Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Apostle or not? | Matt 19:28 | Morant61 | 16477 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Are you saying then that Matthias was not a legitimate Apostle? If so, then why: 1) Is there never anything said in Scripture about his not being a "real" apostle? 2) Is he recongnized by Luke as being part of the 12 (Acts 2:14 and Acts 6:2)? This is not meant to denigrate Paul in anyway, he is my favorite Apostle! However, neither should we deinigrate Matthias. Acts makes it clear that they gathered together to pray, that they were led to choose another to replace Judas, and that they prayed for God's will to be done. There is nothing in the text to indicate that God's will was not done. We are not comfortable with the casting of lots, but they had a long tradition within Judaism. The two stones attached to the High Priest's breastplate were used as lots to determine God's will in situations. This is exactly what the apostles did. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Apostle or not? | Matt 19:28 | EdB | 16487 | ||
Tim I totally agree with you Matthias was a legitimate apostle. However I will question a little your statement of the two stones the High Priest carried in his breastplate. I presume you are referring to the Urim and Thummim. I do not believe we are totally sure what they were or how they were used. I know most speculation holds them to be two dies used to determine God’s will before the Holy Spirit was given. However that to the best of my knowledge has never been proven. Do you have something that gives more insight? I will however agree that casting lots was a very common practice to determine God’s will. |
||||||
3 | Apostle or not? | Matt 19:28 | Morant61 | 16489 | ||
Greetings EdB! Has it been proven? No! But, the evidence that is there would best be explained by a system of lots. The best explanation would see a combination of three possible answers "yes, no, and no answer". Here is a section from an article that deals with this issue: "Three passages are of particular interest. Abiathar came to David (1 Sa. 23:6) with the ‘ephod’. It is reasonable to assume that this was the high-priestly ephod, not the ordinary ephod of priestly wear (1 Sa. 22:18), for otherwise why should it be mentioned? In the light of the remainder of the story we must assume that ‘ephod’ here acts as a comprehensive term for that whole unit of high-priestly garb: ephod-breastpiece-Urim (cf. Ex. 28:28-30; see 1 Sa. 14:18, where ‘ark’ (lxx reads ‘ephod’] seems similarly to summarize the oracular equipment of the priest). David (1 Sa. 23:9-12) asks direct questions and elicits affirmative answers. In point of fact no examples of negative answers are anywhere recorded. The second passage is 1 Sa. 14 and it presents similarities: cf. 14:3, 41 with 23:6, 9; note the identical title in 14:41; 23:10 (a customary formula?). According to MT Saul requests: ‘Give perfect things’ (taµméÆm, related, presumably, to Thummim). rsv accepts the reconstruction of the text here, helped by lxx, and reads ‘If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan . . . give Urim . . . if this guilt is in thy people . . . give Thummim.‘ The third passage shows that the Urim and Thummim could not be compelled to give an answer: 1 Sa. 28:6; cf. 14:36-37. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to offer a coherent suggestion on the basis of this evidence. H. H. Rowley conjectures that Urim (related to Õaµrar, to curse) gives the negative answer and Thummim (related to taµmam, to be perfect) gives the affirmative. On the assumption that the Urim and Thummim were two flat objects each with a ‘yes’ side and each with a ‘no’ side, then on being taken or tossed out of the pouch (cf. Pr. 16:33) a ‘yes’ (two Thummim) and ‘no’ (two Urim) and a ‘no reply’ (one Urim and one Thummim) were all possible. This is intriguing and plausible but, of course, must rest in part on the reconstruction of 1 Sa. 14:41 and ignore the lack of evidence for negative replies." Bibliography. H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel, 1956, pp. 28ff.; VT 12, 1962, pp. 164ff.; Josephus, Ant. 3. 214-218; S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 1913, p. 117; J. Mauchline, I and II Samuel, 1971. j.a.m." Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Apostle or not? | Matt 19:28 | EdB | 16491 | ||
This is basically on the lines of what I was taught, I just wondered if you had something more definitive. Of course we could ask old Joseph Smith (Mormon) he claimed them to be a pair of giant spectacles much like clowns wear, oh well perhaps another day. Blessed Tim and have a great Sunday EdB |
||||||