The editor will add in the right stuff to keep your postings separate from theirs.
I'm not even going to bother. He needs to fix it himself.
That doesn't say how many spoke in tongues, just how many stood up. There were undoubtedly more than 12 in the upper room.
Agreed. But the fact remains, "Peter stood up with the eleven" is not referring to "Peter and a random group of eleven people."
1 + 11 = 12 in both Peter's case and Matthias's case.
