Commentators on the story of [Acts 1:15–26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A15-26&version=ESV) , where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like: > Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. ([*People's New Testament*](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/pnt.pnt0501.html)) There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul *was not* considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like [Acts 2:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A14&version=ESV) and [1 Corinthians 15:5–9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A5-9&version=ESV) . But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been. So, my question. What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul? Related: [Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7507/21576) Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.

I'm specifically talking about the GotQuestions.org article [*Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-prophets-restored.html) A summary of the main arguments (in my own words) from the article would be the following: - The office of apostle belonged exclusively to the original 12 + Matthias + Paul. - The uppercase Apostles set up the foundation for the universal church in the 1st century (Ephesians 2:20), therefore their job is already done, and the office is no longer necessary. - There is the gift of apostle, which must not be confused with the office of apostle. The gift of apostle continues, whereas the office ceased in the first century (if I'm not misunderstanding the article). - The gift of prophecy was a temporary gift necessary for laying the foundation (Ephesians 2:20 again), but once the canon of Scripture was complete, prophets were no longer necessary and ceased. - The current teaching of the restoration of prophets and apostles is unbiblical (see the article for details). - The Bible uses past tense when it talks about prophets, apostles, even miracles and gifts of the Spirit. The article seems to be making the case, then, that the past tense is indicative of cessation. **How do non-LDS believers in the modern restoration or continuation of the offices of apostle and prophet rebut this article?** _____ **Appendix - the article itself (it's relatively short)** > The movement to restore the offices of apostle and prophet bases the > claim that apostles and prophets are to be a part of the church on > Ephesians 4:11-12. These verses say, "And He gave some as apostles, > and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and > teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to > the building up of the body of Christ." > > During the first century of the church, there was an office of apostle > and there was a spiritual gift of apostle. The office or position of > apostle was held by the 12 disciples of Jesus plus Matthias, who took > Judas’ place, and Paul. Those who held the office or position of > apostle were chosen specifically by Christ (Mark 3:16-19). The > replacement for Judas is seen in Acts 1:20-26. Note in this passage > that Judas' position was called an office. It should also be noted > that Paul was chosen by Christ (1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Galatians 1:1; > 2:6-9). These men were given the task of setting up the foundation of > the church. It should be understood that it was for the universal > church that these men were a part of the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). > The foundation of the church (universal church) was laid in the first > century. This is why the office of apostle is no longer functioning. > > There was also a spiritual gift of apostle (this is not to be confused > with the office—they are separate). Among those who had the spiritual > gift were James (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts > 14:4, 14; 1 Corinthians 9:6), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), > possibly Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:7), and Apollos (1 > Corinthians 4:6, 9). This latter group had the gift of apostleship but > not the apostolic "office" conferred upon the Twelve and Paul. Those > who had the gift of apostle, then, were those who carried the gospel > message with God’s authority. The word "apostle" means "one sent as an > authoritative delegate." This was true of those who held the office of > Apostle (like Paul) and those who had the spiritual gift (like > Apollos). Though there are men like this today, men who are sent by > God to spread the gospel, it is best NOT to refer to them as apostles > because of the confusion this causes since many are not aware of the > two different uses of the term apostle. > > The gift of prophet was a temporary gift given by the Christ for the > laying of the foundation of the universal church. Prophets also were > foundational to the universal church (Ephesians 2:20). The prophet > proclaimed a message from the Lord for the believers of the first > century. These believers did not have the advantage we have of having > a complete Bible. The last book of the New Testament (Revelation) was > not completed until late in the first century. So the Lord provided > gifted men called prophets who proclaimed messages from God to the > people until the canon of Scripture was complete. > > It should be noted that the current teaching of the restoration of > prophet and the office of apostle is far from what Scripture describes > of the men who held the gift of prophet and the office of apostle. > Those who teach the restoration of the office teach that the men who > claim to be apostles and prophets should never be spoken against, > should never be questioned, because the person who speaks against them > is speaking against God. Yet, the Apostle Paul commended the people of > Berea for checking what he said against the Word of God to make sure > he spoke the truth (Acts 17:10-11). The Apostle Paul also stated to > those in Galatia that if anyone, including himself, should teach > another Gospel, that person should be "accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9). In > everything, Paul kept pointing people to the Bible as the final > authority. The men who claim to be apostles and prophets today make > themselves the final authority, something Paul and the Twelve never > did. > > It should also be noted that Scripture refers to these men in the past > tense. 2 Peter 3:2 and also Jude 3-4, state that the people should not > stray from the message the apostles gave (past tense). Hebrews 2:3-4 > also speaks in the past tense of the those who performed (in the past) > signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. **Note:** The article also links to a 5 min YouTube video [*Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today? | GotQuestions.org*](https://youtu.be/F5281FieeKo) (in case you may prefer to watch the video instead). ____ For those interested in the Latter-day Saint perspective on a similar article: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90502/50422

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.