If this person fits, then what's the problem?
The problem is this person (apostle) says we don't have the full gospel and that means if we don't follow that church's doctrine we're not going to dwell in heaven or hell, but outside the doors of heaven in regret.
Did I get that right?
Yes. There's more to it than that, but that's what he says in a nutshell.
There is your first clue that he is not genuine. You needn't look further. Praise God, it is obvious in this case!
Yes but ur judging that's wrong based on your fundamental believe. He's calling that fundamental belief into question. What you say sounds like a simple open/shut case but it's not that simple.
His followers would look at u and say "There is your first clue that you are wrong. Your guided by ur own interpretations of the Word and not from an Apostle, who has divine insight."
So how is your reasoning different from theirs? If their reasoning is wrong, then isn't urs wrong too?
If we say "we are right because of our reasons" then we're no different from their reasoning. We must need more reason than just "our reasons" Because after all... the Truth is not relative, it's absolute. We must make sure "our reasons" are in agreement with the Truth and not just "our reasons"
interesting i forgot about mathias. maybe he was killed and paul took his place.
maybe... but then we can't really speculate.
This suggests that for someone to even be considered for an Apostle required that they had accompanied the eleven "during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out" among them, likely one of the seventy.
.. But Paul wasn't there "during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out" either and he's considered an Apostle.
Obviously impossible for modern so-called apostles.
Well Jesus can still show Himself to people even in modern day. How then is that impossible if you are directly called by Jesus? Unless you believe Jesus would never show Himself to anyone in modern day. Then in that case, what are you basing that belief based on?
All modern day apostles are either self-appointed or appointed by those who are self-appointed.
For example like Paul, who was directly called by Jesus. If you ask him, he would identify himself as an apostle. For those who believes he is directly called would consider him as not self-appointed. For theos who believes he made it up would consider him as self-appointed. So how can u tell the difference for this guy? We weren't there when he was "called"
In a very real sense, we are all apostles, "ones who are sent."
Your definition of apostle is "ones who are sent" R u sure that's all there is to it? The bible talks about pastors and preachers and so on. They can be all considered "sent" and yet bible gives them distinction.
In another sense, missionaries are true modern day apostles. But these self-proclaimed apostles puff themselves up and make themselves out to be equal to the first apostles, which is a grave error. It is nothing more than vanity, pride, selfish ambition, greed, and lust for power. The Bible says such men will come along, and come along they have.
Seems like your fundamental argument is that impossible for a modern day person to be similar to those apostles in the biblical days. What are you basing this belief on?
Please excuse my asking of "what r u basing this on?" all the time. I rather know y i'm agreeing with u instead of just agreeing.
i would have to see it to believe it.
So... even if he's legit, but you never get to see him, you don't believe it?
Apostles are a rare bunch...
u use "rare" meaning they do exist? I mean in modern day.
BTW, i know the world has it's fill of fake ones. But that's not enough reason to mark them all fake.
we call them senior pastors here as some churches have 4 or 5 pastors. ie calvary chapel ft.lauderdale
Bible doesn't make a distinction between pastors and senior pastors. But bible does make distinction between apostles and other roles. So in modern day, the existence of pastors doesn't necessarily prove non-existence of apostles.
