I’m doing some research about early Christianity, specifically looking into the circumstances of the divergence between Judaism and Christianity as two very distinct religions as we know them today. It seems Paul had a very remarkable role in shifting the Christian faith into a more Gentile and independent religion rather than enforcing Mosaic laws. Since Paul is considered the Apostle to the Gentiles, did Paul continue to consider himself a Jew after conversion?

Building on the previous question regarding scriptural support (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108086/117426) , I'm now seeking historical evidence pertaining to the practice and instruction of contemplative prayer by the apostles or the early Church (i.e., the first two centuries). For a definition of contemplative prayer, please refer to the aforementioned linked question.

In Genesis 1:28, God commands humanity to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.” This is a physical multiplication and filling of the world. In the New Testament, Jesus commissions His apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), which seems like a spiritual multiplication—filling the world not biologically but with the gospel. Is this seen as a deliberate biblical pattern or typology? In what ways did the apostles fulfill this spiritual fruitfulness and multiplication, and do Christian traditions see a theological link between the original creation mandate and the Great Commission? I’m especially interested in perspectives that view the apostles as spiritually “fruitful” by preaching the gospel and establishing churches across the world.

If the *traditional* “Church Fathers' are from about 160-380 AD, why are *they* called the Church Fathers? The Church was started by Jesus and ministered by the apostles from the very beginning - teaching, baptising and sorting out problems and misunderstandings which are written about throughout the NT. Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers? Who decided which figures would be “Church Fathers”, ignoring the Apostles unquestioned esteem, experience and de facto appointment for that title and role?

What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified? What I’ve heard is Peter was about the same age as Jesus (30-33), while John was an older teenage, approximately 18. This makes sense in the passages: >When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26–27, ESV) A teenager along with women would be less threatened being present at the crucifixion. >Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John 20:4, ESV) For men who were not athletes, you would expect an 18 year old to outrun a 30 year old. > Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” (John 21:20–21, ESV) Jesus had told Peter to feed his sheep. Usually younger brothers were given the task of taking care of the literal sheep. Peter had to get used to the idea that shepherds (pastors) were elders. What other evidence to we have for the ages of Peter and John at the crucifixion.

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, the boy in the tomb tells the women to give a message to "[Jesus's] disciples AND Peter" (Mark 16:7). Nowhere else in Mark is any apostle "separated" from the word "disciples" and Peter, the "leader" of the disciples, is given second billing. What, if any, are the official church explanations for this unusual language?

John the Baptist said to those who came to him to be baptised that he baptised with water for repentance: “But after me comes one who is more powerful than I. . . . He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). John the Baptist distinguished his baptism (with water) from the Lord’s baptism (with the Holy Spirit). John 1:35-40 mentions two of John the Baptist's disciples, Andrew (Simon Peter's brother) and the other, almost certainly the writer of the Gospel of John. They would have been baptised in water by John the Baptist (a baptism of repentance). A[ \[CSE question\]][1] exists which asks if there is any Church Tradition to show that Jesus baptised his apostles. Here is part of the answer: "St Thomas in his Summa theologiae III, q. 72, a. 6, ad. 2 quotes St. Augustine and affirms that the Apostles were baptized. As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10), we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others." There is nothing in the Scriptures that describes the apostles having been baptized by Jesus — but in John 3:22, we read that, “after this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.” However, John 4:21 informs us that “Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptising more disciples than John [the Baptist], ***although in fact it was not Jesus who baptised, but his disciples.***” The argument from Church Tradition does not appear to be in harmony with John 4:21. The disciples were baptising in water by the direction of Jesus and under His authority. Apart from knowing that Andrew and John were baptised by John the Baptist, does the New Testament say if any other of Jesus' apostles were ever baptised in water, and if any of the apostles were baptised by Jesus? Also what have biblical scholars said said about this? In response to a comment about this question, please note I have asked a different question about Christian baptism on CSE: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103572/how-do-jehovah-s-witnesses-interpret-john-35-7-where-jesus-says-to-enter-the-ki

I've heard arguments by people like Richard Carrier that the author of the Epistle of James is *outside* the category of apostles, meaning that this James is *not* an apostle. And that the James in the Book of Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians was not James the Just but James son of Zebedee. Can you respond to Richard Carrier's argument, which can be seen in [this video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DodGgjkMsZw) ? The reason why I asked you this is because I'm a Christian struggling with my faith and I wanted to ask my brothers in Christ to help me.

Polycarp is said to be a student of the Apostle John. Yet he never mentions it in his epistle, nor does he quote the Gospel of John. Why is that?

I was going to respond to a question along similar lines I saw here but apparently I don't have a reputation yet so I can't respond.. So, here I am.. I already know the answer better than most who will respond I bet, but I'd like to see what a high reputation can add to the discussion, please bring verse.. Kind regards P.S. Apparently I can't create new tags without a 300 reputation either.. I better get busy... ha

In [Acts 1:12-26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:12-26&version=NIVUK) we read the story of how Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. This kept the number of apostles at Twelve. Sometime later, James, the brother of John was murdered ([Acts 12:2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2012:2&version=NIVUK)) . James was also one of the original twelve ([Matthew 4:21](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4:21&version=NIVUK)) but unlike Judas, there is no record of him being replaced. Why was this? Did the policy change? Alternatively, if he *was* replaced but it was not recorded in the New Testament, when did the "Twelve Apostle" policy end?

We read in Mtt 26:14 : > Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests... On a number of occassions including the Last Supper, 'the twelve' are referred to as 'disciples'. Other than the twelve whom we know as Apostles, Jesus also had 72 disciples . After the Lord's ascension, the hierarchy would become prominent with the Apostles having exclusive meetings and decision making . But, how did the apostles and other disciples distinguish between themselves during the time of Jesus' public ministry ? For instance, were they addressed as Apostle Peter, Disciple Mark etc ? Are there any apocryphal writings available on the subject ?

The **Testimony of the Apostles** concerning the ministry, miraculous deeds, and alleged Resurrection, was fantastic, way out of the ordinary, revolutionary, and mind-boggling! The message they proclaimed was not ordinary 5 o'clock news material! It would pique everyone's interest that heard it. And not only did they proclaim it, but they challenged everyone to **dedicate their lives to it**! They expected people to believe it and even "lay their lives down" for it. And today in modernity, preachers of this same message---based on the Apostles' witness---seek disciples who will be wholly dedicated to it. These preachers (pastors, evangelists) are convinced that the **original testimony** of the Apostles was true...is true. But on what do they base this unswerving confidence? What convinces modern ministers and scholarly theologians that the Witness of the Apostles is Credible, Reliable, and Substantial for dedicating their lives to it?

A few other people and I at my church have decided to do a detailed study on the 12 Apostles. This got me thinking about the order the apostles were called to follow Christ. We know Simon Peter and Andrew were called first, but the rest are harder to discern. **So, in what order were the 12 Apostles called?**

Apart from preaching the good news to the Gentiles and the Jews, did the apostles have a responsibility to keep track of the number of years passed since Jesus Christ was taken up in a cloud to heaven. The Jews had their own calendar and they had a system of tracking the days, months and years. They knew the day Jesus took them to Mount Olives and ascended into heaven. This is because the 2023 years proposed isn't exactly accurate.

I suppose this question is a bit twofold: I'm wondering what Churches the Apostles are historically held to have founded, and in what places; and I'm also wondering who are the men historically held to have succeeded the Apostles as the leaders of these churches, before and after the Apostles' deaths? Do we have any contemporary record of this succession? Are any of the successors Church Fathers? Ultimately I'm interested in looking further into what, if anything, remains of the teaching of these early successors, and what their respective particular Churches express in common of the faith, or on which elements they lay special stress. Thank you for your help! Dan

The following are examples of (possible) essential features and functions of an Apostle I've heard from different sources. An authentic Apostle ... 1. Had to be called supernaturally by God Himself in an unmistakable way (canonical example: Paul in Acts 9). 2. Had to have eyewitnessed Jesus Christ in physical form after His resurrection (aka a *Christophany*). 3. Must have a ministry accompanied by signs, wonders and mighty deeds. 4. Must be a church planter (see [Church planting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_planting)) . 5. Must be an effective preacher of the gospel and soul winner in unreached areas. 6. Must have a position of leadership in the church. 7. Must be author of (or should be able to produce at least) inspired and canonizable writings (i.e. we should be able append their writings to the Bible). **Note**: These are just examples off the top of my head, feel free to consider other requirements people have historically proposed if I forgot any. **Questions**: - What is an overview of how different Christian denominations define the essential features and functions of an authentic Apostle? - Would these different definitions of Apostle allow for the existence of authentic Apostles in modern times? ____ Related and thought-provoking question (and answers): https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90502/50422

We read in Matthew, Mark and Luke how Jesus took Peter, James and John (last two being brothers) to witness the Transfiguration atop Mount Tabore. Peter would later be named the Rock on which Jesus' Church was to be built. John was the only apostle who stood by the Cross and was 'the disciples whom Jesus loved' according to himself. As for James,he does not find a special mention - favourable or otherwise- in the Gospels. Given that the nine Apostles left out would be prone to human envy, the Lord would have selected the three with utmost care, and with certain yardsticks. My question, therefore is: **Are there any apocryphal writings which mention the yardsticks, if any, adopted by Jesus in selecting the three apostles who would witness the Transfiguration?** Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

Scripturally speaking, we know that apostleship was one of the most important offices in the early Church: > 28 And **God has appointed in the church first apostles**, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues [1 Cor 12:28 ESV] > > 11 And **he gave the apostles**, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [Ephesians 4:11-12 ESV] > > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles** and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV] > > 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 The signs of **a true apostle** were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. [2 Cor 12:11-12 ESV] However, the term "missionary" is not strictly speaking a Biblical term (as far as I'm aware), and it typically denotes someone who is sent somewhere (usually an unevangelized area) to carry out some specific service(s) related to the expansion of God's kingdom. However, the concept of apostle is also sometimes more loosely understood as "sent one", which to my ears sounds pretty much the same as a missionary, so the distinction between the two terms becomes a bit blurry. What is the difference between an *apostle* (as understood by the early Church, and as recorded in Scripture) and a *missionary* according to Pentecostal & Charismatic Christianity? ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/48591/50422

I had been thinking about this, but since it isn't ever mentioned in the Bible, is there any teaching that says the original disciples and apostles were ever baptized?