PDA

View Full Version : Apostle/Disciple



AndrewBaptistFL
Aug 11th 2010, 10:53 AM
What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple?

-SEEKING-
Aug 11th 2010, 10:58 AM
Good question. The apostles were the 12 guys specifically chosen by Jesus to follow Him and minister with Him while he was here on earth. The disciples were the rest of the people who followed Jesus and heard His teachings and were trying to get close to Him as well.

Firstfruits
Aug 11th 2010, 11:11 AM
What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple?


I think it depends on how it is used. From the following they appear to be the same.

Mt 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Mt 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

Lk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

Firstfruits

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 11:17 AM
What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple?

The Greek word "Apostolos" means one who is sent. The apostles were personally sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel, so they were Jesus' apostles, (Ones He sent). A disciple is student, a disciple of Jesus is one who learns from Jesus and follows His teachings.

Redeemed by Grace
Aug 11th 2010, 12:06 PM
The Greek word "Apostolos" means one who is sent. The apostles were personally sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel, so they were Jesus' apostles, (Ones He sent). A disciple is student, a disciple of Jesus is one who learns from Jesus and follows His teachings.

Good answer .

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 12:38 PM
I think it depends on how it is used. From the following they appear to be the same.

Mt 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Mt 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

Lk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

FirstfruitsThis is not limited to 12 disciples turned apostles. Any who follow Jesus are disciples and all disciples can do all that the apostels can do.

In Luke we read about the Seventy being sent out. Here is a single scripture concerning part of their task so it wasn't ONLY speaking the Word of God to others:

Luke 10: 9 And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Break, Break, Break...Phone call... ok, where was I? Hahaha

Also, the scripture covering the Great Commission. We have this twice in scripture:

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

The point I want to focus on - Some will say that since this was given to the Apostles, this task is ONLY for the Apostles... WHAT? If THEY (Apostels) are to TEACH all, to observe ALL THINGS commanded of them, then WE are also to do the Great Commission and also DO as the Apostels have done. ALL THINGS, so what the Holy Spirit has done through them, He does through ALL of us as well.

Additional scripture concerning the Great Commission:

Mk 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[b] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Again, in this additional information concerning the Great Commission... all the, "They will" and the "He who believes/those who believe", confirms that WE, or any Christians are to do as the Apostels BEGAN to do. Not that they were the ONLY ones capable to do, they just BEGAN to do all this through Christ.

The same Christ in them, is in us all, who are Christians. We are not limited except how we limited ourselves.

No, we're not Apostles as the first 12 were, but we are all disciples who have been taught and commanded to do as they did and since much they did was by the lead of the Holy Spirit (they DID as led), all we need to do is the same and any who allow the Holy Spirit to lead them WILL DO all that the Apostels did. For example, we will do as those 70 did as well.

Firstfruits
Aug 11th 2010, 01:28 PM
This is not limited to 12 disciples turned apostles. Any who follow Jesus are disciples and all disciples can do all that the apostels can do.

In Luke we read about the Seventy being sent out. Here is a single scripture concerning part of their task so it wasn't ONLY speaking the Word of God to others:

Luke 10: 9 And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Break, Break, Break...Phone call... ok, where was I? Hahaha

Also, the scripture covering the Great Commission. We have this twice in scripture:

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

The point I want to focus on - Some will say that since this was given to the Apostles, this task is ONLY for the Apostles... WHAT? If THEY (Apostels) are to TEACH all, to observe ALL THINGS commanded of them, then WE are also to do the Great Commission and also DO as the Apostels have done. ALL THINGS, so what the Holy Spirit has done through them, He does through ALL of us as well.

Additional scripture concerning the Great Commission:

Mk 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[b] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Again, in this additional information concerning the Great Commission... all the, "They will" and the "He who believes/those who believe", confirms that WE, or any Christians are to do as the Apostels BEGAN to do. Not that they were the ONLY ones capable to do, they just BEGAN to do all this through Christ.

The same Christ in them, is in us all, who are Christians. We are not limited except how we limited ourselves.

No, we're not Apostles as the first 12 were, but we are all disciples who have been taught and commanded to do as they did and since much they did was by the lead of the Holy Spirit (they DID as led), all we need to do is the same and any who allow the Holy Spirit to lead them WILL DO all that the Apostels did. For example, we will do as those 70 did as well.

Agreed!

God bless you!

Firstfruits

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 02:39 PM
I'm going to play devil's advocate like I usually do here...


No, we're not Apostles as the first 12 were, but we are all disciples who have been taught and commanded to do as they did and since much they did was by the lead of the Holy Spirit (they DID as led), all we need to do is the same and any who allow the Holy Spirit to lead them WILL DO all that the Apostels did. For example, we will do as those 70 did as well.
Christ sent the 12.
Christ commanded all believers to go and spread the word.

Christ is SENDING both groups. All believers are apostles?

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 02:42 PM
I'm going to play devil's advocate like I usually do here...


Christ sent the 12.
Christ commanded all believers to go and spread the word.

Christ is SENDING both groups. All believers are apostles?The point of my post... the same Christ in them, is in us. We all do as they were able to do if we allow the Holy Spirit to work through all of us as they allowed the Holy Spirit to work through all of them.

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 02:53 PM
The Greek word "Apostolos" means one who is sent.
My post was also dealing with this comment as well.

If the 12 were sent, and we were sent... By the same arguments presented here we are all Apostles as well as Disciples.

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 05:25 PM
My post was also dealing with this comment as well.

If the 12 were sent, and we were sent... By the same arguments presented here we are all Apostles as well as Disciples.

Jesus sent the 12 and Paul, He didn't send me, how can I be one sent by Christ if He didn't send me?

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 05:41 PM
Jesus sent the 12 and Paul, He didn't send me, how can I can be one sent by Christ if He didn't send me?
Great Commission...

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 06:02 PM
Great Commission...

Great Commsision? I wasn't there.

-SEEKING-
Aug 11th 2010, 06:05 PM
Great Commsision? I wasn't there.

There's a fine line there. So then do we not go and preach to anyone since none of Jesus words were spoken to us?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 11th 2010, 06:07 PM
It has generally been held that Apostles are those "personally" sent/commissioned by Jesus himself. It was Jesus who appeared to Paul on the Damascus Road.

Some hold that it can be passed down from those whom Jesus personally sent.

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 06:14 PM
Great Commsision? I wasn't there.Reallllly now!? The Jesus in you, isn't the same that was in the Apostles? Did you read post #6?

//even to the end of the age//... Jesus's words Butch.

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 06:17 PM
It has generally been held that Apostles are those "personally" sent/commissioned by Jesus himself. It was Jesus who appeared to Paul on the Damascus Road.
Ahhh but it's the same Jesus speaking to us personally that's speaking to the Apostles.

;)

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 06:17 PM
Reallllly now!? The Jesus in you, isn't the same that was in the Apostles? Did you read post #6?

Yes, Really Slug1, I wasn't there. Yes, the Jesus in me is the same Jesus, however, I have never heard Him tell me to go to all nations, and yes I read post 6 and think it is completely the opposite of what Scripture says.

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 06:22 PM
Yes, Really Slug1, I wasn't there. Yes, the Jesus in me is the same Jesus, however, I have never heard Him tell me to go to all nations, and yes I read post 6 and think it is completely the opposite of what Scripture says.Butch... if you read the scriptures of the Great Commission, that is Jesus speaking to you and telling you to go out to all the nations because you are one of those "He who believes/those who believe/they will".

You are, aren't you?

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 06:23 PM
Yes, Really Slug1, I wasn't there. Yes, the Jesus in me is the same Jesus, however, I have never heard Him tell me to go to all nations,
You don't know your Bible very well, then.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 06:32 PM
There's a fine line there. So then do we not go and preach to anyone since none of Jesus words were spoken to us?

Hi Seeking,

I didn't say we shouldn't preach the word, I said that Jesus didn't personally tell me to. You see an apostle is one who is sent, such as a messenger. Christ sent the 12 and Paul to go and preach the Gospel, therefore they were apostles of Christ. No one has sent me to preach the gospel, if I do I am following the lead of the apostles, however, that does not make me an apostle because no one has given me a commission to preach. If my pastor were to commission me to preach then I would be his apostle because he sent me. Likewise if Paul sent Timothy, then Timothy would be Paul's apostle, even if he were preaching the message of Christ. The word apostle is simple the Greek word for messenger, it was common word. If you lived in that time and sent someone to buy milk they would be your apostle. The word only takes on additional meaning when applied to those sent by Christ Himself. Since Christ has not appeared (to my understanding) to anyone since John, I don't see how anyone could have been sent by Him.

You see I believe this is where we get into trouble, we start to define words the way we want to. Such as has been suggested in this thread, well if Jesus sent the 12 and the same Jesus is in us then we are apostles, I completely disagree. Just because Jesus is in us also does not make us apostles. The same Jesus that crushed the head of the serpent is in me, that doesn't mean I can crush the head of the serpent. The same Jesus that raised the dead is in me, that doesn't mean I can raise the dead. I think when we start making these assumptions we begin to get into some shaky theology and many times end up in contradiction with Scripture, which should tell us we are wrong.

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 06:34 PM
You don't know your Bible very well, then.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Were any of those statements made to anyone other than the 12?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 11th 2010, 06:34 PM
Ahhh but it's the same Jesus speaking to us personally that's speaking to the Apostles.

;)

I'm not sure what you're aiming for; maybe clarify a bit. :-). Are you saying we're all Apostles?

Jesus hasn't personally appeared to me and personally commissioned me as an Apostle; but I am generally commissioned to go, which makes make an apostle. Positional title versus general responsibility.

"Some are called, and some are sent;
And some just packed their stuff and went."

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 06:43 PM
Butch... if you read the scriptures of the Great Commission, that is Jesus speaking to you and telling you to go out to all the nations because you are one of those "He who believes/those who believe/they will".

You are, aren't you?

No, Slug1, that is not Jesus telling me. That is one of the main reasons there are so many different beliefs in Protestantism, everyone thinks it means what they think it means. Jesus was speaking to those men, if you can present me with Scripture showing the command to all Christians I am more than willing to listen, however, taking a statement made to those men and applying it across the board is taking it out of context. For instance look at the verses TexuS posted, they were made to the those men. In particular let's look at this verse,

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Do you have a complete understanding of all of the OT prophecies and how they all applied to Christ? Does "EVERY" Christian? No, many Christians don't have basic understanding of the OT, let alone complete knowledge, so how can this apply to "ALL CHRISTIANS"? We can't just pick out the parts we want and discard the parts that "Obviously" can't apply to all Christians. This is why there is so much confusion.

-SEEKING-
Aug 11th 2010, 06:45 PM
You see I believe this is where we get into trouble, we start to define words the way we want to. Such as has been suggested in this thread, well if Jesus sent the 12 and the same Jesus is in us then we are apostles, I completely disagree. Just because Jesus is in us also does not make us apostles.

I totally understand and agree with what you are saying here. My comment wasn't really about the apostleship and whether or not it's still applicable but rather that His words do apply to us in these days. Thanks for your additional information.

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 06:47 PM
No, Slug1, that is not Jesus telling me. That is one of the main reasons there are so many different beliefs in Protestantism, everyone thinks it means what they think it means. Jesus was speaking to those men, if you can present me with Scripture showing the command to all Christians I am more than willing to listen, however, taking a statement made to those men and applying it across the board is taking it out of context. For instance look at the verses TexuS posted, they were made to the those men. In particular let's look at this verse,

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Do you have a complete understanding of all of the OT prophecies and how they all applied to Christ? Does "EVERY" Christian? No, many Christians don't have basic understanding of the OT, let alone complete knowledge, so how can this apply to "ALL CHRISTIANS"? We can't just pick out the parts we want and discard the parts that "Obviously" can't apply to all Christians. This is why there is so much confusion.Which is why we have Holy Spirit filled pastors to teach us what God is saying through the Bible.

The confusion begins when a man teaches us what scripture means "to them", not what God's meaning is as He intended His words to mean to all of us.

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 06:55 PM
Which is why we have Holy Spirit filled pastors to teach us what God is saying through the Bible.

The confusion begins when a man teaches us what scripture means "to them", not what God's meaning is as He intended His words to mean to all of us.

What patoer doens't claim to be filled withthe Holy Spirit?

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 06:58 PM
What patoer doens't claim to be filled withthe Holy Spirit?The plot thickens :lol:

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 07:01 PM
I totally understand and agree with what you are saying here. My comment wasn't really about the apostleship and whether or not it's still applicable but rather that His words do apply to us in these days. Thanks for your additional information.

I agree that all of Jesus' teaching applies to us, He said that in the Great Commission, He told the apostles to teach all nations, the words nations is also translated "Gentiles". I guess the difference is that I don't necessarily think that every single word Jesus said applies to us, only his teaching. For instance, when Jesus told the disciples to go and collect the fragments of bread when He fed the 5000, those words don't apply to us, He was speaking to the apostles. If we use the same line of thinking that the same Jesus is in us then we should conclude that we need to go collect those fragments of bread. Does that make sense?

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 07:06 PM
I agree that all of Jesus' teaching applies to us, He said that in the Great Commission, He told the apostles to teach all nations, the words nations is also translated "Gentiles". I guess the difference is that I don't necessarily think that every single word Jesus said applies to us, only his teaching. For instance, when Jesus told the disciples to go and collect the fragments of bread when He fed the 5000, those words don't apply to us, He was speaking to the apostles. If we use the same line of thinking that the same Jesus is in us then we should conclude that we need to go collect those fragments of bread. Does that make sense?Jesus expects our common sense as well Butch! A child knows that they are not going to go back in time to do what you just tried to push.

Now, we have a testimony on this board of a prayer of thanks over a tiny amount of food and over 100 people were fed with that tiny amount of food. A miracle was done... so, if (I don't know and yes, a "what if") the pastor praying that prayer was told to ensure all food was collected up after all had been fed... why do you limit God so much?

-SEEKING-
Aug 11th 2010, 07:07 PM
Yes it does makes sense Butch. And honestly a lot of it is common sense. Just like I won't go fishing hoping that I'll find a fish wish a coin inside like he told Peter to do. So I get what you're trying to say.

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 07:08 PM
I didn't say we shouldn't preach the word, I said that Jesus didn't personally tell me to.
We might as well throw away the entire NT then.
I mean Colossians were written to the people in Colossae, Ephesians were written to those in Ephesus, Romans was written to the church in Rome, etc.


I'm not sure what you're aiming for; maybe clarify a bit. :-). Are you saying we're all Apostles?

Jesus hasn't personally appeared to me and personally commissioned me as an Apostle; but I am generally commissioned to go, which makes make an apostle. Positional title versus general responsibility.
So we agree we could be considered Apostles the same very way. I'm just saying due to "honor"... I don't think anyone other than the 12 are Apostles. However defining it the only way we know how to define it also makes us Apostles- and I'd honestly think the original 12 would not have disagreed with that (we're all together in the same mission).

Dani H
Aug 11th 2010, 07:11 PM
a) There were apostles other than 12 even back then:

Romans 16:7
7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

b) Are all apostles?? (I don't think so, just like not all are teachers or work miracles)

1 Corinthians 12:28-30
28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[a]? Do all interpret?

c) There had to have been more than 12 because otherwise people wouldn't have been able to go around and claim they were apostles and deceive people (a name check woulda been sufficient ;)):

1 Corinthians 12:28-30 (New International Version)
28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[a]? Do all interpret?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 11th 2010, 07:21 PM
We might as well throw away the entire NT then.
I mean Colossians were written to the people in Colossae, Ephesians were written to those in Ephesus, Romans was written to the church in Rome, etc.


So we agree we could be considered Apostles the same very way. I'm just saying due to "honor"... I don't think anyone other than the 12 are Apostles. However defining it the only way we know how to define it also makes us Apostles- and I'd honestly think the original 12 would not have disagreed with that (we're all together in the same mission).

Yes. I would still distinguish the original office-role from ours, though. Paul was an Apostle; we are apostles. We have the same commission, regardless how it came. I have no excuse; I am as accountable as the 12.

Firstfruits
Aug 11th 2010, 08:16 PM
My post was also dealing with this comment as well.

If the 12 were sent, and we were sent... By the same arguments presented here we are all Apostles as well as Disciples.

We have been sent by Jesus, just as the Apostles. Whatever Jesus commanded them we are commanded to do the same as they have been.

Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Firstfruits

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 08:45 PM
We might as well throw away the entire NT then.
I mean Colossians were written to the people in Colossae, Ephesians were written to those in Ephesus, Romans was written to the church in Rome, etc.

That is exactly my point. We can read the books and take away Biblical principles to live by, for instance Paul says that idolater and adulterers etc. will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. He is not speaking those words to me, however, I can take that principle and understand that those traits will not be acceptable in heaven and know that if anyone practices these things they will not be accepted into heaven. Yet at the same time we cannot assume that every time we see the word "WE" it includes all Christians. That is what many Christians do, they see the word "We" and apply it to themselves and this is where we get all kinds of strange doctrines. For instance, I don't think many, if any Christians would say this "We" is speaking of them.

Acts 16:11 ( KJV )
Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;

Yet the same Christians will turn around and say, this "We" does include them.

Romans 5:6 ( KJV )
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

None of the Christians I have seen quote this were around when Christ died for the ungodly.

You see, I read the Scriptures the way they were written, if Paul says to the church a Ephesus XYZ, then I read it as to Ephesus saying XYZ, then I look at who he is speaking to, is he addressing Gentiles or Jews, who is he speaking of, Gentiles or Jews? Once this is determined and I understand his point I look to see if this is a principle that was applicable to the Christian he was writing to, if it was then it is most likely, but not necessarily applicable to all Christians. There are however, some things were applicable to Christians of that day that are not applicable to Christians today.

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 08:49 PM
a) There were apostles other than 12 even back then:

Romans 16:7
7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

b) Are all apostles?? (I don't think so, just like not all are teachers or work miracles)

1 Corinthians 12:28-30
28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[a]? Do all interpret?

c) There had to have been more than 12 because otherwise people wouldn't have been able to go around and claim they were apostles and deceive people (a name check woulda been sufficient ;)):

1 Corinthians 12:28-30 (New International Version)
28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[a]? Do all interpret?

Hi Dani,

There were more than 12, however, it was to the 12 and Paul that Jesus said go to the Gentiles. Remember Jesus sent out the 70 during His earthly ministry, they were apostles, they were sent by Christ, however, they were only sent to the Jews.

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 08:56 PM
Butch,
Let me get this straight.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome when he said don't repay evil for evil. That, according to you NOW, isn't something that applies to us: that was written for those people in Rome.
Now... I seem to recall in the killing thread you trying to use this as commands for us TODAY.

Which is it? Or do you just bend Scripture into whatever suits your argument for the time being???

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 09:02 PM
Jesus expects our common sense as well Butch! A child knows that they are not going to go back in time to do what you just tried to push.

Now, we have a testimony on this board of a prayer of thanks over a tiny amount of food and over 100 people were fed with that tiny amount of food. A miracle was done... so, if (I don't know and yes, a "what if") the pastor praying that prayer was told to ensure all food was collected up after all had been fed... why do you limit God so much?

Slug1, that has nothing to do with this discussion. I have never said that God does not or cannot do miracles. The issue in this thread is in regard to apostles, here is the problem with what you posted you said,


Jesus expects our common sense as well Butch! A child knows that they are not going to go back in time to do what you just tried to push.

so here we are to use common sense to figure out what it means yet when we determine what an apostle is we don't use common sense??? Do you see the problem? We cannot come to an understanding of the truth if we continuously change our hermeneutics as we go. Whatever, method we decide to use we must be consistent. We cannot use one method here and another over there and a third somewhere else. Doing so only leads to confusion, which again show s up in the all of the different doctrines. You may not agree with my interpretations but they are all based on the same hermeneutic, and quite frankly I don't have the problems trying to reconcile the Scriptures that I see some many struggle with. As I have said several times I tossed out the doctrines of men, I don't hold tightly to any doctrine and if some can show me my interpretation is incorrect using sound hermeneutics and logic I will gladly discard the doctrine.

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 09:10 PM
Butch,
Let me get this straight.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome when he said don't repay evil for evil. That, according to you NOW, isn't something that applies to us: that was written for those people in Rome.
Now... I seem to recall in the killing thread you trying to use this as commands for us TODAY.

Which is it? Or do you just bend Scripture into whatever suits your argument for the time being???


Bend Scripture? I don't think you understood what I said. What Paul wrote to the Romans he wrote to the Romans, they were Christians and he was instructing them on how they should conduct themselves. Therefore, these principles are applicable to "All" Christians. Paul was not writing those words to me, He was writing them to the Christians at Rome, the principle that he states is applicable to all Christians. However, Paul says to the Corinthians "Ye are puffed up" this doesn't apply to all Christians, not all Christians are full of pride. So some things he said don't apply.

TexUs
Aug 11th 2010, 09:15 PM
Bend Scripture? I don't think you understood what I said. What Paul wrote to the Romans he wrote to the Romans, they were Christians and he was instructing them on how they should conduct themselves. Therefore, these principles are applicable to "All" Christians. Paul was not writing those words to me, He was writing them to the Christians at Rome, the principle that he states is applicable to all Christians. However, Paul says to the Corinthians "Ye are puffed up" this doesn't apply to all Christians, not all Christians are full of pride. So some things he said don't apply.

Was not Christ also commanding Christians to go out and evangelize the world?

Slug1
Aug 11th 2010, 09:42 PM
Bend Scripture? I don't think you understood what I said. What Paul wrote to the Romans he wrote to the Romans, they were Christians and he was instructing them on how they should conduct themselves. Therefore, these principles are applicable to "All" Christians. Paul was not writing those words to me, He was writing them to the Christians at Rome, the principle that he states is applicable to all Christians. However, Paul says to the Corinthians "Ye are puffed up" this doesn't apply to all Christians, not all Christians are full of pride. So some things he said don't apply.But Butch, you said in another thread of mine that what I brought out in scripture was only Paul speaking to the Christians who were "enter nationality" in that nation. So, I was saying exactly what you just said concerning the Christian Romans. So you just pick and choose what applies to you as a Christian, don't you? :P

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 10:15 PM
But Butch, you said in another thread of mine that what I brought out in scripture was only Paul speaking to the Christians who were "enter nationality" in that nation. So, I was saying exactly what you just said concerning the Christian Romans. So you just pick and choose what applies to you as a Christian, don't you? :P

What are you talking about?

Butch5
Aug 11th 2010, 10:16 PM
Was not Christ also commanding Christians to go out and evangelize the world?

Where does He do this?

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 12:54 AM
What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple?An apostle is like an emissary, someone who is sent to speak on behalf of the king. A disciple is a student, someone who studies and follows the teaching of a man.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 12:58 AM
This is not limited to 12 disciples turned apostles. Any who follow Jesus are disciples and all disciples can do all that the apostels can do.No. No. No! An apostle is given a very special job, which only an apostle may do. Only an apostle can speak for Jesus as if Jesus himself said it. Only the original twelve and Paul have been given that role. No one else.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 01:15 AM
Look, an apostle isn't just any kind of messenger. An apostle is a SPECIAL kind of messenger, having the authority to speak for the Lord. What I mean is this. Each of us is encouraged to share the gospel with our friends, neighbors, and even strangers if so led. We are messengers in the ordinary sense. We carry the message that Jesus taught us. But I am not allowed or authorized to tell anyone, "Whatever I say goes. If you want to get to heaven and avoid hell, you need to listen to me, because whatever I say is as if Jesus said it." An apostle of Jesus is authorized to tell me what to do and what to believe. Whatever an apostle says or writes is considered on the same par as scripture. In fact, the writings of the Apostles ARE scripture. The doctrine of sola scriptura applies to Peter, James, John, Paul, Mark, etc. not to Brorog. Whatever I write is to be evaluated against what they write. If my writing disagrees with their writing, you are to forget what I wrote and listen to them. Only those twelve men and Paul have this kind of belief authority over the church. I am obligated to believe what these thirteen men say. I am NOT obligated to believe anything you guys say, or any spirit-filled pastor, or anyone claiming to be an apostle today, especially if these men disagree with the original thirteen. There are no more apostles, period. There are no more folks authorized to command us what to believe.

Slug1
Aug 12th 2010, 02:53 AM
I understand all you say BroRog. Question... Jude? The author of this book in the Bible was not an Apostle as far as I know. He spoke for God, it "got published" in the Bible... yet he was not an Apostle.

Besides, if you read all I wrote, i said that we can "do" as the Apostles. I made clear in another sentence what I was meaning:


The same Christ in them, is in us all, who are Christians. We are not limited except how we limited ourselves.

No, we're not Apostles as the first 12 were, but we are all disciples who have been taught and commanded to do as they did and since much they did was by the lead of the Holy Spirit (they DID as led), all we need to do is the same and any who allow the Holy Spirit to lead them WILL DO all that the Apostels did. For example, we will do as those 70 did as well.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:41 AM
I understand all you say BroRog. Question... Jude? The author of this book in the Bible was not an Apostle as far as I know. He spoke for God, it "got published" in the Bible... yet he was not an Apostle.

Besides, if you read all I wrote, i said that we can "do" as the Apostles. I made clear in another sentence what I was meaning:Your statement is confusing and misleading. With regard to Luke, Mark, and Jude, we have assurances that the Apostles supervised their work.

chad
Aug 12th 2010, 09:34 AM
An Apostle is a messenger, that is sent.

652. apostolos, ap-os'-tol-os; from G649; a delegate; spec. an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ["apostle"] (with miraculous powers):--apostle, messenger, he that is sent...(Acts 9:27 KJV)

A disciple is a pupil:--disciple. G3101. mathetes, math-ay-tes'; from G3129; a learner, i.e. pupil:--disciple.

Slug1
Aug 12th 2010, 11:37 AM
Your statement is confusing and misleading. With regard to Luke, Mark, and Jude, we have assurances that the Apostles supervised their work.
Nothing confusing or misleading... the point is that the same Jesus that was in the Apostles is the same Jesus in us. Same Holy Spirit that empowered Jesus, is the same Holy Spirit that empowered the Apostles and IS the same Holy Spirit that empowers us today. No, our job isn't the same as the Apostels, but by their teaching and BY the empowerment of the Holy Spirit we DO what they began... for us it's by following the same teaching and commandments given to them to pass onto us and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead all this so we are doing God's will and His work. Not our will and our work in the name of Jesus. Ultimately limiting ourselves by only doing what we can do with our ability.

You cut that part out again where I explained my comments... is it because I keep mentioning the Holy Spirit and how as a Christian He still leads us and empowers us, so that all who are in the Body of Christ can DO what we are commanded or led to do?

Firstfruits
Aug 12th 2010, 12:18 PM
With regards to the following Jesus sends his Disciples to teach all nations, does that mean that the words Disciple and Apostle are interchangeable?

Matthew 28:16-20
16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jn 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Firstfruits

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 02:06 PM
So you just pick and choose what applies to you as a Christian, don't you? :P
That's what I'm beginning to wonder...
Really can't have a conversation with someone when they're just picking and choosing what commands apply to them.
Might be futile.

However, Butch, your view has be curious... Are you Preterist??? If you truly believe it was given to his Apostles at that time ONLY, then one would assume you believe the Great Commission was accomplished in that age.
Second question, what basis do you have to minister and spread the word of God to people, if the Great Commission does not apply to us today?

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 02:09 PM
With regards to the following Jesus sends his Disciples to teach all nations, does that mean that the words Disciple and Apostle are interchangeable?

Matthew 28:16-20
16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jn 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Firstfruits

mathētēs is the same Greek used in both instances.

I'd assume Butch would say that they were his disciples, but more than that they were Apostles, though. Apostles are still disciples.
Just like the President is still an American... Not all Americans can call themselves the President but the President can still call himself an American.

Slug1
Aug 12th 2010, 02:45 PM
What are you talking about?I'm talking about this Butch. When an Apostle talks to the Christian Romans of their day (concerning all our Minister of God topics), you say what was said then, applys to us now. Yet when a topic is brought up from scripture and the Christians were the Corinthians or the Galatians or whoever else... the line we hear from you is that the Apostle was addressing the Christians there and it's ONLY FOR THEM, not us today? Or worse... they were talking to the Jews not the Gentiles.

Yet, what is said to the Christian Romans applies to us today while all that other scripture doesn't... it's a pick this, pick that Word of God?

Firstfruits
Aug 12th 2010, 02:48 PM
mathētēs is the same Greek used in both instances.

I'd assume Butch would say that they were his disciples, but more than that they were Apostles, though. Apostles are still disciples.
Just like the President is still an American... Not all Americans can call themselves the President but the President can still call himself an American.

Thanks TexUs,

Knowing that Christs commandment to all to be identified as his disciples is to love one another, apart from the word "apostle" and the word "disciple" we are all commanded the same.

Jn 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Lk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

The following show no differnce between the two, and appear to be interchangeable.

Matthew 10:1,2
1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

The only thing to note is that The disciples were given powers.

God bless!

Firstfruits

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:16 PM
Nothing confusing or misleading... the point is that the same Jesus that was in the Apostles is the same Jesus in us. Same Holy Spirit that empowered Jesus, is the same Holy Spirit that empowered the Apostles and IS the same Holy Spirit that empowers us today. No, our job isn't the same as the Apostels, but by their teaching and BY the empowerment of the Holy Spirit we DO what they began... for us it's by following the same teaching and commandments given to them to pass onto us and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead all this so we are doing God's will and His work. Not our will and our work in the name of Jesus. Ultimately limiting ourselves by only doing what we can do with our ability.

You cut that part out again where I explained my comments... is it because I keep mentioning the Holy Spirit and how as a Christian He still leads us and empowers us, so that all who are in the Body of Christ can DO what we are commanded or led to do?I don't know, for some reason you don't seem to listen. The question was, what's the difference between an Apostle and a disciple and your wrong answer is that there is no difference and that a disciple can do whatever an apostle can do, and this is simply not true. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 03:19 PM
The only thing to note is that The disciples were given powers.

God bless!

Firstfruits
I really don't disagree with any of that post, I was simply stating what Butch would *probably* say here- or at least it's the only argument I can think of for that position.

As for the quoted bit, we have all been given Spiritual gifts... Now perhaps that differs from the original Disciples in that they could fully do anything seemingly at will, but those abilities still exist today. My whole argument is between the "original" and "us"... There's not a whole lot of difference. And I even think the original disciples would've said that, too.

Slug1
Aug 12th 2010, 03:21 PM
I don't know, for some reason you don't seem to listen. The question was, what's the difference between an Apostle and a disciple and your wrong answer is that there is no difference and that a disciple can do whatever an apostle can do, and this is simply not true. You simply don't know what you are talking about.OK... besides walking with Jesus while He was in flesh, what can't we do that the Apostles did? I understand we can't write, or make, or know "new" scripture because we are provided all we need. All that Jesus said and did that isn't recorded in the Bible, I guess we don't need that scripture to draw close and know God any closer then with what is provided.

Other then that, what can't we do that they were able to do?

Everything that they did, wasn't them... all they did was God working through them by His Spirit. The Holy Spirit don't change, times change sure... does God need to have us walk by people and they are healed by our shadow, or cloth we wear and taken to a person heals them? No... So we pray, and God heals... what's the difference except as I brought up in another thread, some miracles are called "unusual" compared to the "norm" of laying on of hands and praying and people are healed.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:24 PM
OK... besides walking with Jesus while He was in flesh, what can't we do that the Apostles did? I understand we can't write, or make, or know "new" scripture but other then that, what can't we do that they were able to do?What do you mean "other than that"? THAT is the very thing that distinguishes them as Apostles. Dude, you need to keep the main thing the main thing.

Firstfruits
Aug 12th 2010, 03:26 PM
I really don't disagree with any of that post, I was simply stating what Butch would *probably* say here- or at least it's the only argument I can think of for that position.

As for the quoted bit, we have all been given Spiritual gifts... Now perhaps that differs from the original Disciples in that they could fully do anything seemingly at will, but those abilities still exist today. My whole argument is between the "original" and "us"... There's not a whole lot of difference. And I even think the original disciples would've said that, too.

Thanks for the clarification.

Firstfruits

Slug1
Aug 12th 2010, 03:36 PM
What do you mean "other than that"? THAT is the very thing that distinguishes them as Apostles. Dude, you need to keep the main thing the main thing.I was editing the post. Much longer now.

markedward
Aug 12th 2010, 03:43 PM
As we've come to use the terms...

Disciples: The primary 12 disciples of Jesus (e.g. Peter, John, James).
disciples: Anyone who is a follower of Jesus (e.g. Barnabas, Timothy, you).
Apostles: The primary 13 disciples of Jesus (e.g. Peter, John, Matthias, Paul), working in the capacity of their work as "ambassadors" of Christ (i.e. they are spreading the gospel).
apostles: Anyone who is a follower of Jesus (e.g. Barnabas, Timothy, you), working in the capacity of their work as "ambassadors" of Christ (i.e. they are spreading the gospel).

"Disciple" is a term used both specifically (1) and generally (2) in Scripture.
"Apostle" is a term used both specifically (3) and generally (4) in Scripture.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:46 PM
Disciples: The primary 12 disciples of Jesus (e.g. Peter, John, James).
disciples: Anyone who is a follower of Jesus.

Apostles: The primary 12 disciples of Jesus (e.g. Peter, John, James), working in the capacity of their work as "ambassadors" of Christ (i.e. they are spreading the gospel).
apostles: Anyone who is a follower of Jesus, working in the capacity of their work as "ambassadors" of Christ (i.e. they are spreading the gospel).No, again misleading. All of us are ambassadors of Christ, but not all of us are Apostles.

markedward
Aug 12th 2010, 03:49 PM
"Apostle" comes from the Greek word for "ambassador". You're splitting hairs if you call someone an "ambassador" of Christ, but not an "apostle".

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:50 PM
As we've come to use the terms...

Disciples: The primary 12 disciples of Jesus (e.g. Peter, John, James).
disciples: Anyone who is a follower of Jesus (e.g. Barnabas, Timothy, you).
Apostles: The primary 13 disciples of Jesus (e.g. Peter, John, Matthias, Paul), working in the capacity of their work as "ambassadors" of Christ (i.e. they are spreading the gospel).
apostles: Anyone who is a follower of Jesus (e.g. Barnabas, Timothy, you), working in the capacity of their work as "ambassadors" of Christ (i.e. they are spreading the gospel).

"Disciple" is a term used both specifically (1) and generally (2) in Scripture.
"Apostle" is a term used both specifically (3) and generally (4) in Scripture.Again, it's not primarily about spreading the Gospel. Anyone can spread the gospel. The primary mission of an apostle is to define the gospel. In this role, Jesus has given these men special assurances that they will remember everything he taught, have extraordinary ability to make sense of the OT, and to work directly with the Holy Spirit in this regard.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:53 PM
"Apostle" comes from the Greek word for "ambassador". You're splitting hairs if you call someone an "ambassador" of Christ, but not an "apostle".Of course I'm splitting hairs. THAT's what we do when we are asked, "What is the difference between . . ." one thing and another. What's important is not the dictionary definition of "apostle", but what Jesus and the church itself understood by it. Why, for instance, did Paul continually fight the church over his apostleship? Why didn't they say, "Sure Paul, you are an apostle, we are all apostles."

markedward
Aug 12th 2010, 03:56 PM
Again, it's not primarily about spreading the Gospel. Anyone can spread the gospel. The primary mission of an apostle is to define the gospel.According to... what Scripture?

Scripture uses the term "apostle" mostly in a specific sense of the Twelve, but it uses it at least a few times in a general sense, of any messenger of the gospel. [Acts 14.14; 2 Corinthians 8.23; Philippians 2.25] You can't claim that only such-and-such people are "apostles" when Scripture never commands that it be used in such a restricted way, and actually uses it in an inclusive manner on occasion.


Why didn't they say, "Sure Paul, you are an apostle, we are all apostles."Because not everyone is meant to be an apostles/ambassador. Some are meant to be workers, some are elders, some are prophets, some are local teachers, but not all are the apostles/ambassadors who travel and proclaim the gospel to new ears.

[Edit: Paul was also claiming that he was counted as one of the original Apostles, that he was equal in authority to the Twelve. Like I said, there's a difference between the specific usage (clarified by upper-case) and the general usage (clarified by lower-case). Paul was obviously claiming to be a member of the specific group, which is why people were contesting his claim.]

Slug1
Aug 12th 2010, 04:00 PM
No, again misleading. All of us are ambassadors of Christ, but not all of us are Apostles.

Mt 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

BroRog, no we're not Apostles, we are just told to do what they did. They tought us to observe ALL things that Jesus commanded them of.

We can bring this scripture into the mix and know that there are still "apostles", just no more Apostles as those original Apostles were used by God.

1 Cor 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?

or

Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,

edit... yeah, what Mark said and now here's the scripture for what he just said :P

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 04:15 PM
Again, it's not primarily about spreading the Gospel. Anyone can spread the gospel. The primary mission of an apostle is to define the gospel.
So Scripture says Apostles define the gospel?
I must've missed that verse.

Fact of the matter is when it comes down to it, every Christian can be defined by either "disciple" or "apostle", with the definitions we find Biblically.

Now, I won't quite disagree with your statement that the Apostles had some kind of perhaps "special" communication with Christ+Spirit that we don't have, that allowed them to speak with all authority. However, that is just hypothesis and not scripturally backed up.

But when it comes down to defining terms as per scripture, we are all apostles. I won't label myself one primarily due to respect for the 12 and tradition.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 04:21 PM
According to... what Scripture?According to John's gospel and his first epistle. Take a look, especially, at chapters 14 -17.


Scripture uses the term "apostle" mostly in a specific sense of the Twelve, but it uses it at least a few times in a general sense, of any messenger of the gospel. [Acts 14.14; 2 Corinthians 8.23; Philippians 2.25] You can't claim that only such-and-such people are "apostles" when Scripture never commands that it be used in such a restricted way, and actually uses it in an inclusive manner on occasion.I wouldn't break it down by the category of "specific" and "general", which is misleading. We break it down according to who sent the person. So, for instance, the original 12 and Paul were sent by Jesus Christ with the authority to speak on his behalf. The other apostles were sent by the church, to speak on their behalf.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 04:27 PM
So Scripture says Apostles define the gospel?
I must've missed that verse.Maybe we should stop looking for verses and start looking for an entire message or discourse.


Fact of the matter is when it comes down to it, every Christian can be defined by either "disciple" or "apostle", with the definitions we find Biblically.Again, this would be misleading.


Now, I won't quite disagree with your statement that the Apostles had some kind of perhaps "special" communication with Christ+Spirit that we don't have, that allowed them to speak with all authority. However, that is just hypothesis and not scripturally backed up. I would encourage you to re-read the gospel of John and especially chapters 14 throught 17.
But when it comes down to defining terms as per scripture, we are all apostles. I won't label myself one primarily due to respect for the 12 and tradition.It has nothing to do with tradition. As I said to Markedward, an apostle is designated by who sent him. Paul refers to himself as "an apostle of Jesus Christ", which distinquishes him from the other apostles who might be sent by some other person.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 04:32 PM
Mt 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

BroRog, no we're not Apostles, we are just told to do what they did.When we ask "what is the difference between an apostle and a disciple" we are looking for the characteristics that are unique to being an apostle. We can certainly share the gospel with our neighbors, which is something they did. But what makes them unique is not sharing the gospel with others but defining the gospel to us.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 04:33 PM
I would encourage you to re-read the gospel of John and especially chapters 14 throught 17.
Unless you also want to take the stance that the Holy Spirit was only given to the 12, then I'm not sure how this really applies in your argument. Specifics?



As I said to Markedward, an apostle is designated by who sent him. Paul refers to himself as "an apostle of Jesus Christ", which distinquishes him from the other apostles who might be sent by some other person.
So we are not sent by Christ?

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 04:34 PM
Unless you also want to take the stance that the Holy Spirit was only given to the 12, then I'm not sure how this really applies in your argument. Specifics?The specifics are in the passage.


So we are not sent by Christ?No. Only the twelve and Paul.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 04:38 PM
The specifics are in the passage.
Name a few.



No. Only the twelve and Paul.
Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles [apostolos], and they were in Christ before I was.

So you also hold the Great Commission was for the 12+Paul, and us today? I'll ask you the same I did of Butch, what do you base your ministry of spreading the gospel on, then?

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 05:01 PM
Name a few.


Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles [apostolos], and they were in Christ before I was.

So you also hold the Great Commission was for the 12+Paul, and us today? I'll ask you the same I did of Butch, what do you base your ministry of spreading the gospel on, then?If we continue to talk in generalities we won't be able to answer the question, "what is the difference between an apostle and a disciple". We are looking for unique qualities of an apostle that differentiate them from disciples.

With regard to John 14-17, Jesus is talking directly to 10 of the 11 remaining apostles, Thomas not being present at the time. These three chapters are specifically about them and their role as apostles. To ask me to name a few specifics is to ask me to quote the entire three chapters.

With regard to the Great Commission, I believe it is Butch's contention that Jesus is giving specific instructions to the eleven Apostles. Because we are listening in on a conversation that was not directed at us specifically, we can't necessarily apply everything Jesus says to these men to ourselves. As for your contention that the Great Commission is "go out and spread the gospel" a quick review of the commission will reveal that this isn't entirely accurate. What we have elevated to a "great commission" is actually a commandment directed at the apostles to not make disciples for themselves. The command is to make disciples for Jesus instead. It isn't simply a matter of sharing the gospel message with a neighbor. The subject is becoming a teacher and Jesus is talking directly to the twelve apostles who will make disciples, but also indirectly to anyone in the body of Christ who is called to be a teacher. Jesus' word to them is, "when you make students, make sure that these students understand that they are actually my students, not your students. They are learning MY teaching and following ME, not your teaching and following YOU. That is the point of this verse, not a general call to share the gospel with our neighbors.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 05:55 PM
If we continue to talk in generalities we won't be able to answer the question, "what is the difference between an apostle and a disciple". We are looking for unique qualities of an apostle that differentiate them from disciples.
Who was speaking in generalities when they claimed only the original 12+Paul were Apostles? Romans 16:7 seems to say differently.

So in response to the latter half of your post: do you spread the gospel? And why (Scripturally)?

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 07:13 PM
Who was speaking in generalities when they claimed only the original 12+Paul were Apostles? Romans 16:7 seems to say differently.

So in response to the latter half of your post: do you spread the gospel? And why (Scripturally)?I think I've pretty much covered the topic.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 07:15 PM
I think I've pretty much covered the topic.

I really don't think it has, unless you're just going with he was "indirectly" talking to us.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 07:20 PM
Here's my thing...
I'm sure Jesus probably joked around, passed gas, and talked about the latest camel race through the desert to his 12 when they were on their long journeys. (You get the point). None of that stuff MATTERS, it wasn't recorded.
What IS recorded was stuff relevant to other people.

Now, you have to ask yourself, why was this conversation between the 12 recorded, why were these commands given us several times by several authors, unless it actually mattered to other believers?

RabbiKnife
Aug 12th 2010, 07:23 PM
Here's my thing...
I'm sure Jesus probably joked around, passed gas, and talked about the latest camel race through the desert to his 12 when they were on their long journeys. (You get the point). None of that stuff MATTERS, it wasn't recorded.
What IS recorded was stuff relevant to other people.

Now, you have to ask yourself, why was this conversation between the 12 recorded, why were these commands given us several times by several authors, unless it actually mattered to other believers?

Look, if you are going to continue to make remarks like "JesusPassedGas (TM)", at least cite the source for the phrase....

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

OK, derail over!!!!

chad
Aug 12th 2010, 09:38 PM
In the early church those called to help spread the message and helped the apostles were called evangalists.

Butch5
Aug 12th 2010, 10:47 PM
I'm talking about this Butch. When an Apostle talks to the Christian Romans of their day (concerning all our Minister of God topics), you say what was said then, applies to us now. Yet when a topic is brought up from scripture and the Christians were the Corinthians or the Galatians or whoever else... the line we hear from you is that the Apostle was addressing the Christians there and it's ONLY FOR THEM, not us today? Or worse... they were talking to the Jews not the Gentiles.

Yet, what is said to the Christian Romans applies to us today while all that other scripture doesn't... it's a pick this, pick that Word of God?

Slug1, Its called context. This is the reason so many are so confused, because so much of the Scriptures are taken out of context. So many people take the Scriptures out of context to try to prove their doctrines that many who are new Christians or who have not matured in the Scriptures become so confused they cannot figure out what the Scriptures actually say. As I said before we need to be consistent in whatever hermeneutical method we use for interpreting the Scriptures, I think the majority of Christians probably do even have a method of hermeneutics that they use, they simply say it means this to me. That is not a method of hermeneutics, there are rules to grammar, there are rules to logic, there are rules of interpretation. All of these need to be applied when one interprets Scripture. I use a four fold method of interpreting Scripture, it is a grammatical/ historical method.

So, as I have said many times, the Scriptures were not written to us, they were written to who they were intended for. We must seek to understand them as the intended audience would and then apply those principles to our lives as Christians. So, taking the "Minister of God" example. Paul wrote the book of Romans to the Church at Rome, they were Christians, He did not write the book to you or me, but to the Christians at Rome. In the book he tells those Christians how they, as Christians should act. Therefore we today have an example from an apostle of how a Christian should act. The words were not written to us, but they were written to Christians (At Rome) telling them how a Christian should conduct himself.

Slug1
Aug 12th 2010, 10:54 PM
Slug1, Its called context. This is the reason so many are so confused, because so much of the Scriptures are taken out of context. So many people take the Scriptures out of context to try to prove their doctrines that many who are new Christians or who have not matured in the Scriptures become so confused they cannot figure out what the Scriptures actually say. As I said before we need to be consistent in whatever hermeneutical method we use for interpreting the Scriptures, I think the majority of Christians probably do even have a method of hermeneutics that they use, they simply say it means this to me. That is not a method of hermeneutics, there are rules to grammar, there are rules to logic, there are rules of interpretation. All of these need to be applied when one interprets Scripture. I use a four fold method of interpreting Scripture, it is a grammatical/ historical method.

So, as I have said many times, the Scriptures were not written to us, they were written to who they were intended for. We must seek to understand them as the intended audience would and then apply those principles to our lives as Christians. So, taking the "Minister of God" example. Paul wrote the book of Romans to the Church at Rome, they were Christians, He did not write the book to you or me, but to the Christians at Rome. In the book he tells those Christians how they, as Christians should act. Therefore we today have an example from an apostle of how a Christian should act. The words were not written to us, but they were written to Christians (At Rome) telling them how a Christian should conduct himself.OK... and just like in the other thread, what Paul explained to the Corinthians about the proper use of the gifts, we learn from the correction he gave them and follow suit as well. If Christians today abuse the gifts, we apply what he applied to the Corinthians and today's abusers are corrected. Hooah!

Butch5
Aug 13th 2010, 02:14 AM
OK... and just like in the other thread, what Paul explained to the Corinthians about the proper use of the gifts, we learn from the correction he gave them and follow suit as well. If Christians today abuse the gifts, we apply what he applied to the Corinthians and today's abusers are corrected. Hooah!

We would if Paul hadn't said that the prophecy and knowledge would end. Paul didn't say acting as Christians would end, he did say prophecy and knowledge would end.

TexUs
Aug 14th 2010, 04:16 PM
We would if Paul hadn't said that the prophecy and knowledge would end. Paul didn't say acting as Christians would end, he did say prophecy and knowledge would end.
I think you take more scripture out of context than anyone I know... WHEN is Paul talking about????

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9[B]For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


When, exactly, do you think Paul is speaking of? A time in the past?????

Butch5
Aug 14th 2010, 11:55 PM
I think you take more scripture out of context than anyone I know... WHEN is Paul talking about????

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9[B]For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


When, exactly, do you think Paul is speaking of? A time in the past?????

Take Scripture out of context? Are you serious? My friend, I go out of my way not to take Scripture out of cotnext. If you think I take it out of context so much, I must wonder about your understanding of Scripture. Please explain how I have taken Scripture out of context here.

When is Paul speaking of? I think I made my point clear in the post you quoted. The instructions Paul gave regarding the gift would be applicable to us toady if Paul had not said the gifts would end. My statement implies that I meant a time in the past.

TexUs
Aug 15th 2010, 02:42 AM
Take Scripture out of context? Are you serious? My friend, I go out of my way not to take Scripture out of cotnext. If you think I take it out of context so much, I must wonder about your understanding of Scripture. Please explain how I have taken Scripture out of context here.

When is Paul speaking of? I think I made my point clear in the post you quoted. The instructions Paul gave regarding the gift would be applicable to us toady if Paul had not said the gifts would end. My statement implies that I meant a time in the past.
WHEN, exactly, (I'll ask AGAIN), do you think these gifts disappeared?

Maybe this is just an exercise in futility because even if you can refute anything you say with Scripture you'll just say it was intended for someone else and not us today...

But for the sake of anyone else reading along...

The question is WHEN. The popular argument against this is that the perfection was the canon. First obvious question is which canon do you want to chose? Exploring this option, though, past that first big issue, can we see the canon "face to face" when perfection comes?? I think not. Does the canon reveal to us God in fullness? I think not.
So either it's talking about the Holy Spirit or the coming of Christ.
Since the Holy Spirit had already been given at this point, you can default to the latter.
NOW we know dimly (the mystery of God, as Paul calls it), THEN we can see HIM face to face!!!

Butch5
Aug 15th 2010, 09:01 PM
WHEN, exactly, (I'll ask AGAIN), do you think these gifts disappeared?

Maybe this is just an exercise in futility because even if you can refute anything you say with Scripture you'll just say it was intended for someone else and not us today...

But for the sake of anyone else reading along...

The question is WHEN. The popular argument against this is that the perfection was the canon. First obvious question is which canon do you want to chose? Exploring this option, though, past that first big issue, can we see the canon "face to face" when perfection comes?? I think not. Does the canon reveal to us God in fullness? I think not.
So either it's talking about the Holy Spirit or the coming of Christ.
Since the Holy Spirit had already been given at this point, you can default to the latter.
NOW we know dimly (the mystery of God, as Paul calls it), THEN we can see HIM face to face!!!

My friend, the issue is context. All three of the examples Paul gives refer to the context of his statement. Paul doesn't say we will see "HIM" face to face. He says

1 Corinthians 13:10-12 ( KJV )
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

"But then face to face" is contrasted to now seeing through a glass darkly. His example here like the others explains a process that takes place over time (Maturity). He say, but now we see through a glass darkly but when the maturity comes we will see face to face. In other words now things are not clear but when the maturity come things will be clear. He also speaks of being a child and growing into a man, a process that takes place over time (maturity). Again, he says I will know (Ginosko- to know) as I am known (Epiginosko- to have full knowledge). All of these examples involve a process that takes place over time, a process of maturing. Now let me ask you a question, how does the return of Christ fit these examples? Is the Coming of Christ going to take place over a period of time, or is it going to be as Jesus said, as a thief in the night? My friend, the appearing of the Lord will be a sudden event, it will not be a drawn out process.

Revelation 3:11 ( KJV )
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Revelation 22:7 ( KJV )
Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Revelation 22:12 ( KJV )
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:20 ( KJV )
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

So, to say that the coming of that which is perfect is Christ simply does not fit the examples that Paul has given.

Another problem with that interpretation is the grammar. The "perfect" is in the neuter gender in the Greek language, this usually refers to a "Thing" not a person. Additionally, where in Scripture is Jesus "Ever" referred to as a "THAT"? If Paul had had said, when He who is perfect is come, you would probably have an argument, but "That"?

Now in regard to "When". I don't hold the idea that "The Perfect" is the canon, Paul is not speaking of the canon of Scripture in his letter, he was speaking of the gifts. In particular, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, however, it was prophecy and knowledge that he said were in part. What was the prophecy and knowledge in regard to? Was it not the Gospel, the good news?

Isaiah 28:9-13 ( KJV )
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

So, it seems when the maturity would come, the fullness of the Gospel message, that which is in part (prophecy and knowledge) would no longer be necessary. Notice that this fits with Paul's examples, "The Faith" maturing over a period of time, which is what we see when we look at Scripture. The apostles matured in "The faith" as they ministered, they did not have everything revealed to them at once, It was a process of maturing. Notice Jesus' words to the apostles,


John 16:12-13 ( KJV )
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

This fact is shown when Peter went to Cornelius and asked 'Why have you sent for me'? It is also shown in the Jerusalem council when the apostles had to come together and decide whether or not the Gentiles should follow the Law. James says, ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us’, so, they we learning "The Faith" as they went.

This leads to the question, did "The faith" come to maturity at some point and if so when? Well, Jude answers that question for us.

Jude 1:3 ( KJV )
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

"Once delivered" is past tense. Therefore, "The Faith" at some point prior to Jude's writing his epistle, did reach maturity. All of this fits nicely with the examples that Paul gives describing the coming of "That which is Perfect".
Paul uses this same example of “Perfect” in Ephesians 4

Ephesians 4:11-15 ( KJV )
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
We see Paul speaking of the “Perfect” (Mature) man. Again we have this idea of a process of growing and maturing.

But, there is yet another problem with that interpretation. Paul tells them that Love is the better way and that it is better than Prophecy and knowledge. He contrasts two things here Prophecy, tongues and knowledge, which he said will cease, with faith, hope, and love, which he said will remain. We know what faith is , and we know what love is, but what does Paul mean by hope? That is easy enough to see in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 8:22-25 ( KJV )
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Paul says we are saved by hope, this hope is in the promise of God. However, Paul says when that hope is realized it is no longer hope. Now Paul was contrasting Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, with faith, hope, and love. He says the latter three will remain. Well, if “The Perfect” is the return of Christ. Why would faith and hope continue? When Christ returns and we are with Him we won’t need to have faith that he will return, the writer of Hebrews puts it this way,

Hebrews 11:1 ( KJV )
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

When Jesus returns he will be seen, there will be no need to have faith that he will fulfill His promise. Likewise there will be no need of hope since our hope will have been realized. As Paul said, hope that is seen is not hope. So, if these three remain, it must be prior to the return of Christ, because they will no longer be necessary when we see Him.

Slug1
Aug 16th 2010, 11:26 AM
Butch... despite your collection of scriptures place in the order you have placed them... the Holy Spirit is in full operation within the Body of Christ. God will continue to work around you and through those who allow Him to manifest as they are vessels for God to glorify Himself in power.

Butch5
Aug 16th 2010, 12:29 PM
Butch... despite your collection of scriptures place in the order you have placed them... the Holy Spirit is in full operation within the Body of Christ. God will continue to work around you and through those who allow Him to manifest as they are vessels for God to glorify Himself in power.

I need only quote your reply.


despite your collection of scriptures place in the order you have placed them

Slug1
Aug 16th 2010, 12:36 PM
I need only quote your reply.So what is your point Butch? I'm telling you that despite your construction of what you belive by ordering scripture into your doctrine, God is proving you wrong. His Spirit is empowering the Body of Christ, all the gifts are active today and as God's wills, vessels are being used by God to glorify Himself in power of doing miracles.

You have convinced yourself, many others and while you deny the Holy Spirit from working through you in power, God has plenty others that do not deny Him.

A disciple isn't only defined by being able to talk about and understand the Bible. A disciple is also one who allows God to freely move in them and through them so that He can do His work through them. They don't allow their religion to move them because all that religion does is box up God and stop Him from freely moving in and through the Body of Christ.

Butch5
Aug 16th 2010, 12:58 PM
So what is your point Butch? I'm telling you that despite your construction of what you believe by ordering scripture into your doctrine, God is proving you wrong. His Spirit is empowering the Body of Christ, all the gifts are active today and as God's wills, vessels are being used by God to glorify Himself in power of doing miracles.

You have convinced yourself, many others and while you deny the Holy Spirit from working through you in power, God has plenty others that do not deny Him.

A disciple isn't only defined by being able to talk about and understand the Bible. A disciple is also one who allows God to freely move in them and through them. They don't allow their religion to move them because all that religion does is box up God and stop Him from freely moving in and through the Body of Christ.

My point is,


despite your collection of scriptures place in the order you have placed them

Slug1, there is always so reason not to acknowledge the Scriptures, this time it is because of 'the was I have ordered them.' Another time it that things weren't worded just so, and so on. I have used the Scriptures in context my friend, they say what they say.

You're free to believe whatever you want, if you want to believe your experiences you are free to do so. I am also free to believe what I want and I choose to believe the words that came from the mouth of God's Holy Spirit inspired apostles.

Slug1
Aug 16th 2010, 01:04 PM
My point is,



Slug1, there is always so reason not to acknowledge the Scriptures, this time it is because of 'the was I have ordered them.' Another time it that things weren't worded just so, and so on. I have used the Scriptures in context my friend, they say what they say.

You're free to believe whatever you want, if you want to believe your experiences you are free to do so. I am also free to believe what I want and I choose to believe the words that came from the mouth of God's Holy Spirit inspired apostles.I just don't want your beliefs to stop others from allowing God from being able to work in the lives of others and through others in a miraculous way. I was once bound the same way as you. I arranged scripture the same as you. I spoke the same words as you. All the time I was doing this, God was doing the opposite in the Body of Christ all around me. When I heard testimony of this, I said the same thing you JUST SAID in the quoted post of yours.

He broke me... took awhile but He broke me and opened my heart.

I have my experiences sure, but so do many in the Body of Christ.

TexUs
Aug 16th 2010, 03:31 PM
So, it seems when the maturity would come, the fullness of the Gospel message, that which is in part (prophecy and knowledge) would no longer be necessary.
Paul had the full Gospel message yet he still referred to the time of his writing life as being partial. So that right there destroys that argument...

Butch5
Aug 16th 2010, 03:52 PM
Paul had the full Gospel message yet he still referred to the time of his writing life as being partial. So that right there destroys that argument...

Wow, you make one unsubstantiated statement and it destroys my argument? Even when your statement contradicts the apostles own words?

1 Corinthians 13:9 ( KJV )
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

Butch5
Aug 16th 2010, 03:59 PM
I just don't want your beliefs to stop others from allowing God from being able to work in the lives of others and through others in a miraculous way. I was once bound the same way as you. I arranged scripture the same as you. I spoke the same words as you. All the time I was doing this, God was doing the opposite in the Body of Christ all around me. When I heard testimony of this, I said the same thing you JUST SAID in the quoted post of yours.

He broke me... took awhile but He broke me and opened my heart.

I have my experiences sure, but so do many in the Body of Christ.

My beliefs? I quoted Scripture Slug1. I am not bound my friend, as I told you before, if the the gifts were active I would be more than willing to accept them. However, Scripture tells me otherwise.

What was it that finally convinced you to overlook what the Scriptures say? From some of the posts I've read in the "Don't despise prophecies" thread I have to wonder. I have read quite a bit of stuff that is "Not" in the NT my friend. You said it is the same Jesus is us that was in them, then why the change my friend?

TexUs
Aug 16th 2010, 04:00 PM
Wow, you make one unsubstantiated statement and it destroys my argument? Even when your statement contradicts the apostles own words?

1 Corinthians 13:9 ( KJV )
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
You said the "when" is the maturity of the Gospel message.
That was delivered, and Paul had it. So Paul had the fullness of the Gospel message WHEN HE PENNED "WE KNOW IN PART".

Butch5
Aug 16th 2010, 04:03 PM
You said the "when" is the maturity of the Gospel message.
That was delivered, and Paul had it. So Paul had the fullness of the Gospel message WHEN HE PENNED "WE KNOW IN PART".

And you state a contradiction, the apostle himself said "We know in part" how could he have complete knowledge if he knew in part?

Also, can you please substantiate your statement?

TexUs
Aug 16th 2010, 04:08 PM
And you state a contradiction, the apostle himself said "We know in part" how could he have complete knowledge if he knew in part?

Exactly. So the maturity of the Gospel message wasn't the "when"...

It cannot also be different for each believer (IE, faith levels) as Paul lumps himself in with the church, "we".
Therefore it's pretty clear that there is a universal time in which they would cease and the fullness would come.
So now, WHEN is this???

BroRog
Aug 16th 2010, 04:10 PM
And you state a contradiction, the apostle himself said "We know in part" how could he have complete knowledge if he knew in part?

Also, can you please substantiate your statement?I believe when Paul said, "we know in part", he wasn't saying that we have limited or incomplete knowledge. I'm sure he was pointing out that having knowledge itself is only a part of the picture. For instance, God may send a prophet to our church, or to us personally, suggesting that there will be a famine in a particular country. Knowing this fact is only part of the picture. What we do with the information is the other part. We can simply ingore the prophecy or we can prepare for the famine and make ourselves ready to help out. In other words, Love is the other part.

Butch5
Aug 16th 2010, 04:44 PM
I believe when Paul said, "we know in part", he wasn't saying that we have limited or incomplete knowledge. I'm sure he was pointing out that having knowledge itself is only a part of the picture. For instance, God may send a prophet to our church, or to us personally, suggesting that there will be a famine in a particular country. Knowing this fact is only part of the picture. What we do with the information is the other part. We can simply ingore the prophecy or we can prepare for the famine and make ourselves ready to help out. In other words, Love is the other part.

Not sure how you draw that conclusion. However, as I have shown the apostles did not received complete knowledge, they learned the faith as they went.

BroRog
Aug 16th 2010, 06:46 PM
Not sure how you draw that conclusion. However, as I have shown the apostles did not received complete knowledge, they learned the faith as they went.Context! :) Couldn't help it. :)

Paul argues that after all prophecies have come to pass, after people stop talking in tongues, after all the words of knowledge have been given, faith, hope and love remain. His main point is to highlight the supremacy and endurance of love, and that if anything this should be our main pursuit above all else. In the middle of his argument, he makes an appeal to the Corinthians toward a mature view of the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit.

Love never falls; but if prophecies, they will come to pass; if tongues, they will stop; if knowledge, it will also pass. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

Each of these statements work together to form a complete picture of the idea Paul has in his head. There is something about the endurance of Love, that connects with the perfect that comes, that connects with becoming a man, that connects with knowing as others know me. Each of these ideas share a common theme. Likewise, there is something about the passing of prophecy, the partial, reasoning like a child, and seeing in a blurry mirror. Each of these ideas also share a common theme.

In some ways the Corinthians have an immature, unschooled, inexperienced, view of the manifestations of the Spirit. In some ways, the Corinthians are thinking like a child, when they should be put away childish things and begin to think like an adult. This being the case, Paul suggest that the Corinthian believer needs to see himself or herself as others see them, not as they see themselves. It is a fact of our human experience that we tend to see others better than we see ourselves. We can find the faults in others, for instance, but be totally blind to our own faults. We tend to inflate our importance in our own minds, while others see us differently. We tend to excuse our quirks, and foibles, and rudeness, and irritations but our fellow believers can see them clearly. To see in a dim mirror is to look at ourselves, but to see ourselves as others see us is to have a clear, unobstructed, unclouded view of ourselves. And Paul is suggesting that in order for the Corinthian believers to have a mature perspective on the manifestations of the Spirit, they need to take a clear look at themselves.

To "know in part" is to have an unschooled, inexperienced, naive perspective about knowledge. To "prophecy in part" is to have a naive perspective concerning prophecy. Only those who understand that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge are subservient to the main goal, which is love, will have a mature, sophisticated, experienced, wise, rational view of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. A prideful, arrogant, self-important view of these things will not lead to a love for each other.

Butch5
Aug 17th 2010, 12:33 AM
Context! :) Couldn't help it. :)

Paul argues that after all prophecies have come to pass, after people stop talking in tongues, after all the words of knowledge have been given, faith, hope and love remain. His main point is to highlight the supremacy and endurance of love, and that if anything this should be our main pursuit above all else. In the middle of his argument, he makes an appeal to the Corinthians toward a mature view of the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit.

Love never falls; but if prophecies, they will come to pass; if tongues, they will stop; if knowledge, it will also pass. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

Each of these statements work together to form a complete picture of the idea Paul has in his head. There is something about the endurance of Love, that connects with the perfect that comes, that connects with becoming a man, that connects with knowing as others know me. Each of these ideas share a common theme. Likewise, there is something about the passing of prophecy, the partial, reasoning like a child, and seeing in a blurry mirror. Each of these ideas also share a common theme.

In some ways the Corinthians have an immature, unschooled, inexperienced, view of the manifestations of the Spirit. In some ways, the Corinthians are thinking like a child, when they should be put away childish things and begin to think like an adult. This being the case, Paul suggest that the Corinthian believer needs to see himself or herself as others see them, not as they see themselves. It is a fact of our human experience that we tend to see others better than we see ourselves. We can find the faults in others, for instance, but be totally blind to our own faults. We tend to inflate our importance in our own minds, while others see us differently. We tend to excuse our quirks, and foibles, and rudeness, and irritations but our fellow believers can see them clearly. To see in a dim mirror is to look at ourselves, but to see ourselves as others see us is to have a clear, unobstructed, unclouded view of ourselves. And Paul is suggesting that in order for the Corinthian believers to have a mature perspective on the manifestations of the Spirit, they need to take a clear look at themselves.

To "know in part" is to have an unschooled, inexperienced, naive perspective about knowledge. To "prophecy in part" is to have a naive perspective concerning prophecy. Only those who understand that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge are subservient to the main goal, which is love, will have a mature, sophisticated, experienced, wise, rational view of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. A prideful, arrogant, self-important view of these things will not lead to a love for each other.

Are you suggesting that prophecy and knowledge ended for each individual as they became mature?

BroRog
Aug 17th 2010, 03:25 PM
Are you suggesting that prophecy and knowledge ended for each individual as they became mature?Prophecies end when they come to pass. The mature realize that love never ends.

Butch5
Aug 17th 2010, 06:07 PM
Prophecies end when they come to pass. The mature realize that love never ends.

That doesn't answer my question. I believe Paul was referring to the gift of prophecy since the gifts are the the topic of his discussion. The impression I got from you post was that the gifts would end as an individual reached maturity. If that were the case then that would mean that the mature believers in the church would no longer have the gifts, only the immature believers would. That doesn't seem to fit the purpose of the gifts.

BroRog
Aug 17th 2010, 06:17 PM
That doesn't answer my question. I believe Paul was referring to the gift of prophecy since the gifts are the the topic of his discussion. The impression I got from you post was that the gifts would end as an individual reached maturity. If that were the case then that would mean that the mature believers in the church would no longer have the gifts, only the immature believers would. That doesn't seem to fit the purpose of the gifts.I don't think Paul was referring to the gift of prophecy since he is speaking about "prophecies" plural. "If there are prophecies, they will come to pass."

Butch5
Aug 17th 2010, 06:49 PM
I don't think Paul was referring to the gift of prophecy since he is speaking about "prophecies" plural. "If there are prophecies, they will come to pass."

I have to disagree, in the context of the letter I believe by "prophecies" he is referring to the gift manifested through many.

TexUs
Aug 17th 2010, 07:12 PM
Butch you have still failed to answer the WHEN these prophecies will end.
You maintain they ended in past tense but have not mentioned when you think that was.

BroRog
Aug 17th 2010, 07:40 PM
I have to disagree, in the context of the letter I believe by "prophecies" he is referring to the gift manifested through many.In Chapter 13, the subject has changed in order for Paul to describe the "better way". The context is the immediate context of his argument. Besides, one would hardly use the plural to indicte the gift of prophecy.

TexUs
Aug 17th 2010, 07:53 PM
In Chapter 13, the subject has changed in order for Paul to describe the "better way". The context is the immediate context of his argument. Besides, one would hardly use the plural to indicte the gift of prophecy.

Prophecy leads to prophecies...
However to say this is speaking of prophecies and not the gift of prophecy is to ignore the other gifts listed directly next to them: tongues and knowledge.

BroRog
Aug 17th 2010, 09:10 PM
Prophecy leads to prophecies...
However to say this is speaking of prophecies and not the gift of prophecy is to ignore the other gifts listed directly next to them: tongues and knowledge.The same idea applies to them as well. The issue in chapter 13 is the permanence, endurance, and relevance of love, as compared to the transitory nature of prophecies.

TexUs
Aug 17th 2010, 09:15 PM
The same idea applies to them as well. The issue in chapter 13 is the permanence, endurance, and relevance of love, as compared to the transitory nature of prophecies.
Exactly so. Prophecy, Tongues, Knowledge, etc won't last as long as love. There will be an end to them at some point.
Butch seems to argue this point is history but I have not seen any compelling argument for that, and I'd hold that it is some point still FUTURE and in my opinion is the coming of Christ.

BroRog
Aug 17th 2010, 09:30 PM
Exactly so. Prophecy, Tongues, Knowledge, etc won't last as long as love. There will be an end to them at some point.
Butch seems to argue this point is history but I have not seen any compelling argument for that, and I'd hold that it is some point still FUTURE and in my opinion is the coming of Christ.Again, I don't think Paul's point in 1Corinthians 13 that prophecy will end. It might; it might end in the next age. But then again, it might not. We don't know. Paul isn't saying that prophesy will end he is saying that prophecies eventually come to pass, in order contrast that with the fact that Love won't ever pass away. And the "perfect" isn't the coming of Jesus Christ. The "perfect" is the mature believer.

TexUs
Aug 17th 2010, 09:51 PM
Again, I don't think Paul's point in 1Corinthians 13 that prophecy will end. It might; it might end in the next age. But then again, it might not. We don't know. Paul isn't saying that prophesy will end he is saying that prophecies eventually come to pass, in order contrast that with the fact that Love won't ever pass away. And the "perfect" isn't the coming of Jesus Christ. The "perfect" is the mature believer.
I agree that the "main point" isn't that it'll end, however I'm speaking of Butch's initial response here... He DOES think it HAS ended... Which is what I took issue with.

After clarifying that I agree, again, I don't think that's the point of the passage here.

Butch5
Aug 18th 2010, 11:38 AM
Butch you have still failed to answer the WHEN these prophecies will end.
You maintain they ended in past tense but have not mentioned when you think that was.

Come on man, are yoiu seerious? I gave you that long post explaining everythting and you say I have failed to answer when? You didn't even attempt to address the post.

The Mighty Sword
Aug 18th 2010, 01:02 PM
Teachers teach students, students become teachers and so on and so on until his return. The Great Commission.

TexUs
Aug 18th 2010, 01:54 PM
Comew on man, are yoiu seerious? I gave you that long post explaining everythting and you say I have failed to answer when? You didn't even attempt to address the post.

You said it was maturation of faith. Which, as I have indeed already mentioned and you failed to see, is not an individual thing: Paul directly lumps himself into "we"... The church. It's a universal point in time.
It's abundantly clear that "NOW we see in part"... Paul did not have what you are saying is "maturity in faith".

So my question to you, still, is WHEN did this stop? What caused "maturity in faith" later on that the Apostle did not have? What brought about fullness and clarity?

AndrewBaptistFL
Aug 18th 2010, 05:58 PM
What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple?

Eight pages...I apologize for asking a question that was so simple you could answer it in one sentence. What shall we segue into now? Shall we talk about art or fast food?

TexUs
Aug 18th 2010, 06:18 PM
Eight pages...I apologize for asking a question that was so simple you could answer it in one sentence.
Or at least you THOUGHT it was simple, in reality it isn't... Look at the first few pages anyway when we were still talking about that. It really comes down to how you want to define it, all the Biblical support has been given, opinions have been given.

Butch5
Aug 19th 2010, 12:31 AM
You said it was maturation of faith. Which, as I have indeed already mentioned and you failed to see, is not an individual thing: Paul directly lumps himself into "we"... The church. It's a universal point in time.
It's abundantly clear that "NOW we see in part"... Paul did not have what you are saying is "maturity in faith".

So my question to you, still, is WHEN did this stop? What caused "maturity in faith" later on that the Apostle did not have? What brought about fullness and clarity?

Now your changing your position? First you said Paul had complete knowledge and now you are saying he didn't?

I didn't say maturity in faith, I said "THE" faith. The body of Christian doctrine. As I explained in the other post I w as speaking of the maturity of "The Christian Faith", which Jude says was "Once" delivered to the saints. Once delivered is past tense, so he "The Fatih" (Body of Christian doctrine) did reach a point of maturity sometime prior to Jude's writing of his epistle.