Bishops and Apostles

[Cow Poke]

The concept of the early church was that apostles needed to be sent by Jesus Himself; Paul, who saw him "last of all, as one who is born out of due time" would necessarily have been the last.

And often he had to defend his Apostleship, because it was a big deal to hold that title.

[NorrinRadd]

The concept of the early church was that apostles needed to be sent by Jesus Himself; Paul, who saw him "last of all, as one who is born out of due time" would necessarily have been the last.

Scripture proves this untrue.

[One Bad Pig]

Scripture proves this untrue.

How, pray tell?

[Cow Poke]

Scripture proves this untrue.

When one makes a statement like that, it's generally a good idea to include the Scripture reference.

[mikewhitney]

In this case, he was on the agenda to speak because the previous president (I'm now president of the association) had invited him, and I inherited that agenda. He failed to show, so if he tries again, I'll just politely tell him he had his chance, and wasn't gracious enough to notify us he wouldn't be there.

I actually had a meeting with our VP, secretary and treasurer to agree that we'll use those offices (the four of us) as an executive committee to approve or decline any requests to address our group. The others agree we don't really need to hear from an "Apostle" without a really good reason.

Sounds like your apostolic staff helping you.

[NorrinRadd]

How, pray tell?

The primary proofs are Acts 14:14 and 1 Thess. 1:1 with 2:7. These show that Barnabas, Silvanus, and Timothy were all apostles in the same class as Paul.

Rom. 16:7 shows Andronicus and Junia were apostles in some sense, but not necessarily in the same sense as Paul.

One could easily infer from Eph. 4:10-14 and 1 Cor. 12:28 in the whole context of 1 Cor. 12-14 that all gifts including apostles will remain until the Lord's return, but even if that is not the case, Scripture clearly shows the existence of apostles later than Paul.

Honestly, it baffles me that people keep trotting out the "Paul was the last apostle" trope.

[mossrose]

The primary proofs are Acts 14:14 and 1 Thess. 1:1 with 2:7. These show that Barnabas, Silvanus, and Timothy were all apostles in the same class as Paul.

Rom. 16:7 shows Andronicus and Junia were apostles in some sense, but not necessarily in the same sense as Paul.

One could easily infer from Eph. 4:10-14 and 1 Cor. 12:28 in the whole context of 1 Cor. 12-14 that all gifts including apostles will remain until the Lord's return, but even if that is not the case, Scripture clearly shows the existence of apostles later than Paul.

Honestly, it baffles me that people keep trotting out the "Paul was the last apostle" trope.

And, yet, in Acts 1, Peter gives specific instructions on who was qualified to be an Apostle, when they were replacing Judas.

From the blog post here: https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B13...e-risen-christ

The key being "witnesses to the resurrection", which the men you mentioned in the NT likely were. Nobody since Paul has seen the resurrected Lord.

[One Bad Pig]

The key being "witnesses to the resurrection", which the men you mentioned in the NT likely were. Nobody since Paul has seen the resurrected Lord.

Well, it is unlikely that Timothy was a witness to the resurrection, as he is pretty clearly younger than Paul. It is also unlikely that Paul would have considered Timothy an apostle at the point he first visited Thessalonica in Acts 17 (he had just added Timothy to his care the previous chapter; he was not part of the mission as sent from Antioch).

[Cow Poke]

BIBLE TRIVIA, not theology!

[mossrose]

Well, it is unlikely that Timothy was a witness to the resurrection, as he is pretty clearly younger than Paul. It is also unlikely that Paul would have considered Timothy an apostle at the point he first visited Thessalonica in Acts 17 (he had just added Timothy to his care the previous chapter; he was not part of the mission as sent from Antioch).

Paul's conversion didn't take place that many years after the resurrection. Timothy may have been a child, but it's very possible that he and his family were some of the tens of thousands who were in Jerusalem that Passover week.

[One Bad Pig]

Paul's conversion didn't take place that many years after the resurrection. Timothy may have been a child, but it's very possible that he and his family were some of the tens of thousands who were in Jerusalem that Passover week.

Possible, but his father was a Greek - and may not have been willing to make such trips, or allow his family members to make them; after all, he didn't allow his son to be circumcised, and that was much more important than a trip to Jerusalem.

[mossrose]

Possible, but his father was a Greek - and may not have been willing to make such trips, or allow his family members to make them; after all, he didn't allow his son to be circumcised, and that was much more important than a trip to Jerusalem.

Then perhaps Timothy and the others cannot be considered capital "A" Apostles. There were many "a" apostles.

[mossrose]

I don't think Timothy was actually ever called an apostle in scripture, but a pastor.

Somebody prove me wrong.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think Timothy was actually ever called an apostle in scripture, but a pastor.

Somebody prove me wrong.

That's what NorrinRad tried to assert by referencing 1 Thes. 1:1 and 2:7.

[mossrose]

That's what NorrinRad tried to assert by referencing 1 Thes. 1:1 and 2:7.

Pretty weak as an argument for calling these men Apostles.