Sorry DAve, I did not do a good job on my response. I was being somewhat sarcastic in my post -- but even I missed the point when I reread that original email. I do tend to sarcasm when reviewing what my ex-fellowship sometimes presents for consideration.
John
In a message dated 7/26/2004 11:59:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would have not reason not to accept the others listed in scripture as "apostles" including the replacement for Judas, Paul, Barnabas,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. There were only 12 apostles, you know, dispite the 15 or 16 that are named in scripture
DAVEH: Do you not consider the additional apostles to be legitimate apostles? It doesn't seem to me that there were only meant to be 12, but it seemed logical for there to be a succession of apostles as they died off.
DAVEH: I guess I was just confused by your earlier comment of only 12......sorry, John.
and there is one or two others list ???? As far as a succession of apostles, I do not see any concern for apostolic succession in the writings of the few apostles who addressed scripture (Peter, John, Paul).
Do you see it differently?
and the "prophets" became unnecessary
DAVEH: Why would you think that, John?
Actually, I don't think that.
DAVEH: Ohhhh.....Again, I'm having trouble following you, I guess.
I have never spoken in tongues but I am charismatic to the bone. I see lots of problems in the pentecostal side of the aisle, but they are the same problems Paul had to deal with in the first church. As a charismatic, I would say that there are not as many prophets as are claimed but more than we many suppose. The proof is in the ministry.
as soon as God gave us the Protestant (ah, one of your favoright words) Bible ((as per a misuse of I Co 13 the closing verses - in my humble but correct opinion.)
John
