Bible Study Here is one for you bible students

[Georges]

I can't speak with certainty that there are or aren't Apostles today, or if Charles Stanley is one. Although I must say I do like Charles Stanley from what I have read of him. And I know my Dad highly recommends reading his works.

But perhaps you could explain this to me. How would you know who an apostle was? The book of Titus deals more with church heiarchy than any other book as far as I know and it talks about qualifications for deacon's elders and overseers, but never do you see qualifications for apostles. Why wouldn't the church seek to point out who could become apostles or by what signs you could tell them by? I just want to understand how much the NT really says about apostleship and how much we can really assume.

Regards,

~Josh

Peter gives the guideline for Apostleship in the Pseudo-Clementines..

A little lengthy but well worth the read....

Excerps from the Recognitions...

Chapter XL.-Advent of the True Prophet.

...Therefore He chose us twelve,32 the first who believed in Him, whom He named apostles; and afterwards other seventy-two most approved disciples,33 that, at least in this way recognising the pattern of Moses,34 the multitude might believe that this is He of whom Moses foretold, the Prophet that was to come."35

Chapter XXXIII.-Authority.

...when He sent us apostles to preach, enjoined us to teach all nations29 the things which were committed to us. We cannot therefore speak those things as they were spoken by Himself. For our commission is not to speak, but to teach those things, and from them to show how every one of them rests upon truth. Nor, again, are we permitted to speak anything of our own. For we are sent; and of necessity he who is sent delivers the message as he has been ordered, and sets forth the will of the sender. For if I should speak anything different from what He who sent me enjoined me, I should be a false apostle, not saying what I am commanded to say, but what seems good to myself. Whoever does this, evidently wishes to show himself to be better than he is by whom he is sent, and without doubt is a traitor. If, on the contrary, he keeps by the things that he is commanded, and brings forward most clear assertions of them, it will appear that he is accomplishing the work of an apostle; and it is by striving to fulfil this that I displease you. Blame me not, therefore, because I bring forward the words of Him who sent me. But if there is aught in them that is not fairly spoken, you have liberty to confute me;

Chapter XXXIV.-Temptation of Christ.

...Therefore our Lord, confirming the worship of one God, answered him: `It is written, Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.'28 And he, terrified by this answer, and fearing lest the true religion of the one and true God should be restored, hastened straightway to send forth into this world false prophets, and false apostles, and false teachers, who should speak indeed in the name of Christ, but should accomplish the will of the demon.

Chapter XXXV.-False Apostles.

...."Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord's brother, or of whosoever may come after him.29 For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ,-unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. For there is one true Prophet, whose words we twelve apostles preach; for He is the accepted year of God, having us apostles as His twelve months. But for what reason the world itself was made, or what diversities have occurred in it, and why our Lord, coming for its restoration, has chosen and sent us twelve apostles, shall be explained more at length at another time.

Chapter XXXVI.-The Garments Unspotted.

.."But the ways in which this garment may be spotted are these: If any one withdraw from God the Father and Creator of all, receiving another teacher besides Christ, who alone is the faithful and true Prophet, and who has sent us twelve apostles to preach the word; if any one think otherwise than worthily of the substance of the Godhead, which excels all things;-these are the things which even fatally pollute the garment of baptism. But the things which pollute it in actions are these: murders, adulteries, hatreds, avarice, evil ambition. And the things which pollute at once the soul and the body are these: to partake of the table of demons, that is, to taste things sacrificed, or blood, or a carcase which is strangled,31 and if there be aught else which has been offered to demons. Be this therefore the first step to you of three; which step brings forth thirty commands, and the second sixty, and the third a hundred,32 as we shall expound more fully to you at another time."

 

[Georges]

And from the Clementine Homilies....concerning apostles and false apostles. All the info needed on true and false apostles in these 2 posts.


Chapter XXXV.-"Beware of False Prophets."

...Thus, therefore, when our brethren rejoiced at my God-gifted regeneration, not many days after he turned to the elders in presence of all the church, and charged them, saying: "Our Lord and Prophet, who hath sent us, declared to us that the wicked one, having disputed with Him forty days, and having prevailed nothing against Him, promised that he would send apostles from amongst his subjects, to deceive. Wherefore, above all, remember to shun apostle or teacher or prophet who does not first accurately compare his preaching with that of James, who was called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was entrusted to administer the church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem,-and that even though he come to you with witnesses:

...should afterwards, like lightning falling from heaven upon the earth, send a preacher to your injury, as now he has sent Simon upon us, preaching, under pretence of the truth, in the name of the Lord, and sowing error. Wherefore He who hath sent us, said, `Many shall come to me in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.'"

Chapter XXI.-Simon Promises to Appeal to the Teaching of Christ. Peter Dismisses the Multitudes.

...On Peter saying this, much whispering arose amongst the crowds, saying, "What necessity is there for permitting him to come in here, and utter his blasphemies against God? "And Peter heard, and said, "Would that the doctrines against God which are intended to try men went no further than Simon! For there will be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for supremacy, who, as I conjecture, finding their beginning in Simon, who blasphemes God, will work together in the assertion of the same opinions against God as those of Simon."

Everything you need to know about Apostles (true and false) in the last 2 posts....and when and why false apostles are sent into the world....

 

[Georges]

But I do not believe that ridiculous attempt to thwart the Word of God.

I'm not making a ridiculous attempt....to thwart the Word of God...I fully support the Tanach, the Gospels (edited as they may be), and James, Peter, John and Jude as refuting Paul....Seriously, The only legitimate Holy Spirit moved "Word of God" is the OT. To which everything written post, should be measured by.

Anyway, for your one references supporting Peter, there are 10 supporting anonymous....

• Assuredly II Peter is not anonymous and the biographical touches that it contains accord with Peter's known life.
  
  ...While the external evidence for the genuineness of II Peter is not so clear and convincing as it is for other books of the New Testament, the internal evidence creates at least a presumption of authenticity. The epistle bears no traces of heresy; there is nothing in it which Peter could not have written; and it is not embellished with biographical details which are obviously imaginative, as so many apocryphal works are. Since conclusive proof of spuriousness is lacking, it will be treated here as genuine.
  (Tenney, Merrill C., New Testament Survey, pg. 367, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.:Grand Rapids, Michigan)

We could go on ad nauseum on the authorship....however MOST scholars agree that it is written by a pseudo author....

From wikipedia...2 Peter

Authorship

The opening verse identifies itself as having been written by Simeon Peter, who has been identified with Saint Peter, although nowhere else in the New Testament is he referred to as both Simeon (the Aramaic form of Simon) and Peter. It has been considered by some as evidence that Peter himself wrote the text rather than an amanuensis (as with the previous epistle). This understanding is also used to argue against a pseudepigraphal author in light of the unlikelihood of a late writer attempting to feign an original when all previous references have used the "Simon" form. However, most scholars view the work as a pseudepigraphical one of the early 2nd century.

Most scholars argue that 2 Peter depends on the Epistle of Jude and should be dated later than that epistle, perhaps as late as the end of the second century, while others argue the reverse dependency. Those who argue for an earlier date for 2 Peter usually support this claim with the lack of references to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and for elements involving the "false teachers/prophets" that are regarded as more exemplary of earlier deviations than the Gnosticism of the mid-2nd century. The later date, however, is argued for by textual scholars, due to use of features of the language that were not present in earlier times.

This is one of the last of the books accepted into the canon of the New Testament at the Council of Laodicea in 372 due to the influence of Athanasius of Alexandria, and Augustine. Earlier, neither Irenaeus nor Polycarp of Smyrna supply quotations from this text, but writers such as Origen and Polybius make comment on the work, discussing its debated status. Jerome, who is sometimes said to have argued in favor of the authenticity of the Epistle, stated in De viris illustribus (chapter i) "He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him."

Many scholars doubt that the Apostle Peter was the author and even in antiquity there were widespread doubts. There are striking differences in the linguistic style from the First Epistle of Peter. The editors of Barclay's New Testament characterize the epistle's style as "florid, rhetorical and flamboyant." Some scholars explain this difference by explaining that Peter had assistance in writing his first epistle from Barnabas, and therefore the second epistle is actually Peter's own unaided writing.

Part of the case for a date no earlier than the second century is the internal evidence of 3:15, 16, where the writer assumes that the letters of Paul are well known to his readers. This implies that the letters of Paul had been collected and published and had become part of the literature of the church at the time 2 Peter was written. A critic who accepts Peter as the Simeon Peter is viewed, then, to assume that Paul's letters to the various churches were collected and edited and published for all to read before Peter died in 67.

As an alternative to this viewpoint, it is significant that Peter in no way claims to have a complete collection of Paul's letters, and there is evidence within the Pauline corpus itself that suggests that local letters were being distributed among nearby churches at Paul's request. A full corpus, is not necessary, then, for Peter to reference it. As well, with tradition placing Paul and Peter in Rome at nearly the same time, he might have had opportunity to read material copied from originals in the possession of Paul or his companions.

There are several points of contact with the Apocalypse of Peter and it is for this reason that many early scholars were hesitant to accept the work (e.g., Polybius), in fear that it would lead to an eventual acceptance of the clearly pseudonymous Apocalypse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter

and we could go on back and forth....

You (I assume) claim that the NT is pure and unaltered....I claim that in fact it has been tampered with.

 

[Solo]

George,
You are a wikipedia fan. There is great scholarship there.

Here is an excerpt from an Introduction to the New Testament on the Second General Epistle of Peter at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/newtestament.xxix.html

• the authenticity of the letter is subject to serious doubt in modern times, such scholars as Mayerhoff, Credner, Hilgenfeld, Von Soden, Hausrath, Mangold, Davidson, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Julicher, Harnack, Chase, Strachan e. a. denying that Peter wrote it. But the Epistle is not without defenders; its authenticity is maintained among others by Luthardt, Wiesinger, Guericke, Windischmann, Bruckner, Hofmann, Salmon, Alford, Zahn, Spitta, and Warfield, while Huther, Weiss, and Kuhl conclude their investigations with a non liquet.

Your comment that "most scholars argue that 2 Peter depends on the Epistle of Jude" does not match up with denying the authoship of II Peter as being Simon Peter as explained in the source previously quoted:

• As far as the literary dependence of Peter on Jude is concerned, it is well to bear in mind that this is not absolutely proved. However, assuming it to be established, there is nothing derogatory in it for Peter, since Jude was also an inspired man, and because in those early days unacknowledged borrowing was looked at in a far different light than it is today.â€â€That the author is extremely solicitous to show that he is the apostle Peter is, even if it can be proved, no argument against the genuineness of this letter. In view of the errorists against which he warns the readers, it was certainly important that they should bear in mind his official position. But it cannot be maintained that he insists on this over-much. The references to his death, his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and his first Epistle are introduced in a perfectly natural way. Moreover this argument is neutralized by some of the others brought forward by the negative critics.

The sentence of your post that manifests your position being outside of the brethren that abide in the Lord Jesus Christ is the following:

....Seriously, The only legitimate Holy Spirit moved "Word of God" is the OT.

The reason that you adhere to the school of thought that II Peter is authored by a pseudo author is because of the weight that it throws against your unscriptural claims. II Peter claims that "...that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21). Peter goes on to write that the Apostles have divine authority, "That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour" (2 Peter 3:2). He places the writings of PAUL as being counted with the Scriptures in 2 Peter 3:16, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Just as all false prophets and children of the devil and the devil himself, when the Word of God is brought up, deny, deny, deny. Your deception will cause you to gnash your teeth as you weep if you do not repent from the rebellion that you are involved in.

Another point to make as to why you would intentionally disregard 2 Peter as being Scripture can be manifested more clearly with the writings of the previous source:

• Like all the canonical writings this one too has abiding significance. Its importance is found in the fact that it emphasizes the great value of true Christian knowledge, especially in view of the dangers that arise for believers from all kinds of false teachings, and from the resultant example of a loose, a licentious, an immoral life. It teaches us that a Christianity that is not well founded in the truth as it is in Christ, is like a ship without a rudder on the turbulent sea of life. A Christianity without dogma cannot maintain itself against the errors of the day, but will go down before the triumphant forces of darkness; it will not succeed in cultivating a pure, noble spiritual life, but will be conformed to the life of the world. In particular does the Epistle remind us of the fact that faith in the return of Christ should inspire us to a holy conversation.

But, Hey, maybe you will repent one day and become a born again believer as did many Jews in the days after Pentacost. God bless you with His truth.
Michael

 

[Georges]

George,
You are a wikipedia fan. There is great scholarship there.

Nice try at the slight my freind...however, your attempt at discredit lacks...as I have always said, wikipedia is convienient and not infallible (as any resource is). However, it can be corroborated by other resources...it is however, very handy.

Here is an excerpt from an Introduction to the New Testament on the Second General Epistle of Peter at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/newtestament.xxix.html

• the authenticity of the letter is subject to serious doubt in modern times, such scholars as Mayerhoff, Credner, Hilgenfeld, Von Soden, Hausrath, Mangold, Davidson, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Julicher, Harnack, Chase, Strachan e. a. denying that Peter wrote it. But the Epistle is not without defenders; its authenticity is maintained among others by Luthardt, Wiesinger, Guericke, Windischmann, Bruckner, Hofmann, Salmon, Alford, Zahn, Spitta, and Warfield, while Huther, Weiss, and Kuhl conclude their investigations with a non liquet.
  

Your comment that "most scholars argue that 2 Peter depends on the Epistle of Jude" does not match up with denying the authoship of II Peter as being Simon Peter as explained in the source previously quoted:

• 
  
  Ah...yes it does....If 2 Pet is written by a pseudo writer it clearly adds the text concerning Paul in an attempt to deflect Jude's text that clearly indicts Paul. Making both texts appear to be in agreement that there is a dissenter, but 2 Peter indicates that since Paul is "one of us", it can't be him. Clever, cover.
  
  
  
  As far as the literary dependence of Peter on Jude is concerned, it is well to bear in mind that this is not absolutely proved. However, assuming it to be established, there is nothing derogatory in it for Peter, since Jude was also an inspired man, and because in those early days unacknowledged borrowing was looked at in a far different light than it is today.
  
  These (Peter and Jude) do not have to be inspired texts...they are simply texts giving warning of someone, who at the time, was a false apostle.
  
  â€â€That the author is extremely solicitous to show that he is the apostle Peter is, even if it can be proved, no argument against the genuineness of this letter. In view of the errorists against which he warns the readers, it was certainly important that they should bear in mind his official position. But it cannot be maintained that he insists on this over-much. The references to his death, his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and his first Epistle are introduced in a perfectly natural way. Moreover this argument is neutralized by some of the others brought forward by the negative critics.

All what is written above could have been written by a pseudo writer at some point later (ie 100 AD), after the facts were established.

The sentence of your post that manifests your position being outside of the brethren that abide in the Lord Jesus Christ is the following:

Outside the bretheren of Paul's Christ? :-D If the bretheren are wrong, I guess I'm outside. :-D I would rather be inside the bretheren of James' Christ.

The reason that you adhere to the school of thought that II Peter is authored by a pseudo author is because of the weight that it throws against your unscriptural claims.

Sorry my friend, I use scripture as well as historical document to support my claim. That makes my position superior to yours because you are stuck with what you have to support your postion....one of us is wrong, and one is more right.

II Peter claims that "...that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I don't own a private interpretation...you interpret it as you will, so will I.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Has nothing to do with our posts here...

Peter goes on to write that the Apostles have divine authority, "That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour" (2 Peter 3:2).

Correct....as supported by the P-C Recognitions, the 12 Apostles do have the authority to teach what they've been taught "and no more".

He places the writings of PAUL as being counted with the Scriptures in 2 Peter 3:16, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Wrong....the pseudo writer (a Paulinist) added this to deflect Paul from the early part of Jude and 2 Pet...not to mention John's epistles. The pseudo-writer add's this as an almost after thought because it doesn't flow with the context of the whole book.

Just as all false prophets and children of the devil and the devil himself, when the Word of God is brought up, deny, deny, deny. Your deception will cause you to gnash your teeth as you weep if you do not repent from the rebellion that you are involved in.

Can we have an intelligent debate without the remarks...you know I can state the same back at you, but I don't. I'd rather reason it out. :x

Another point to make as to why you would intentionally disregard 2 Peter as being Scripture can be manifested more clearly with the writings of the previous source:

Correction, I find 2 Peter very useful...I just agree that a pseudo writer added the part about Paul to deflect attention away from him. Clearly, Jesus, James, Peter, John, and Jude put him in the crosshairs. And, legitimate scripture is the Tanach only....One of the bigger problems is that Christians today are taught that the complete NT is inspired and infallible. Thus giving the appearence (by suggestion) that James,Peter and Paul on the same side. But, if the NT isn't completely inspired, then James and the Apostles can be opposed to Paul based on the content of Paul's epistles alone. But they mistake the intent of Paul's

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

to mean that it includes his epistles on the same level....is it? Because he said so?

• Like all the canonical writings this one too has abiding significance. Its importance is found in the fact that it emphasizes the great value of true Christian knowledge, especially in view of the dangers that arise for believers from all kinds of false teachings, and from the resultant example of a loose, a licentious, an immoral life. It teaches us that a Christianity that is not well founded in the truth as it is in Christ, is like a ship without a rudder on the turbulent sea of life. A Christianity without dogma cannot maintain itself against the errors of the day, but will go down before the triumphant forces of darkness; it will not succeed in cultivating a pure, noble spiritual life, but will be conformed to the life of the world. In particular does the Epistle remind us of the fact that faith in the return of Christ should inspire us to a holy conversation.

But, Hey, maybe you will repent one day and become a born again believer as did many Jews in the days after Pentacost.

Hey...guess what...the repentent Jews at Pentecost became Torah obeying Nazarene Jews...not Paulinist Christians....

God bless you with His truth.

Back at cha....

Michael

 

[Vic C.]

Georges wrote:
....Seriously, The only legitimate Holy Spirit moved "Word of God" is the OT.

I disagree. Take away the NT (especially the four Gospel accounts) and we have little reference to the Messiah of the OT. You'd know absolutely nothing about Jesus. Whether of not some of the writings are pseudo can not be proven. None of us were there; these so-called scholars were not there. There is continued debate as to whether or not these writings are authentic, so it stands to reason at this time, they remain as part of our Bible.

I have been asked to remind you and the Forum about the ToS, which states:

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Statement of Faith

We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purpously distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated.

Active promotion of sinful behavior will not be permitted. This includes promotion of homosexual behavior. Individual restrictions may apply on a Forum to Forum basis. Please check the announcements and stickeys at the top of each Forum.

Thank you.

 

[Georges]

I disagree. Take away the NT (especially the four Gospel accounts) and we have little reference to the Messiah of the OT.

I should clarify....I don't think the Pauline Epsitles, James, Peter, John, or Jude are necessarily "HS inspired". The "unedited" Gospels, yes because they do not disagree the OT. Revelation, yes because it agrees with the OT. Both (Gospels and Rev) have Jesus words in them...so of course I'm inclined to think they are inspired. The others...don't have to be. The Jerusalem apostles epistles refute Paul's....Both aren't necessarily inspired.

You'd know absolutely nothing about Jesus.

Agreed...however...let me print the whole quote on which you commented...on Solo picked one sentance which detracts from the content of what I was saying...might I add also...typical... :D

My statement...

I'm not making a ridiculous attempt....to thwart the Word of God...I fully support the Tanach, the Gospels (edited as they may be), and James, Peter, John and Jude as refuting Paul....Seriously, The only legitimate Holy Spirit moved "Word of God" is the OT. To which everything written post, should be measured by.

end quote...

Whether of not some of the writings are pseudo can not be proven. None of us were there; these so-called scholars were not there. There is continued debate as to whether or not these writings are authentic, so it stands to reason at this time, they remain as part of our Bible.

Yep...as Peter states in the PC's, they are there to "Try Men".

I have been asked to remind you and the Forum about the ToS, which states:

Yeh...yeh....whatever....I feel for ya....you got whiner's (and we know who they are :wink: ) who nag you, I'm sure. They lose the argument and whine.

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Statement of Faith

We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purpously distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated.


I'm not distorting Paul's writing, he does a good job on his own...I haven't been proven to lie or to be deceitful yet.....I don't edit Paul's work, I don't have to.

Active promotion of sinful behavior will not be permitted. This includes promotion of homosexual behavior. Individual restrictions may apply on a Forum to Forum basis. Please check the announcements and stickeys at the top of each Forum.

I never once suggested that Solo and I should go out on a date, so I don't think I'm in violation....Sitting down for a coffee with him when he's in Dallas in no way constitues promotion of any HOMOSEXUAL behavior....on my part anyway.... is there something else I should know.... :-D :-D

Thank you.

Sure....Vic....when y'all get tired of me....all you have to do is hit the button...please don't threaten me anymone...just kick me off....I'll move on and wish you good luck...