--------------
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)
!!!!
I'm talking Bible and you are talking
NT. Still, most apostles wrote nothing that made it to the Bible, and
probably most of what the apostles said or did never made it to the
Bible. Writing the Bible was not the job of the
apostles.
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.
The idea that the Scriptures were being
recorded, and this suddenly stopped when John died, is bogus. Men
of God wrote and this kind of writing was done before John and after
John. Hundreds of years later, some of these writings were canonized
as Scripture.
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.
I hope you agree that MOST apostles left us
no Scripture at all.
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.
Why now add "under the tutelage of the
apostles"? What is wrong with accepting the fact that most of the
Bible was written by prophets, and that some of the apostles made
significant contributions to it?
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 !!
Sorry... this is one of those "brain fart"
times. I don't know what I was thinking at the time I wrote
this. James was an apostle.
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
I am aware that many scholars view most of
Mark's information to come from Peter, but I am not aware of the idea that
Peter directly supervised its writing. As for Mark not being
around at the time of Christ, Hippolytus names Mark as one of the
seventy appointed by Jesus in Luke 10. I believe that Mark (as
well as Luke) was around during the ministry of Jesus, and that he was
one of those probably under consideration to replace Judas
Iscariot.
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..."&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.
There are many other definitions that could
be considered, but the problem you are having is contrasting teachers and
prophets. Teachers explain revelation. Prophets give revelation
directly from the Spirit.
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?
It sounds to me like he should view his
stewardship as that of a teacher. How does Bill Taylor see his
stewardship? Why don't you ask him? Does he consider himself a
prophet?
I knew one man who was a very gifted
teacher, but then he began to think himself to be an apostle. It had
terrible results for the body of Christ. Teachers should be considered
teachers, and thank God for that gift, rather than trying to cast themselves
into something else.
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.
First we see Perry applying it
only to eleven apostles, but now you are applying it to all the
apostles. Why?
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.
Stephen is not "singled out."
There are others, and it was not considered uncommon or strange. Jesus
appointed SEVENTY in Luke 10. Why? What is Jesus teaching us
here by appointing SEVENTY to do the same job that he had the TWELVE doing
in Luke 9? We observe the evangelist Philip having similar
miracles. Is he also an exception to your rule?
I certainly do not beleive that miracles
ended with the passing of the apostles !!
Good!
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.
When you say that "only the apostles could
do such things," you have become a teacher of extra-Biblical
revelation. The Bible makes it very clear that others besides the
apostles did these things. Furthermore, there have been many who
have done such things. What do you think the founder of your church,
Aimee Semple McPherson, would say about your anti-faith healer
theology?
There is no reason to believe that they
continued beyond the first century (except, perhaps, John).
No reason? Are you claiming that
nobody beyond the first century ever did these things?
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.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:53
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and
prophets
Within the church , God has placed apostles,
prophets, evangelists, pastors and teacher. There
collective ministries are given a threefold purpose, but the specifics of
each functionary is unique and even exclusive.
The apostles and prophets are a case in
point. They are a part of those named in Eph 4:11 ff while ,
at the same time, considered apart from the remaining categories
(evangelists, pastors and teachers). It is the apostles and prophets
who are the foundation of the "household of God" (Eph
2:20.) Because they are named as the foundation of the
Church, we can be confident that their ministries compliment each
other.
The apostles are given an identify -- the "12" -- while,
in fact, their numbers include the original 12, Matthias, Paul, Barnabas,
James the brother of Jesus, and arguably Apollos, Silvanus and
Titus. With this group of men, we have the writings of all NT
scripture except the historical record of Luke (Luke/Acts).
most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans.
>
Do you
> > know of one cute little rich girl celebrity
who
> > is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ?
If not then
> this is
> > not a description of
Linda.
Their counterpart is the prophet. Whereas the
apostles were given to the First Church, the prophets continue with
the church throughout the ages. It is not the prophets work to
continue the addition of scripture. That work was completed
with the apostles. The scriptures were finished with the passing of
the apostles. In time, the Church Catholic was challenged to
identify those scriptures and, with the providential
consideration of God, the Bible was the result. The
prophet, named as a part of the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20)
is, in reality, those we commonly refer to as
"theologian." He is the one who continues the work
of the apostle as he illuminates the message, keeping the biblical message
at center stage and fresh for each new era within the church. People
like Athanasuius, Eusebias, Origen, Tertullian, Calvin,
Luther, Barth are prophets to the Church Catholic while
others, less catholic in function, add to this illuminary
function, men like Wesley, Torrance, NT Wright, and, finally,
those who have read and are acquainted with the above and have a
good working knowledge of the written word, people like Debbie
Sawczak, Bill Taylor, Victor Shepherd, Jon Hughs and the
like. It is the prophet that keeps the word alive and helps to
keep us centered on the Christ.
The evangelist, pastor and teacher benefit from these prophets and
give their (the prophets) conributions meaning to those within the
church who have a better understanding of the common man and his
language. And, so , the church at all levels is benefited,
edified, regenerated with the living word without adding more and more
scripture and bigger and better phenom. A truly divine
arrangement.
jd
