The Day of Pentecost.
The Mount of Transfiguration.
John on the Isle of Patmos watching the Lord return in power and great glory from the perspective of heaven.
All of these are good choices for the fulfillment of that scripture.
JLB
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Do Apostles still walk the Earth?
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
The Day of Pentecost.
The Mount of Transfiguration.
John on the Isle of Patmos watching the Lord return in power and great glory from the perspective of heaven.
All of these are good choices for the fulfillment of that scripture.
JLB
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
While that is what apostolos in the Koine Greek means, that is not the definition of the office that existed in the first century. The twelve are to be named, etched into the foundation, of the New Jerusalem. They are set apart as unique and highly honored in the Kingdom of God when it comes in its physical form. The title conferred upon these men was dependent upon them having been taught at the very feet of Jesus and being witnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection. Paul qualifies, because of Christ coming for him on the Damascus Road, proving to Paul He was indeed Resurrected. Now one today can make any of these claims. All twelve were given the gifts of healing, signs and miracles. Those twelve were able to pass them on to others, as we see in specifics in the New Testament. Those to which the gifts were given by the apostles, however, could not pass them on themselves. No one can do these signs and miracles today, and those today who do the rest of kind of work the apostles did are called "missionaries."
I'm glad to know that is how you feel, but I have to say, using the term "apostle" today is misleading, and those who would claim it for themselves -- and I know you don't, so please don't take this personally -- are claiming the authority of the original twelve, and that is a very dangerous claim to make. These are the false prophets of today, as I pointed out in an earlier post, described in 2 Corinthians 11:13.
I am very interested in hearing why you don't believe that definition existed in the first century. I may be terribly at fault for lack of understanding of your point, so I will not mind being corrected. I have gathered from your posts what I think you believe is the definition/qualifications of an Apostle:
1. They must have studied under Jesus at his invitation.
2. They must have witnessed the Crucifixition and Ressurection of Jesus (Paul being given credit for his experiences on the Road to Damascus).
3. They must have performed healings, signs and miracles.
4. They must have their name etched in the Book of Revelation as "the twelve".
Is my understanding of your theory correct? If so, you are going to run into several problems with what the Bible says that I'm not when I propose my theory that they must simply be "one called and sent by Christ as his chosen ambassador".
Even with your definiton, I agree. Paul qualifies. However, I believe Paul qualifies by my definition too. Where you are going to have problems is the belief that the gifts of healings, signs and miracles were only given to the Apostles, and to them that the Apostles appointed to have them. Yes, they were given to the Apostles, and yes, they did pass them on. However, others had it to who were not Apostles. And they passed it on (being God ordained) to others who were never under an Apostle. A careful study of the Bible will show this.
You stated, "no one can do these signs and miracles today." Oh really? That statement will open up a big can of worms, which perhaps we shouldn't even bother to get into. Jesus told his apostles that they would do GREATER miracles than he did. So in a sense, you are right... But greater does not mean, "more of..."
See? On that alone we can discuss what is a greater miracle and what is not. But what I want to know is this.... Who are you to say these signs and miracles can't be and haven't been performed today? Because you haven't seen them? Because you haven't heard of them? That's just going on the basic statement. It doesn't include the fact that Jesus noted "greater" miracles would be done.
But how do you know they haven't been done? I'll go and find the quote, but the Bible says that they were done for the unbeliever, not for the believer. The Bible also says that they would follow (meaning, be in past tense) them that believe... Now tell me how you don't believe they can or have be done?
I do beleive their are apostles today. By the Bible definition. No true Apostle of today is going to claim the authority of the original twelve. They are going to accept and honor the foundation they laid. They are not going to add to that foundation. However, they will build on it, as Paul said they could but with a caution. I do agree with you it is a very dangerous claim to make. So was the term "prophet" in the OT.
Any Apostle today is not going to build the foundation Paul and the others laid. That foundation as we can comprehend it is the Bible. It's done. God did stuff. Jesus came and finished the work, and he appointed men to finish the foundation. That's the bottom line.
But your defintion and assertation that there is no apostle today doesn't hold up by what the Bible says. The only qualification is that they be called and sent by Jesus Christ to deliver a message. Directly by Jesus I can agree upon. But if I am correct on identifying your criteria.... It isn't going to hold up. But if someone is saying they are an Apostle today, it will by my criteria which is Biblical.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Not really, because Paul himself states those are the qualifications of an apostle. It is you who have the problem with so generic a definition, though some such as Barnabas and Timothy, by benefit of being disciples of the apostles, were considered on an equal footing with them, due to their ability to heal. Though, as I also said, the gifts were passed on to others by the apostles, but there is clearly no evidence at all that those could pass the gifts on to anyone else.
ORLY? Do tell...
Glad you asked, my friend. I shall.
Since it is believed that Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts, then one would naturally expect to find the same names of the apostles, and so it is. The remaining 11 disciples called apostles are:
- Peter & John and James (sons of Zebedee),
- Andrew (Simon Peter's brother), Phillip, & Thomas,
- Bartholomew, Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus; cf. Mark 2:14)
- James (son of Alphaeus), Simon the' Zealot',
- Judas (son of James; grandson of Alphaeus??) [Acts 1:13].
After the death of Judas, another disciple had to take his place, to make it twelve, so Matthias was selected among the two most trustworthy candidates (cf. Acts 1:21-26). Thus we have the 12 "Apostles of the Lamb".
Leaving aside those whose apostleship may be questioned by the skeptical or those who wish to declare that there were only 12, let me add Paul who was responsible for most of our NT Scripture. Some may say that one of the qualification of being an "Apostle" is that they must have seen the risen Lord. This comes from their examination of 1Cor 9:1;15;7-8 and cf. that to Acts 1:22. But this conflates two different concepts. Acts 1 dealt with the 12 "Apostles of the Lamb" that were spoken of in the book of Revelation. Paul is not included in that list even though he did see the risen Christ. What does he state was the "seal of his Apostleship"?? Was it that he had seen Jesus? In part, perhaps. Paul was declaring that he lacked nothing in comparision to even the most emminent Apostles of his day, that he was an apostle, and in addition to that, he too has seen the risen Christ. He was not trying to include himself as one of the 12, and chose to point to the Corinthians themselves as evidence (or the "seal) of his apostleship. See 1Corinthians 9:2,5.
One of the qualifications to being an Apostle of the Lamb is to have seen the risen Lord (Acts 1:22); and even Paul's defense of his apostleship may have included the brothers of the Lord as well as Cephas [Simon Peter], mentioned in I Corinthians 9:2,5.
Lastly, it is almost certain that James, the Lord's brother was an apostle based on Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Galatians 1:19.
In II Corinthians 2:5, Paul wrote, "For I consider myself not the least inferior to the most eminent apostles," and it would seem that least three of them were thought to be: James (the Lord's brother) see Galatians 1:19, Cephas [Simon Peter], and John [??] see Galatians 2:9. This particular John is not mentioned as a son of Zebedee or the brother of James, who was killed by King Herod (Acts 12:1-2).
A few last minute considerations are:
Philippians 2:25
Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your 'messenger' (Gr. Apostoloi; "Apostle"??) and the one who ministered to my need.
II Corinthians 8:23
If anyone inquires about Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker concerning you. Or if our brethren are inquired about, they are 'messengers' (Gr. Apostolos; "Apostles") of the Churches, the glory of Christ.
NOTE: In the remaining passages Paul uses the same Greek word for these unnamed brethren, perhaps including Titus, as well as Epaphroditus, for Apostle. The word 'Apostoloi' is a designation which is applied to not only Paul, but the other special "messengers" of the Lord who received a special commission or calling to minister to the Churches.
Of course, no list of the Apostles mentioned in the New Testament would be complete without Jesus, the original apostle, sent by His Father who also chose and may yet choose to send according to His wisdom and the need of His bride.
Accredations///Credits///References:
"How many Apostles were there and what are their names?" by Robert Randle
Last edited by a moderator:
He he... You do err not knowing the scriptures! Paul never stated those were the qualifications. He did them, but never said they were qualifications. He also said that he and Peter had power to lead a sister or a wife.... That doesn't make it a point of qualification, does it? They also said God gave THEM prophesies, but that doesn't make it a qualification, does it? Well, at least you left that out....
THE ONLY THING that qualified them to be an apostle was that they were called and sent by Christ to deliver a message and serve as his chief ambassador to specific people.
Judas was an apostle. He delivered a message at times. But he never saw Jesus ressurected. Yet the Bible says he was an apostle.
James the half brother of John was never called by Jesus to be an apostle. He wasn't one of the 12 originals and was not drafted in like Paul. He never claimed to be one. Yet he gave his sheep the power of healing through faith, and told them to bring them to the elders. So unless he was lying in Jas 5 he had the power of healing and the power to delegate it. So, perhaps you'd like to include James as one of the 12, which would make it 13 and doesn't fit into the Book of Revelation, does it?
When you read what Paul said, you will see he gave some to be apostles, and others the gift of healing and miracles, but clearly they weren't apostles and he specifically states that he didn't give the gift to do it. Heck, the disciples complained when someone else was preaching and healing in Jesus' name and Jesus said don't forbid them! But look at 1 Cor 12:29. Just because you can heal or do miracles doesn't make you an apostle.
Jesus' final message in the Gospels was to go and teach... Absolutely they were about to do healings, but that was not what Jesus told them to do. They had that power, but that wasn't part of the commision.
Paul never opened an epistle with the words, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the authority of God to perform miracles to prove to you...." He simply said, "God sent me..." "Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God..."
So to latch on to one verse here and there that said the apostles performed miracles and healings doesn't hold weight that doing such proved they were were apostles and anyone who is an apostle MUST do them. And you didn't address the notion that that just because you haven't seen them, doesn't make it so.
The ONLY thing that qualifies an Apostle as being an Apostle is they are sent by Jesus to deliver a message. There will never be another 12 and those are written in revelation as important.
But even Paul said he knew in part.... So if you want to stand fast and say, there aren't apostles today (even though he said they'd be the last ones sent), clearly even Paul thought something greater was coming.
THE ONLY THING that qualified them to be an apostle was that they were called and sent by Christ to deliver a message and serve as his chief ambassador to specific people.
Judas was an apostle. He delivered a message at times. But he never saw Jesus ressurected. Yet the Bible says he was an apostle.
James the half brother of John was never called by Jesus to be an apostle. He wasn't one of the 12 originals and was not drafted in like Paul. He never claimed to be one. Yet he gave his sheep the power of healing through faith, and told them to bring them to the elders. So unless he was lying in Jas 5 he had the power of healing and the power to delegate it. So, perhaps you'd like to include James as one of the 12, which would make it 13 and doesn't fit into the Book of Revelation, does it?
When you read what Paul said, you will see he gave some to be apostles, and others the gift of healing and miracles, but clearly they weren't apostles and he specifically states that he didn't give the gift to do it. Heck, the disciples complained when someone else was preaching and healing in Jesus' name and Jesus said don't forbid them! But look at 1 Cor 12:29. Just because you can heal or do miracles doesn't make you an apostle.
Jesus' final message in the Gospels was to go and teach... Absolutely they were about to do healings, but that was not what Jesus told them to do. They had that power, but that wasn't part of the commision.
Paul never opened an epistle with the words, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the authority of God to perform miracles to prove to you...." He simply said, "God sent me..." "Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God..."
So to latch on to one verse here and there that said the apostles performed miracles and healings doesn't hold weight that doing such proved they were were apostles and anyone who is an apostle MUST do them. And you didn't address the notion that that just because you haven't seen them, doesn't make it so.
The ONLY thing that qualifies an Apostle as being an Apostle is they are sent by Jesus to deliver a message. There will never be another 12 and those are written in revelation as important.
But even Paul said he knew in part.... So if you want to stand fast and say, there aren't apostles today (even though he said they'd be the last ones sent), clearly even Paul thought something greater was coming.
Last edited by a moderator:
vocalyocal
Member
yes there are apostles, and there are prophets, but these titles are never taken by a true apostle or prophet, they are only later given to such men, as "that man was a true prophet" or "that guy started so many churches and was full of the Holy Spirit surely he was an apostle"
these are "GOD GIVEN APPOINTMENTS" men are not the ones who appoint apostles or prophets
men can appoint elders and deacons, pastors
most churches today don't like either prophets or apostles..........but its ok.......God still has them doing the job He has called them to do, they don't need or want the fan fare anyway
these are "GOD GIVEN APPOINTMENTS" men are not the ones who appoint apostles or prophets
men can appoint elders and deacons, pastors
most churches today don't like either prophets or apostles..........but its ok.......God still has them doing the job He has called them to do, they don't need or want the fan fare anyway
vocalyocal
Member
ahh but the power is passed on, and somtimes its even given in a double portion (see 2 kings 2:9-10) and if you need a new testiment rendering Pauls says "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands" 2 Timothy 1:6
Paul never seemed to have a problem with taking the title as an apostle. He wrote letters claiming to be one.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Invalid reference. Old Testament. No, the gifts could not be passed on, and were even dying out at the end of Paul's life. Why would he leave Trophimus lying ill at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20) if he could still have healed him?
And as I said, the apostle could pass it on to Timothy. That passage says nothing beyond the fact that Paul at some point laid hands on Timothy to pass the gift on to him, and gives no indication TImothy is able to do the same. Specifically, Paul says " ... through the laying on of my hands."
vocalyocal
Member
true but that was in the day when evil men hadn't infiltrated the ranks and drummed out the position of apostle and prophet, and started their own perverted and corrupt positions, making themselves look even more dispicable than the Pharisees who Jesus rebuked for their fine long robes and fancy buttons, even to the point of naming one of themselves to be head over the church, when this title was for Christ alone
vocalyocal
Member
you think everyone gets healed who gets prayed for by the apostles? even Jesus was unable to do many miracles in Mathew 13:58 because of a lack of faith, all through the new testiment we see it is by faith that the power works, thus no faith no healing
which really puts you in a tough spot if you ever get sick, if you don't believe brothers or sisters in Christ can lay hands on you and by faith bring healing to your body, really its quite sad
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
No, because Trophimus obviously did not, because the gift of healing was dying out. Thanks for playing.
This is the weakness of your argument. It is the weakness of your "god" who cannot heal because of the lack of faith in a mere, puny human being. You have misinterpreted the Matthew passage to gross effect, taking God's power out of His hands and attempting to claim it for yourself based on the power of your faith, making it greater than His will. God spoke the universe into being, man! And that faith isn't yours in the first place! It was given to you by God, because you can have NONE unless He grants it to you! And you think a case of "little faith" is sufficient to defeat God's purpose? Good grief, that is a weak "god" you believe in. Certainly not my God who can move mountains with the utterance of a word, a snap of His fingers, or a cluck of His tongue.
I believe God gave power to heal in a variety of ways. He has allowed us to learn how to cure many diseases through medical arts, and there are literally millions of doctors and nurses who will tell you, their work is not possible unless they and their patients are in the presence of God. You have a very small god who cannot heal as He chooses, but must conform to your opinion of how He does so.
vocalyocal
Member
so which is it? faith or God, Jesus told the woman with the issue of blood "your faith has healed you".....Is Jesus a liar? somehow you have this doctrine that God's will has to happen, I'm sorry to inform you that while its God's will that all men repent and turn from sin, in the real world it doesn't happen, but I'm guessing your a Calvinist from this last post
as for the medical arts as you have put it, the medical world is no longer in the business of curing any disease, they are corporation of disease management, the only thing they are in the business of doing is selling perscriptions of pills that mask the symptoms you are experiencing
Jesus is a man, my friend. A man. I know this may be seen as a provocative statement and I don't want to derail this thread overly. We can discuss this at length elsewhere if you'd like.
Edward
2024 Supporter
You ever notice that only believers saw or touched Jesus after He was risen? His work was finished, fulfilled. The unrepentant sinners were now to have faith. The age of grace and faith had begun! I'm learning a lot from you over time, Sparrow.
As to the issue of qualifications of apostleship, I think it's kind of moot. We do not know Gods ways or thoughts. He may or may not have need of apostles today. There may or may not be apostles walking around. John may or may not be here. It would seem dangerous to reach for the title, those would be some big shoes to fill! I don't think one could list qualifications for apostleship. This would imply that we could study up and take the test so to speak and perhaps achieve it. No. It would be by God's appointment only I think. Men may be able to perceive that another is an apostle, or perhaps that would be opinion. Perhaps Paul did perceive that he was an apostle, through the wisdom bestowed upon him.
To address the question posed, is vocalyocal's God weak? Lighten up my brother, and give the man a break. I think it was merely a poorly worded statement, that Jesus was unable to perform certain miracles due to a lack of faith. We do see instances where Jesus made the miracle conditional upon the level of the persons faith. We also see instances where no faith was required for the miracle. Did the five thousand people need faith to be fed? Did the dead need faith to be raised? Yet, we do see that a blind man was charged with, according to your faith let it be so. The woman with the issue of blood, the same, and other instances also. I think what we are seeing there is Jesus wisdom in action! Jesus chose to deal with some in this manner To encourage people to have faith. Yes, of course, faith is a gift from God, but do we exercise it? Do we reach for it in times of tribulation? He wants us to. I agree with very much of what vocalyocal has been saying, but please don't let the thread deteriorate over one poorly worded statement!
vocalyocal
Member
what did apostles do is really what needs to be addressed, they are what we see today and have retitled "Church planters" they are what we now call "Missionaries" they take the gospel and go to the world and start churches
apostles are still ordained by God, its only the title that has been lost not the job, ask any missionary and they will tell you they were called to go here or there, its not their own will they are following...............except the ones called to Hawaii or Bahamas.........lol.......its a great gig if you can get it
apostles are still ordained by God, its only the title that has been lost not the job, ask any missionary and they will tell you they were called to go here or there, its not their own will they are following...............except the ones called to Hawaii or Bahamas.........lol.......its a great gig if you can get it
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Fully God, fully man. That's all that need be said.
vocalyocal
Member
this Holy Spirit dying off as you claim, was He just gone one day, or has His power simply dwindled away as if He is like a battery, and at Penticost He was full of power, but after the bible was written He bearly could cure a fever........I'm trying to figure out how you view it?