The Bible identifies as apostles only the following:
1. Simon Peter
2. Andrew, Simon Peter's brother
3. James son of Zebedee
4. John the brother of James
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew the tax collector
9. James the son of Alphaeus
10. Lebbeaus Thaddaeus aka Judas the brother of James
11. Simon the Canaanite aka Zelotes
12. Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, who betrayed the Lord,
(Matthew 10 cf. Luke 6)
13. Matthias (perhaps later displaced by Paul)
(Acts 1:26)
14. Barnabus (aka Judas Barsabas) -> could this also be Judas the brother of James?
15. Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus)
(Acts 14:14)
16. Christ Jesus
(Hebrews 3:1)
17. James the Lord's Brother (could this also be James the son of Alphaeus? or James the son of Zebedee?)
(Galatians 1:19)
But Lucian seems to claim that the evangelist Luke was also an apostle (as were, according to Lucian, many others). I can provide Scriptural documentation for the 17+ names listed above. I wonder what's the earliest documentation that Lucian can provide for the alleged apostleship of Luke? A quotation from some obscure passage of Eusebius?
-Turretinfan
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I have never heard of Luke being named an apostle. What Lucian needs to realize though as well is that some were called disciples in one sense, but also some held the office of apostleship.
Those were always named by Christ. I would argue that Matthias was chosen in sin. There are scriptures that reference another apostle to come which would seem to refer to Paul but the ones remaining after Judas Iscariot moved to choosing by casting lots.
From what I found, or not found, not much if anything is ever heard of Matthias again. This could be coincidence or from the purpose of God's hand. Either way...these won't convince anyone on the opposite position but I find it very interesting.
TF
I gather from your post you are more inclined to steer away from Romans 16:9 and Andronicus and Junia?
Or, 2Peter 3:2 and Peter's reference to "your" apostles?
In a very simplistic sense I use the term to identify one sent.
Having said that I would also include the seventy in Luke's passage.
Having said that I leave off reminding us of those FALSE ONES too wit Eusibus's reference is made mention which most likely is who is being drawn upon to support that position you clearly are not in favor of? :::>
2Co. 11:13 and Rev. 2:2
Seventy, ... not seventeen. :-(
Luke 10:1 ¶After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
Luke 10:17 ¶And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
-------------------------
Christ was meant to be "a light to the enlightment of the Nations, and glory to Your people, Israel" (St. Symeon's Prayer).
Matthew makes it pretty clear that He was the Jewish Messiah foretold by the Prophets; and Luke that His ministry extended to the Gentiles.
[Mark makes it pretty clear that He is fully humnan; and John that He's fully divine].
Now, the number of the tribes of Israel was twelve; and that of the Peoples was 72. (Exodus 1:5; Acts 7:14).
Now, twelve means ONE dozen, and 72 means SIX dozens. --> SEVEN dozens of generations, out of which God choses the seventh part for Himself -- does this ring any bells to You? ...
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Andrew, Peter, James and John; Philip, Bartholomew, aka Nathanial, Matthew (Levi); Thomas, James (son of Alp.), Simon the Zealot, Judas (bro of James), Judas I.--Matthias.-- Paul
--Godith
For those who mentioned the "seventy" - what makes you think that they were apostles? The text does not say so.
As for Andronicus and Junia, the text seems to suggest that the apostles thought much about them, but it does not seem to suggest that they themselves were apostles.
-Turretinfan
TF
you make a hard case to oppose!
It is sound and need not be a deal breaker when one's soul is at stake!
In any event, whoever decides, it won't stop God from receiving me when I leave this place to that Mansion in Eternal Glory.
Albeit, there may be a sharp knife's edge to this when Jesus refers to John as that Prophet who would come?
What does that mean by me?
There is a pattern of government clearly based on the Children:::>
Deu 32:7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you.
Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
Whether or not a debate on whether today we have Living Apostles with a loose silver string as Jesus made with John the Baptist, these Living Apostles would not look any different than the position of this post's debate.
So, whether or not they are, they are only going to end up as fruitie as God's Holy Ghost who reserves His exercise of His Will in unity with Our Heavenly Father's and Jesus':::>
Act 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
So, now what?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
I'm not too concerned about the name, just curious why people would try to expand the number beyond the 12 plus Matthias and Paul.
-Turretinfan
Pride, perhaps?
:)
Authority to speak on His behalf, perhaps?
:)
You and I just have to scratch our heads, huh?
:)
What Lucian is referring to is that in Lk 10:1 the seventy [two] were ἀπέστειλεν by Jesus. Logic would dictate that if the Lord ἀπέστειλεν you, then you are a ἀπόστολος.
Tradition says that others were also apostles, for example Timothy. You can find this in the fathers. Off hand Jerome calls Timothy an apostle.
Eusebius says “After the ascension of Jesus, Judas,who was also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle, one of the Seventy."
Lucian submitted a comment that asked:
"1) from where did you get the ideea that Matthias was possibly later replaced by Paul ??
2) or that Barsabbas is Barnabas ??
3) or that Judas BarSabbas is from among the Twelve ??
4) or that James the Brother of God is from among the Twelve ?? "
1) This is just speculation.
2) Acts 15:22
3) This is merely a possible inference from the fact that there was a Judas (not Iscariot) who was one of the twelve.
4) This is merely a possible inference from the fact that there was a second James (in addition to John's brother) who was an apostle.
-Turretinfan
In another comment, Lucian quoted my words: "A quotation from some obscure passage of Eusebius?"
And Lucian asked: "what on earth are You talking about?"
I answer:
I'm being vague so as not to force anyone to pick any particular way of documenting their allegation. No need to suppose that I have a particular quotation in mind.
-Turretinfan
According to Acts 15:22, Judas surnamed Barsabbas, and Silas were two men that the brethren from Jerusalem sent to accompany Paul and Barnabas.
Jude not the Iscariot is the same as Levi-Lebeus-Thadeus. (Thomas' name is also Jude).
Jacob and John sons of Zebedee (also called sons of Thunder) are two people ... Jacob son of Alpheus and Jude the son of Jacob are also two other people ... and Jude, Jacob, Joseph and Simon are four other people.
It's good that You didn't say that Simon the Brother of God is the same as Simon Peter ... :p
P.S.: were You trimmin' down the number of Apostles by these equations, just to make them as short of 70 as You were able to? :p
For those who mentioned the "seventy" - what makes you think that they were apostles? The text does not say so.
Yes, it does ... :
Luke 10:1 ¶After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and *SENT* [Gr.: 'apesteilen'] them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 3 *GO* your ways: behold, I *SEND* [Gr.: 'apostello'] you forth as lambs among wolves.
And sorry for not noticing this sooner myself ... I just took it for granted.
Lucian:
For some unknown reason you went off on a three comment tangent about books allegedly written by apostles (in addition to the canonical books). I've rejected those - for now - as off topic.
Perhaps we'll have time to discuss the canon in another thread of comments.
-Turretinfan
Lucian and Orthodox:
The argument from the fact that they were "sent" is classic illustration of the fallacy of etymology.
The term "apostle" in Scripture has special significance. It is not simply anyone who was sent, though that certainly is the etymology of the word. Similarly "elders" are not just old guys, though you can bet that the etymology is connected to age.
Is there any OTHER reason than the fallacious argument from etymology to support the idea that the 70 were apostles, and is there any evidence in Scripture (or any other historic source) that tells us who the 70 were (what their names/identities were).
Speculation that various listed apostles were among the 70 (rather than the 12) should be noted as such.
-Turretinfan
Lucian wrote: "According to Acts 15:22, Judas surnamed Barsabbas, and Silas were two men that the brethren from Jerusalem sent to accompany Paul and Barnabas."
I seem to have misread Acts 15:22, if one agrees with the 1792 KJV's punctuation.
Act 15:22 (KJV) Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
I seem to have read "namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas" as being an apositive of "Barnabas" rather than as a partial apositive of "chosen men," whereas the punctuation in the 1792 KJV better supports the latter theory.
Lucian wrote: "Jude not the Iscariot is the same as Levi-Lebeus-Thadeus. (Thomas' name is also Jude)."
I'm curious where you get "Levi" or that Thomas' name is Jude. Care to elaborate?
Lucian wrote: "Jacob and John sons of Zebedee (also called sons of Thunder) are two people"
Fully agreed, though James is the more usual form than Jacob.
Lucian wrote: " ... Jacob son of Alpheus and Jude the son of Jacob are also two other people ... "
I fully agree (but again with the caveat that James is the more usual form).
Lucian wrote: "and Jude, Jacob, Joseph and Simon are four other people."
Huh?
Lucian: "It's good that You didn't say that Simon the Brother of God is the same as Simon Peter ... :p"
Huh?
Lucian: "P.S.: were You trimmin' down the number of Apostles by these equations, just to make them as short of 70 as You were able to? :p"
No need. There were only 17 to begin with, and of those, 1 is Christ (which we can admit is a non-technical use of the word apostle) and 1 is Paul, who was clearly NOT part of the 70.
And, so far as has been brought to my attention, not one of the seventy is named as such.
-Turretinfan
Orthodox wrote: "Tradition says that others were also apostles, for example Timothy. You can find this in the fathers. Off hand Jerome calls Timothy an apostle."
This is the kind of thing I was hoping to see. Anything earlier than Jerome to testify to Timothy's alleged apostleship?
Orthodox continued: "Eusebius says “After the ascension of Jesus, Judas,who was also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle, one of the Seventy.""
Ah, perhaps this is Lucian's source for calling Thomas, Judas? In any event, this is the sort of citation I expected. Could you provide any kind of citation to help point me to the relevant passage of Eusebius here?
-Turretinfan
BTW ... do you also think that the Seven Deacons weren't actually Deacons, but something else? (There are many people who think so, that's why I ask --> and the reason for them thinking so is because the text doesn't say that these are "deacons", but that they were chosen for "deaconing", i.e., serving).
No, about Thomas being called also Jude I didn't know from Canonical Scriptures.
And about Lebbaeus being Levi, that's his name in Romanian in Matthew 10:3 -- Lebbaeus doesn't appear anywhere. (maybe Lebbaeus itself is a barbarization of Levi; or maybe Romanian "Levi" is just a Romanization of Lebbaues -- iduno).
As to the seven original deacons: I do think of them as deacons, because they seem to have been intended for diaconal purposes. I never stopped to consider whether Scripture calls them deacons or not.
It doesn't seem to matter much.
-Turretinfan
Orthodox disputed the fallacy of etymology argument, but the disputation was just:
a) an appeal to etymology (which is a senseless response);
b) an assertion that I (TurretinFan) don't know that the term "apostle" has special significance in Scripture (which is a ridiculous assertion);
c) an assertion that analogy to the term "elder" is inappropriate (apparently based on (b) above - i.e. based apparently on the obviously incorrect theory that "apostle" is not a special term like "elder")
More interestingly, though, in response to my request for historical documentation of the names of the seventy, Orthodox wrote only:
"Tradition names various of the 70."
This has really whetted my curiosity. Orthodox, please elaborate as to the historical documentation for this "tradition." In other words, before Jerome/Eusebius, are any of the seventy named as such? By whom? When?
-Turretinfan
The Apostolic Fathers are scarce.
Eusebius' greatest merit is that of preserving in his writings traces of documents we no longer possess.
Anyway, just check out Wikipedia.org, OrthodoxWiki.org, and from Sacred-Texts.org, the extract from the Book of the Bee.
Anyway, I didn't gave You any arguments from Tradition because You don't respect it, so there was no reason to. Suffice are the three Scriptural, logical and common-sensical arguments already presented. More I can't offer.
Lucian: that's a bit vague, don't you think?
Shall we take your comments as an acknowledgment that there is no extant pre-Eusebian historical documentation?
I'm not necessarily against tradition. After all, I refer to the gospels by their traditional names.
I'm much more interested in what documentation there is on the subject. It's interesting, whether or not one feels compelled to accept or reject the accounts.
I feel free to disregard your claim that Luke was an apostle, because Scripture does not say Luke was an apostle.
You claimed he was one of the seventy, but I don't see anything from Scripture even to support that Luke was one of the seventy.
Finally, I still haven't seen any evidence from extra-Scriptural historical documentation (call it "tradition" or whatever you like) to suggest that anyone thought the evangelist Luke was an apostle in the early church.
-Turretinfan
I had written: "In other words, before Jerome/Eusebius, are any of the seventy named as such? By whom? When?"
Orthodox responded: "Saint Dorotheus bishop of Tyre (ca. 255 – 362) compiled a list of the 70."
I'll dig in and see if I can find a citation.
-Turretinfan
Interestingly, Lucian has other sources:
"Hypolitus of Rome and Apostolic Constitutions. ANF 05 and ANF 07. They both make it pretty clear that the Seventy were Apotles and that Luke was one of them."
"I also remember reading somewhere -I have no ideea where- that two of the Gospels were written from two of the Twelve Apostles, and the other two by two of the Seventy Apostles."
I'll try to track down a more precise citation on the first of those, and if Lucian (or anyone else) comes up with a citation for the second one, ok.
-Turretinfan
Download ANF 05 from CCEL in PDF format.
Then open the file and press CTRL+N or SHIFT+CTRL+N. Then type 440. Then press enter.
The same for ANF 07. But THIS time press 725.
As for the second ... sorry ... I still can't recall ... I don't think I'll ever be able to ... :-(
Lucian,
Thanks for the more detailed citation!
-Turretinfan
Lucian had also posted some additional comments:
"Anyway ... Luke was practically Paul's shadow, following him everywhere he went, helping him in his apostolate by mission-work and Gospel-preaching, and even writing his orally-preached Gospel and life-curriculum for him ... if that's not enough to make one an Apostle, then I don't know what is anymore.
The Seventy are to be found also in our calendars, spread throughout the entire year-cycle. "
Being appointed to be an apostle is what makes one an apostle, not just hanging out with apostles.
What Luke did wouldn't even make him an elder!
The church calendars of the various sects of modern Orthodoxy are something enormously interesting for a variety of reasons.
-Turretinfan
I admire Your conviction, but for me it seems pretty clear as day that Luke's missionary activity was of an apostolic character: if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck....
Dear Lucian,
Surely you see how that kind of comment begs the question.
For if only the 17 or so were apostles, and if we only reliably know about their ministry (and Luke's) from Scripture, then your "quack like a duck" standard produces the opposite outcome.
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment