It is doubtful that James the Lord's brother was an apostle Dm in the morningIn fact, the Bible mentions several apostles which were not of the twelve. For example, Paul (Gal. 1:1, 2:8), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the Lord's brother Dm in the evening-------------- Original message --------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------- Original message --------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The job of the apostles was not to write the Bible, Matthew, Mrak (probably under the supervision of the Apostle Peter), John's gospel and letters, Paul's authorship including Hebrews, James, and (perhaps) Titus author all of the NT books except three (Luke/Acts and Jude) !!!! and the apostles did not suddenly disappear once the Bible was "complete." The recording of "scripture" ended with the death of John. Coincidence? I think not. Most of the apostles left us no Scripture at all, including the chief apostle, Jesus Christ himself. true. And I am not saying that they all did. But, if we were to delete Luke/Acts and Jude, we would still have all of NT teaching - and all of it done by or under the tutelage of the apostles.Most authors of the Bible were not apostles. We have Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and James writing 23 books and three writers authoring 4 books. It is doubtful that James the Lord's brother was an apostle and yet, 21 lines from now (not counting salutations and headings) you argue for the apostleship of James !! and Jude the Lord's brother probably was not either. The author below did not comment on Mark that author thought DM was aware of the opinion of many that Peter supervised the writing of Mark and gave Mark most of his information - since Mark was not around Christ as far we any of us know or this other Jude Jude was , indeed, an oversight but my point remains as restated above when he says, "with this group of men, we have the writings of all the NT scripture..."&a mp;a mp;n bsp; Then the author here casts modern day theologians into prophets? Such could not be further from the truth. The theologians of today are more analogous to the scribes of Jesus day. Think about it."Prophet" as in apostles and prophets, the foundation of the household of God (Eph 2:20) can have one of [at least] two meanings. The first, a prophet as one who predicts the future and the second, as one who reveals or explains the revelation of God. I think the later notion gives us a better fit, the apostles loose and bind, present revelation and the prophet (for all ages) continues to illuminate this revelation. I can't insist on this idea as excathedra, but I can certainly teach it. The effect of this teaching is important. If one is a prophet, has the ability to present and explain and excite the mind of the student and he/she does not --------------- what does that mean for them personally? If Bill Taylor, for example, is gifted with the ability to tie Chruch history and the Revelation of the written word and the reality of the Living Christ together into something that is a t least understood by the evangelist, the pastor, the teacher and he decides to do something else -- well, how should he view his stewardship of the gift given?And then there is the false assertion that all the miracles of the NT were performed by Jesus or one of the apostles. Let's look at what John actually said, shall we: The apostles were charged with world mission, binding and loosing and the performace of miracles as an extension (in the Spirit) of who they were. All the recorded miracles of the NT scripture are performed by Jesus or one of the apostles. The phrase "as an extension of who they were" is very important to me. All of what was promised in Mark 16: applies to the apostles. Peter could walk by and people were healed. Paul could be hung on the wall of a jail cell, knowing all the while that God had placed his opponents into his hands - that he would be the victor. Stephen is an exceptional case. He is singled out in scripture as being full o f faith and the Spirit and power. I certainly do not beleive that miracles ended with the passing of the apostles !! God continues to use men and women to this day to accomplish even the miraculous - it is a gift, one of many. But I do not believe in "faith healers." And why? Because I believe that only the apostles could do such things by way of ministry assignment , as a result of who they were and not just how they were gifted. The apostles were the complete package.There is no reason to believe that they continued beyond the first century (except, perhaps, John).Consider Ananais who brought sight back to Saul and imparted to him the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Stephen who did many miracles among the people, as did the evangelist Philip, preaching in Samaria.Following is something I wrote about apostles and prophets back in 1992. Although dated, perhaps it will help you in your thinking about apostles and prophets.Peace be with you.
David Miller.Jesus chose twelve apostles, and so when some people hear the word apostle, they think of just the twelve. However, Jesus ascended on high after he chose these twelve apostles, and he gave gifts to men, which included apostles (Ephesians 4:11). Therefore, we know that apostles were appointed after the twelve were appointed. In fact, the Bible mentions several apostles which were not of the twelve. For example, Paul (Gal. 1:1, 2:8), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19), Timothy, and Silvanus (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6) were all apostles that were not of the twelve.
