PDA

View Full Version : Why was James chosen to lead the Apostles?



Nick
Sep 16th 2013, 04:46 AM
Not to get "gnostic" but the Gospel of Thomas is the only place where Jesus said to his disciples that James would be his successor.

Prior to his death Jesus said the following to Peter in front of the disciples:

"You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

"Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


After the resurrection Jesus reinstates Peter:

Jesus and Peter

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

How and why was James (and who added “the Just”) chosen to be their leader? Did it have to do with his blood lineage to Jesus? Could have been that James was considered the oldest of Jesus’s brothers?

ChangedByHim
Sep 16th 2013, 04:50 AM
Why is any man chosen and placed into any position of leadership? It is by divine appointment of the Holy Spirit.

But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. (I Corinthians 12:18 NKJV)

Nick
Sep 16th 2013, 04:58 AM
Why is any man chosen and placed into any position of leadership? It is by divine appointment of the Holy Spirit.

But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. (I Corinthians 12:18 NKJV)

Come on. Can't you simply answer a reasonable question with some facts if you have any? There is no mention of casting lots anywhere like there was for Matthias. I would think how the leader of the disciples (then apostles) was chosen would be disclosed or at least worthy of mention. And since James was chosen by whatever method or means, it doesn't strike you as odd that he wasn't one of the original 12?

exitludos
Sep 16th 2013, 05:45 AM
The very closest thing to be said is that Jesus made a personal appearance to James after the resurrection (mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15). Otherwise, there is nothing that can truly tell us why James became the central leader of the Christians in Jerusalem.

As for Peter, he was maybe the most vocal and zealous of the disciples, and he maybe even had a closer relationship to Jesus than other disciples as a result, but Jesus never actually appointed him to be the leader of the entire Christian community. Jesus' instruction to Peter about 'binding' and 'loosing' (in Matthew 16) is repeated two chapters later, with 'you' in the plural. Jesus' statement to Peter was a contextually personalized form of this instruction, and we should understand the statement of the 'keys of the kingdom' in the same way. It is a mistake to read Jesus' words as an appointment of Peter's singular leadership over all others. The same explanation applies to when Jesus reconciles with Peter (in John 21). Jesus is reversing Peter's earlier threefold denial of Jesus, by giving him the opportunity to threefold profess his love for Jesus. Nothing in their dialogue has Jesus appointing Peter as the singular leader over all others.

Diggindeeper
Sep 16th 2013, 06:28 AM
Maybe James was staying in that one particular place, but Peter and other disciples set out to plant churches everywhere--they were evangelists.

ChangedByHim
Sep 16th 2013, 11:32 AM
Come on. Can't you simply answer a reasonable question with some facts if you have any? There is no mention of casting lots anywhere like there was for Matthias. I would think how the leader of the disciples (then apostles) was chosen would be disclosed or at least worthy of mention. And since James was chosen by whatever method or means, it doesn't strike you as odd that he wasn't one of the original 12?
I figured you wouldn't like my answer. Is it hard to believe that the early church was led by the Holy Spirit and not the political system within most of today's church? My answer is the accurate one. I thought you wanted an accurate answer.

TrustGzus
Sep 16th 2013, 11:50 AM
Two questions:

Why should we rely on a quote found only in the Gospel of Thomas?

How does one conclude that the apostles even had a particular man that was "leader" over them? I don't see any reason to think that.

ChangedByHim
Sep 16th 2013, 12:07 PM
Two questions:

Why should we rely on a quote found only in the Gospel of Thomas?

How does one conclude that the apostles even had a particular man that was "leader" over them? I don't see any reason to think that.

It is pretty clear from Acts 15 that James was the leader of the church at Jerusalem.

TrustGzus
Sep 16th 2013, 01:39 PM
It is pretty clear from Acts 15 that James was the leader of the church at Jerusalem.

And also Acts 21 he has a prominent role there. I agree with you. However, a leader or even the leader of the church in Jerusalem is not the same thing as saying the leader over the apostles.

LandShark
Sep 16th 2013, 01:46 PM
This is Nick's response to ChangedByHim:


Come on. Can't you simply answer a reasonable question with some facts if you have any?

This is why it is a waste of time to even try to discuss anything with you. You're an adult, don't you know how to talk to people yet, especially brothers in Christ?

Nick
Sep 16th 2013, 04:29 PM
This is Nick's response to ChangedByHim:

This is why it is a waste of time to even try to discuss anything with you. You're an adult, don't you know how to talk to people yet, especially brothers in Christ?

I know how to talk to people just fine. I asked a pretty straightforward question. I was looking for biblical facts. And he can speak for himself if my response was in any way offensive.

ChangedByHim
Sep 16th 2013, 05:08 PM
I know how to talk to people just fine. I asked a pretty straightforward question. I was looking for biblical facts. And he can speak for himself if my response was in any way offensive.

I'm not offended. But you certainly have a carnal way at looking at spiritual truth. My response was clearly backed by scripture and was specific to your question. What were you looking for, "because everyone liked James better than Peter?"

Nick
Sep 16th 2013, 05:15 PM
I'm not offended. But you certainly have a carnal way at looking at spiritual truth. My response was clearly backed by scripture and was specific to your question. What were you looking for, "because everyone liked James better than Peter?"

Sorry. I was looking for a more specific reason as to why/how James was chosen to lead especially since Jesus's brothers, James included, weren't very supportive during his ministry. In fact, quite the opposite.

Slug1
Sep 16th 2013, 05:20 PM
Personally, I feel that since Peter was a hypocrite when it came to the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles and Christ... God could not effectively use Him as a "leader" in Jerusalem.

ChangedByHim
Sep 16th 2013, 05:24 PM
Sorry. I was looking for a more specific reason as to why/how James was chosen to lead especially since Jesus's brothers, James included, weren't very supportive during his ministry. In fact, quite the opposite.

To expand on my thought: I believe that James displayed the call and anointing of the Holy Spirit to lead and this was recognized by the early church, especially the 12.

As for anything special that designated him, we do know that he received a special appearance from the resurrected Lord. Perhaps something from that visitation was instrumental in his placement.

1 Cor 15:7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

Nick
Sep 16th 2013, 08:08 PM
Personally, I feel that since Peter was a hypocrite when it came to the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles and Christ... God could not effectively use Him as a "leader" in Jerusalem.

That didn't happen until later, but then again, God has foreknowledge, which also begs the question...why would Jesus say to Peter "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Slug1
Sep 16th 2013, 08:24 PM
That didn't happen until later, but then again, God has foreknowledge, which also begs the question...why would Jesus say to Peter "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."Because God's strength is desplayed through our weaknesses. Peter was weak at times and he acted carnally when playing a game between Jews and Gentiles. Paul finally had to rebuke his carnal actions.

Old man
Sep 16th 2013, 08:34 PM
Hi Nick;

I don't know if this helps you answer your question or muddies the water more but ...

I view James’ position as leader of the church in Jerusalem as being synonymous with the angels of the churches in Ephesus and Sardis etc. in the Book of Revelation. I don’t believe that any of the original Apostles were ever meant to “hold down the fort” in any specific given location but instead be available to go to any location to start new churches in regions, settle doctrinal misunderstandings and set up elders in the churches.

During his travels Paul set up elders or leaders in the churches:



Acts 14:21-23 “After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, (22) strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." (23) When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

Perhaps the original twelve set up James as the leader just as Paul did in the cities He traveled through.

Nick
Sep 16th 2013, 08:48 PM
Because God's strength is desplayed through our weaknesses. Peter was weak at times and he acted carnally when playing a game between Jews and Gentiles. Paul finally had to rebuke his carnal actions.

I wouldn't just focus solely on Peter. James was the root cause that influenced Peter to be a hypocrite. James was the one who was insistent that the law by imposed on the Gentile believers. After reaching consensus, it was James that wrote the letter to Paul back peddling on everything he agreed to. He wasn't a very effective leader which calls into question why he was chosen to lead.

TrustGzus
Sep 16th 2013, 09:22 PM
I wouldn't just focus solely on Peter. James was the root cause that influenced Peter to be a hypocrite. James was the one who was insistent that the law by imposed on the Gentile believers. After reaching consensus, it was James that wrote the letter to Paul back peddling on everything he agreed to. He wasn't a very effective leader which calls into question why he was chosen to lead.

Nick, James had the final say in Acts 15 and the letter that held the Gentiles to very few guidelines.


Acts 15:13–21 (NIV)
13*When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14*Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15*The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16*“*‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17*that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’*—
18 things known from long ago.*

19*“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20*Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21*For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”


Then the group collectively put together a letter . . .


Acts 15:22–29 (NIV)
22*Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23*With them they sent the following letter:


The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24*We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25*So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—26*men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27*Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28*It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29*You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.


What back peddling letter to Paul are you referring to that I am not thinking of? What book and chapter is that in?

TrustGzus
Sep 16th 2013, 09:25 PM
Hi Nick;

I don't know if this helps you answer your question or muddies the water more but ...

I view James’ position as leader of the church in Jerusalem as being synonymous with the angels of the churches in Ephesus and Sardis etc. in the Book of Revelation. I don’t believe that any of the original Apostles were ever meant to “hold down the fort” in any specific given location but instead be available to go to any location to start new churches in regions, settle doctrinal misunderstandings and set up elders in the churches.

During his travels Paul set up elders or leaders in the churches:



Perhaps the original twelve set up James as the leader just as Paul did in the cities He traveled through.

I largely, if not completely, am in agreement with Old man. I suspect the apostles were to be more missionary in their work. James simply was a pastor or the pastor of Jerusalem.

Back to my earlier point, being a, or the, pastor in Jerusalem doesn't make him leader over the apostles. He was an important voice in the day, but he wasn't their leader.

Nick
Sep 17th 2013, 02:04 AM
I largely, if not completely, am in agreement with Old man. I suspect the apostles were to be more missionary in their work. James simply was a pastor or the pastor of Jerusalem.

Back to my earlier point, being a, or the, pastor in Jerusalem doesn't make him leader over the apostles. He was an important voice in the day, but he wasn't their leader.

To yours and Old Man's point, the apostles weren't meant to hold down the fort but that's exactly what they did for years after the resurrection. They sent Paul back to Taurus because he was a threat to them, and all of them, including Peter, hid out in Judea for quite a long while.

TrustGzus
Sep 17th 2013, 02:56 AM
To yours and Old Man's point, the apostles weren't meant to hold down the fort but that's exactly what they did for years after the resurrection. They sent Paul back to Taurus because he was a threat to them, and all of them, including Peter, hid out in Judea for quite a long while.

Nick, you need to re-read Acts 9. It doesn't say Paul was a threat to them. The believers (i.e. ordinary Christians were afraid of Paul. They didn't trust him. Barnabas then took him to the apostles. After meeting with them, Paul had the freedom to move about Jerusalem. But then the Hellenists tried to kill Paul. When the believers found out about the attempt on Paul's life, then they sent him to Tarsus. It was for Paul's safety, not because he was a threat.


Acts 9:26–30 (NIV)
26*When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27*But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28*So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29*He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,* but they tried to kill him. 30*When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

Old man
Sep 17th 2013, 04:11 AM
…, the apostles weren't meant to hold down the fort but that's exactly what they did for years after the resurrection.

But in the early years the church in Jerusalem was essentially all there was. It wasn’t until Peter was sent to Joppa (I don’t know how long after Pentecost that was) that they were directed to go to the Gentiles. And their presence in Jerusalem to help establish doctrine and teachings was essential before the church really began to spread out. They had reason to stay there until the Lord directed them to begin going to the nations.


They sent Paul back to Taurus because he was a threat to them,

Although I can understand your view; if by this you mean that as long as Paul stayed in Jerusalem they were all in danger of being persecuted so they sent him away (I can agree). Scripture does record that after they sent him away the church in Jerusalem had peace. But Paul himself was not personally a threat to them his presence among them as a believer was. But this still has no bearing on your OP at least not that I can see.


and all of them, including Peter, hid out in Judea for quite a long while.

I’m not sure where you found this. Can you elaborate a bit?

Nick
Sep 18th 2013, 04:30 AM
^^^Paul posed a threat to them after they helped him escape. Paul was a wanted man and they were harboring a fugitive so to speak. Realizing this they sent him back to Tarsus where he was to await further instructions and nothing came. 8 years later Barnabas showed up. Paul was a little angry. The people were starving in Jerusalem and being persecuted. All of the apostles fled to Judea to avoid persecution. That was during the height of the oppression. Many many years later Peter went around to all the churches Paul planted to reaffirm his apostleship. What was Peter doing between the time Paul was sent back to Tarsus and then? We're talking many years. He went back to Galilee to be a fisherman while Paul was planting churches.

Old man
Sep 18th 2013, 06:03 AM
^^^Paul posed a threat to them after they helped him escape. Paul was a wanted man and they were harboring a fugitive so to speak. Realizing this they sent him back to Tarsus …. 8 years later Barnabas showed up.
I’m with you this far.




where he was to await further instructions and nothing came
Paul was a little angry
The people were starving in Jerusalem and being persecuted
All of the apostles fled to Judea to avoid persecution.
Many many years later Peter went around to all the churches Paul planted to reaffirm his apostleship
He went back to Galilee to be a fisherman while Paul was planting churches



I'm am somewhat familiar with the events recorded in Acts but am unfamiliar with the scriptures which would lead one to come to the conclusions you mention here. You wouldn’t happen to have any actual scripture verses to corroborate these statements would you?

TrustGzus
Sep 18th 2013, 07:15 AM
I’m with you this far.



I'm am somewhat familiar with the events recorded in Acts but am unfamiliar with the scriptures which would lead one to come to the conclusions you mention here. You wouldn’t happen to have any actual scripture verses to corroborate these statements would you?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Old man again.

I would agree with you, Old man. Maybe Nick can share some Scripture but seems like he's plugging in some conjecture into the timeline. Or perhaps I am overlooking something that he can share with us.


I’m with you this far.



I'm am somewhat familiar with the events recorded in Acts but am unfamiliar with the scriptures which would lead one to come to the conclusions you mention here. You wouldn’t happen to have any actual scripture verses to corroborate these statements would you?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Old man again.

I would agree with you, Old man. Maybe Nick can share some Scripture but seems like he's plugging in some conjecture into the timeline. Or perhaps I am overlooking something that he can share with us.

Nick
Sep 18th 2013, 11:48 PM
So what was Peter and the gang doing while Paul was in Tarsus? How long was Paul in Tarsus? Who finally showed up? What was going on in Jerusalem during that time? Was Judea a safe haven for the apostles or not? Why did Paul call the Galations foolish (Gal3:1)? What caused that? Did that have anything to do with our boy James and the circumcision group? Did Peter not go back to all the churches Paul planted and reaffirm his message along with his apostleship which was brought into question by the circumcision group? What was Peter doing during all those years to support his family? We know they were starving and severely oppressed in Jerusalem so the offerings were a little on the light side. How did he put food on the table for his family (he was married). You don't think returned to being a fisherman, his old trade? He did go back to fishing before Jesus appeared to him. Lastly, why did Martin Luther refer to the Book of James as the Epistle of "straw"?

CaptKirk1
Sep 19th 2013, 05:37 PM
Not to get "gnostic" but the Gospel of Thomas is the only place where Jesus said to his disciples that James would be his successor.

Prior to his death Jesus said the following to Peter in front of the disciples:

"You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."



"I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

"Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


After the resurrection Jesus reinstates Peter:

Jesus and Peter

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

How and why was James (and who added “the Just”) chosen to be their leader? Did it have to do with his blood lineage to Jesus? Could have been that James was considered the oldest of Jesus’s brothers?



Actually, the bible tells us that peter/John/James were seen as pillars in the Jerusalem Church, while paul was same as them, but as unto the Gentiles!

peter was NOT the first Pope, for James fit that title in Jerusalem Church, but Paul was the greatest Apostle of them all!

dan p
Sep 7th 2016, 09:38 PM
Hi and here is my answer !!

#1 , You will see , that after Acts 15 , Peter is NEVER from again ??

#2 , But the biggest thing , is that Peter will sit on 1 of the 12 Thrones judging Israel !!

#3 But here is the BIGGEST thing that all miss , and that is because Israel will soon be set aside as Isa 6 and Luke 13:6-9 explain , along with many other passages !!

#4, Then Christ raised up another Apostle , Paul , to begin the Gospel of the Grace of God , Rom 16:25 and 26 and Col 1:25 and 26 are just a few of those verses !!

dan p

one_lost_coin
Sep 8th 2016, 12:01 AM
Not to get "gnostic" but the Gospel of Thomas is the only place where Jesus said to his disciples that James would be his successor. And yet you did get gnostic.


How and why was James (and who added “the Just”) chosen to be their leader? Did it have to do with his blood lineage to Jesus? Could have been that James was considered the oldest of Jesus’s brothers?Your premise is flawed. St. James was head of the church at Jerusalem and it simply means just that. It does not equate to being head of the Apostles which Sacred Scripture never ascribes to St. James.

Its something like being governor or Virginia doesn't make you head of the governor of Tennessee or any other State. Rather the governor of Virginia exercises his role of governing in his state in the same way as the governor of Tennessee exercises governing in his state. That example only goes so far as the Church is not a secular institution but I hope it shows the distinction in a way thats helpful.

Wow just saw how old this thread was. How did it get on todays posts?

Shyla
Sep 14th 2016, 01:12 AM
Personally, I feel that since Peter was a hypocrite when it came to the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles and Christ... God could not effectively use Him as a "leader" in Jerusalem.

Apparently things were all patched up by this the time of the Transfiguration, if James son of Alphaeus was the James who was included.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 14th 2016, 03:50 AM
James bar alpheus was not the leader in Jerusalem

little watchman
Sep 14th 2016, 05:42 AM
Three year old thread? Nonetheless, a few thoughts different than those already expressed:

James bar Joseph, brother of Jesus, was probably used to being in charge. He was possibly older than Jesus (if so, then from a previous marriage which left Joseph a widower) but certainly the oldest of the brothers staying near home in Nazareth, and it was at his direction that they arranged an intervention (Mark 3:32) and was not a believer in Jesus as messiah upon Jesus' death. We are told that Jesus made a special post-resurrection appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7), but we don't know if he was actually commissioned to become an apostle (Galatians 1:19 is not conclusive). We do know that he became head of the church in Jerusalem and was complicit in or the leader of the circumcision party (Galatians 2:12), against whose teachings the book of Galatians seems to be addressed, and that James was not considered by Paul to be a fellow worker for the kingdom of God (Colossians 4:11). Much of the book of James, addressed to the "twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," is directed against the teachings of Paul. (A lot can be said on this subject.) And consider James' response to Paul and Barnabas' recounting of signs among the Gentiles, that he thought the Gentiles should abstain from "pollution of idols, sexual perversion, from things strangled, and from blood" because they were ignorant of the law: "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath" (Acts 15:20-21).

So why was James chosen to lead the Apostles? I speculate that it is mostly because he had a domineering personality (enough to make Peter afraid of him), was very religiously devout, was considered a successor to Jesus because of his family status, and could negotiate with the Jews to stay in Jerusalem under Herod (Acts 12:1).

Slug1
Sep 14th 2016, 08:13 PM
Apparently things were all patched up by this the time of the Transfiguration, if James son of Alphaeus was the James who was included.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.The time when Peter was being hypocritical was years after the encounter with Jesus in His transfigured form. You can read about this in Galatians 2 where Paul rebukes Peter for his hypocrisy.

So what do you mean all was patched up?

Stonesoffire
Sep 18th 2016, 10:05 PM
Exo 13:12 That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S.

Matrix is womb. Jesus is the first begotten Son of God, and now we His body are sons of God too through being born of spirit into the kingdom of God through Him. This is the rock of revelation that Simon saw, and Jesus renames him Peter for this reason. The firstling of us to "see" or perceive truth.

Firstling:

H6363

פִּטְרָה פֶּטֶר

peṭer piṭrâh

peh'-ter, pit-raw'

From H6362; a fissure, that is, (concretely) firstling (as opening the matrix): - firstling, openeth, such as open.

Stonesoffire
Sep 18th 2016, 10:06 PM
I believe Mathias was mans choice, but Paul was the choice of God.

James was in conflict with Paul.

keck553
Sep 20th 2016, 08:17 PM
I believe Mathias was mans choice, but Paul was the choice of God.



Great observation. Casting lots was according to in the tradition of their culture. Jesus choose His disciples personally, including Paul.

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 20th 2016, 08:30 PM
Great observation. Casting lots was according to in the tradition of their culture. Jesus choose His disciples personally, including Paul.

Wasn't casting lots a direct command of God in the Old Testament?

Stonesoffire
Sep 20th 2016, 11:08 PM
Great observation. Casting lots was according to in the tradition of their culture. Jesus choose His disciples personally, including Paul.

Tried to rep you here. For some reason I can't rep anyone. ?

Stonesoffire
Sep 20th 2016, 11:12 PM
Wasn't casting lots a direct command of God in the Old Testament?

Superstition. No Holy Spirit within to teach one. He did however, come upon men. Big difference.

keck553
Sep 21st 2016, 03:40 AM
Wasn't casting lots a direct command of God in the Old Testament?

Yes. I don't think any fault is to be given to the Apostles...but the fact remains that Jesus chose Paul and Matthias was never mentioned again.

I like CARM's conclusion..

(https://carm.org/what-casting-lots-in-the-bible#footnote1_t1yt33p)In the New Testament, after Judas killed himself, the disciples cast lots to see who would be his replacement. The lot fell to Matthias, but this was before Pentecost. Since the New Testament does not have any instance of Christians casting lots to discern the will of God after Pentecost, we conclude that after the arrival of the Holy Spirit (https://carm.org/holy-spirit) we do not need to rely on that method, but instead must rely on the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the further revelation found in the New Testament.

https://carm.org/what-casting-lots-in-the-bible

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 21st 2016, 04:13 AM
No argument, but that does not discount Matthias or his biblically at the time method of selection

David Taylor
Sep 21st 2016, 01:07 PM
Prior to his death Jesus said the following to Peter in front of the disciples:

"You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

"Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."



Matt 16:17 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "


I don't see Jesus acknowledging Peter's faith above as an example of the faith that will be show by men to build and grow Christ's church; as an assignment of Peter to rule in Christ's stead.
Rather, it is simple Jesus using Peter's faith as an example that we all should have; that will be used of God to grow His church.




After the resurrection Jesus reinstates Peter:

Jesus and Peter

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”



I don't see anything in the passage above that 're-states' Peter to some assumed position of authority.

What I see the John passage accomplishing, is Jesus three times forgiving Peter; as a point-back to the three times that Peter denied Jesus.
Jesus is repeating His forgiveness of Peter thrice; to show Peter to let the anguish of his denial go; and move forward with the other believers, in serving Him and tending and feeding the sheep.



How and why was James (and who added “the Just”) chosen to be their leader? Did it have to do with his blood lineage to Jesus? Could have been that James was considered the oldest of Jesus’s brothers?

James wasn't chosen to be their leader. The church has only one leader; with many members all working jointly together as one body.

Romans 12:5 "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us"

Ephesians 1:22 "And hath put all things under [Christ's] feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body"

Blood lineage is irrelevant.

keck553
Sep 21st 2016, 01:49 PM
No argument, but that does not discount Matthias or his biblically at the time method of selection

Lots of departures from "Old Testament ways" are recorded in the Apostolic Writings. For me, it's a testimony of the transformation of individuals who have had their sins washed cleans and were led by the Holy Spirit as never before. They no longer needed to rely on the works of human hands (casting lots in this case).

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 21st 2016, 02:00 PM
This was pre pentecost, of course.

keck553
Sep 21st 2016, 04:39 PM
This was pre pentecost, of course.

Of course, but apparently God had already chosen another way.

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 21st 2016, 08:36 PM
I just don't see that in the text.

It says they prayed first, unless for some reason their prayer was meaningless, and they understood that what they were doing was under the guidance of God.

At least that's how I read the text.

keck553
Sep 21st 2016, 09:11 PM
I just don't see that in the text.

It says they prayed first, unless for some reason their prayer was meaningless, and they understood that what they were doing was under the guidance of God.

At least that's how I read the text.

Yeah, that's how the text reads, nevertheless the text reads that Jesus choose Paul, and there can only be 12 Apostles.

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 21st 2016, 09:12 PM
Yeah, that's how the text reads, nevertheless the text reads that Jesus choose Paul. I don't know maybe the disciples thought they could do better than Judas?

I can't remember any text saying that Jesus chose Paul to replace Judas. Of course, the neurons are moving a bit slowly today!


After all, there were plenty more apostles than just the 12 minus Judas plus Mathais and Paul.

Stonesoffire
Sep 21st 2016, 09:18 PM
But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14: 26

When I first started serious study of the scriptures, I found that the story of the angel stirring the waters of the pool of Bethesda was a Jewish superstition. The story where Jesus healed the paralyzed man who had no one to help him into the water.

Many ministers still preach this as fact. Is it important enough to correct? I believe so.

Stonesoffire
Sep 21st 2016, 09:19 PM
I can't remember any text saying that Jesus chose Paul to replace Judas. Of course, the neurons are moving a bit slowly today!


After all, there were plenty more apostles than just the 12 minus Judas plus Mathais and Paul.

Acts. When the light blinded him.

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 21st 2016, 09:22 PM
But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14: 26

When I first started serious study of the scriptures, I found that the story of the angel stirring the waters of the pool of Bethesda was a Jewish superstition. The story where Jesus healed the paralyzed man who had no one to help him into the water.

Many ministers still preach this as fact. Is it important enough to correct? I believe so.

I concur.

But casting lots was an method approve by God in the OT.

Certainly don't think the same applies after Pentecost.

Stew Ward's Hip
Sep 21st 2016, 09:23 PM
Acts. When the light blinded him.

I agree that Jesus called Paul personally, and that Paul was an apostle, but I can't remember any text that says that Paul was a replacement for Judas.

keck553
Sep 21st 2016, 10:51 PM
I can't remember any text saying that Jesus chose Paul to replace Judas. Of course, the neurons are moving a bit slowly today!


After all, there were plenty more apostles than just the 12 minus Judas plus Mathais and Paul.

It doesn't say Jesus chose Paul to replace Judas, but it certainly says Jesus chose Paul to do the work of an Apostle. And while some can argue that more were added, Jesus Himself chose 12 (excluding Judas). It kind of makes sense if Biblical numbers have any significance...12 patriarchs (old covenant), 12 apostles (new covenant), 12x12x1000=144,000 and in nature itself - 12 months, 12+12 hours in a day, etc. If God created everything, certainly He had a purpose in this. I'm not a fan of Biblical decoding with numbers, but I do recognize that there are some numbers that are prominent in Scripture and tend to tie things together.

But I think it's important that Jesus chose those apostles personally, and even after Matthias was chosen by lot, Jesus came to Paul, and for a greater purpose than anyone at the time even realized. Even Paul didn't know his purpose at first as he kept going to the Jews without bearing any fruit. It took awhile for Paul himself to realize Jesus' plan all along was for Paul to go to the Gentiles. So if Paul didn't even know at first, how much less did the 11 know what God's plan was by casting lots?

At any rate, Jesus' choice of Paul had an impact that changed the world.