The 12 apostles

I have recently undergone a study of the 12 aposltes to see how they lived their lives after Christ had sent them into the world to proclaim the "good news". A book called, "The search for the 12 disciples" written by Wlliam McBirnie helps trace their steps once Christ sent them on the great commision.

1. Peter is the first disciple and arguably the most famous. It was Peter whom Christ said he would build his church. It was Peter who followed Christ all the way to the cross. It was Peter for whom the Catholic church was founded. Peter was rumored to have been buried where the Vatican now stands and the prophecy regarding Peter being the "rock" upon which the church that Christ would create seems to have been both literal and figurative in nature. He was known to have evangalized the area in and around Rome. In fact, Peter later died in Nero's circus in Rome. Tradition has it he died in 67 AD via a cross hanging upside down. Peter was said to have requested being crusified upside down because he felt unworthy for being crusified the exact same way Christ was crusified.

2. Andrew was said to have traveled to Scythia, which is southern Russia. Andrew was known for a long time as the patron saint of Russia. According to "The Acts of St. Andrew and St. Bartholomew" Andrew was was stoned at Scythia.

3. James, the son of Zebedee, was noted for having been the first martyr of the 12 disciples. In fact, there are only two of the original 12 whose demise is mentioned in scripture as the other one being Judas. James was murdered by Kind Herod about the year 44 AD as mentioned in Acts 12:1-2 in retaliation for Herods battle to sequester the Christian church.

4. John, also the son of Zebedee. He was the one who wrote Revelations while exhiled in Patmos during the persecution of the church. John lived some 68 years after the crusifixian of Christ and appears to be the only one who died who was not martryed.

5. Philip was one of four who had a Greek name. Philip traveled to Scythia as well and remained their preaching the gospel for about 20 years. Tradition has it Philip tangled with the preists dedicated to the god Mars in the region and was subsequently martyred. Legend has it he was pierced through the thigh and hung upside down until dead.

6. Bartholomew seemed to be a close friend of Philip. In fact, he was seen preaching in the same location as Philip but escaped death after his friend was martyred. He then later made his way to Armenia, where he suffered martyrdom by being flayed alive and then crucified upside down

7. Thomas was also known as Didymas or the one known as the doubting Thomas. He was one of the disciples that questioned the resurrection of Christ until confronted by him in person in John 20:25. Only until he saw the wounds of Christ and touched his side that was pierced did he believe. He was known to have traveled to India preaching the good news. Thomas helped found the Church of the East known as the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East. Also involved were Peter, Thaddeus and Mari of the seventy. He later made his way to India and was martyred via stoning and a lance.

8. Matthew was a customs officer and he belonged to a class of bureaucrates called portitores. He was highly educated and probably knew the langauges of Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Ironically, however, it appears that Matthew wrote the gospel first in Hebrew and was later translated into Greek. The Hebrew version has been preserved until present day in the library at Caesarea. Matthew has been rumored to have preached in Ethiopia, Persian, and Palestine. The Talmud says that Matthew was condemned to death, however, and was martyred.

9. James, son of Alphaeus, or James the lesser, was a brother of Matthew. Unfortunatly, not much is known about him. It is said that he traveled to Syria and and that he became the first bishop of the Syrian church. He was then later rumored to have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Christ. Unfortunatly, there is much confusion with James the Great or the brother of Jesus. However, James the Great was not one of the original 12.

10. Jude Thaddueus was known to have helped evangelize Armenia. In fact, he was one of 5 aposltes to help due so. As a result, Armenia became the first Christian nation in the world in 301 AD. However, Thaddueus was martryed in Armenia long before it became a Christian nation.

11. Simon the Canaanite was also one of the 5 who helped evangelize Armenia. He was also said to have traveled to Egypt and Persia and Mesopotamia and even as far as Britian. However, it appears he was martyred in Persia.

12. Matthias is the last of the 12 that replaced Judas who betrayed Christ. The selection of the replacement had certain qualifications, however. He had to have known Christ and been one of his followers as well as having been witness to his resurrection as seen in Acts 1:26. There is some speculation, however, as to why James the brother of Jesus was not considered. However, James was not converted until after being a witness to Christ being resurrected. Also, there is the question of why Paul was not chosen. However, Paul did not personally meet Christ except on the road to Damascus, and he was not converted until long after the election of Matthias. He was also one of the 5 to evangelize Armenia as well. According to the Martyrdom of St. Matthias, he was sent to Damascus, and died at Phaleaon which is a city in Judea. He had reportidly been stoned to death by the Jews for preaching Christ.

So what, you may ask? Who cares? I say the question has to be asked as to what motivated these men to give up everything they had including their very lives? Was it all for a lie? Was it because they were duped into believing that Christ had arisen, or maybe, just maybe, they are witness to the truth of his resurrection.

Originally posted by whodey
... I say the question has to be asked as to what motivated these men to give up everything they had including their very lives?

That is a very interesting question. Why would they do all this when BELIEVING alone is all they really needed to do.

Originally posted by Varqa
That is a very interesting question. Why would they do all this when BELIEVING alone is all they really needed to do.

Sure they were "saved". It was not as if they needed to go spread the word in order to be saved. However, they knew that their Lord desired them to go spread the good news. They loved Jesus and they desired to please him because they knew God loves us all and desired for us all to hear the good news so that we might believe as well.

Originally posted by whodey
1. Peter is the first disciple and arguably the most famous. It was Peter whom Christ said he would build his church. It was Peter who followed Christ all the way to the cross. It was Peter for whom the Catholic church was founded. Peter was rumored to have been buried where the Vatican now stands and the prophecy regarding Peter being the "rock" upon wh Christ had arisen, or maybe, just maybe, they are witness to the truth of his resurrection.

It would be interesting to know the citations for all of these histories. That is, when was the
Acts of Sts Andrew and Bartholomew penned and by whom (e.g.)?

Nemesio

P.S., No one who has studied the Greek reasonably believes that the author of the Gospel of St
John and the author of Revelation (singular!) was the same individual (except Biblical literalists).

Originally posted by whodey
Sure they were "saved". It was not as if they needed to go spread the word in order to be saved. However, they knew that their Lord desired them to go spread the good news. They loved Jesus and they desired to please him because they knew God loves us all and desired for us all to hear the good news so that we might believe as well.

Whodey can we discuss what the word "Saved" means.

Lets say someone was worshiping a stone. And GOD send him a prophet to tell him who the true GOD is, so this man worshiped GOD instead of the stone. So instead of being in death (separation from GOD) , he knew the true GOD ,and won the eternal life. Don't you see that this prophet "saved" this man, and you can consider him the man's saviour.

Originally posted by whodey
I have recently undergone a study of the 12 aposltes to see how they lived their lives after Christ had sent them into the world to proclaim the "good news". A book called, "The search for the 12 disciples" written by Wlliam McBirnie helps trace their steps once Christ sent them on the great commision.

1. Peter is the first disciple and arguably the mo ...[text shortened]... st had arisen, or maybe, just maybe, they are witness to the truth of his resurrection.

That is very interesting.

I have a questions about the dates, how accurate are thay?

Also can you add something like that for Paul.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Nemesio

P.S., No one who has studied the Greek reasonably believes that the author of the Gospel of St
John and the author of Revelation (singular!) was the same individual (except Biblical literalists).[/b]

Here is what my Bible says on the matter.

"The style, symmetry, and plan of Revelation show that it was written by one author, four times named "John" (1:1, 4, 9, 22:8) Because of its content and its address to seven churches, Revelation quickly circulated and became widely known and accepted in the early church. It was frequently mentioned and quoted by 2nd and 3rd century writers and was recieved as part of the canon of the NT books. From the beginning, Revelation was considered an authentic work of the apostle John, the same John who wrote teh gospel and 3 epistles. This was held to be true by Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, Melito, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others.
This view was seldom questioned until the middle of the 3rd century when Dionysius presented several arguements against the apostolic authorship of Revelation. He observed a clear difference in style and thought between Revelations and the books that he accepted as Johannine, and he concluded that the Apocralypse must have been penned by a different John. Indeed, the internal evidence does pose some problems for the traditional view; (1) The Greek grammer of Revelation is not on par with the 4rth gospel or the Johannine Epistles. (2) There are also differences in vocabulary and expressions used. (3) The theological content in emphasis and presentation (4) John's other writing avoid the use of his name, but it is found four times in this book. While these difficulties exist, 2 things should be kept in mind, (1) There are a number of remarkable similarities between the Apocalylpse and the other books traditionally associated with the apostle John (e.g., the distinctive use of terms, such as word, lamb, and true, and the careful development of conflicting themes, such as light and darkness, love and hatred, good and evil). (2) Many of the differences can be explained by the unusual circumstances surrounding this book. The apocalyptic subject matter demands a different treatment, and John received its contents not by reflection but by a series of startling and ecstatic visions. It is also possible that John used a secretary who smoothed out the Greek style of his other writings, and that his exile on Patmos prevented the use of such a scribe when he wrote Revelation.
Thus the internal evidence, while problematic, need not overrule the early and strong external testimony to the apostolic origin of this important book. The author was obviously well-known to the recipients in the 7 churches, and this fits the unqualified use of the name John and the uniform tradition about his ministry in Asia. Alternate suggestions, such as John the Elder or a prophet named John, create more problems than they solve."

So what say you? What do you disagree with here?

Originally posted by ahosyney
Whodey can we discuss what the word "Saved" means.

Lets say someone was worshiping a stone. And GOD send him a prophet to tell him who the true GOD is, so this man worshiped GOD instead of the stone. So instead of being in death (separation from GOD) , he knew the true GOD ,and won the eternal life. Don't you see that this prophet "saved" this man, and you can consider him the man's saviour.

I see what you are saying. However, the ministry of Jesus is unique. After all, he had 12 disciples. Why? How many did Jeremiah have? How many did Isaiah have etc.? What was Jesus discipling and why? Why is it that they all preached Christ and the cross and his resurrection once they began to preach the good news? What significants does this have? If it was not any different than traditional Jewish theology, why were they being martyred by the Jews including Paul up until his conversion on the road to Damascus?

As far as being "saved" I would say that it is how you view those who believe in Allah and are Muslims thus they should have free enterance into heaven as a result. My definition of being saved, however, has to do not only with faith but faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross because he died for our sins and was subsequently resurrected and overcame death for us.

Originally posted by ahosyney
That is very interesting.

I have a questions about the dates, how accurate are thay?

Also can you add something like that for Paul.

I am glad you asked. There is a good bit about Paul in the book but I did not include him because he was not known as one of the 12. The author rightly points out that the first half of Acts begins with Peter and the second half ends with Paul.

The author writes, "In Corinth the memory of Peter was closely associated with that of Paul by the bishop Dionysius. It is evident from the Letter that Clement of Rome wrote to the members of the Church at the beginning of the second century that there were links between Corinth and Rome, with which Peter and Paul were also associated. The Letter shows that the town was torn by discord, the presbyters against another party, perhaps that of the deacons."

He concludes by saying, "According to Galations 2:9, a decision had been reached by the apostles in Jerusalem to the effect that Pual and his fellow-workers were to go to the Gentiles, while the missionaries form Jerusalem (probably meaning Peter and his workers) went to the circumcised (that is, the Jews). Thus Peter was identified form the beginning with the Jewish party within Christianity as Paul was identified with the Gentile party, though there are many evidences that both men went over the line and dealt with people of the other group. One should not imagine, however, that Peter considered himself the opponent of Paul, depsite Pual's arguements as recorded in Galations. Peter, himself, no doubt stood nearer to Paul than did the other members in the Jerusalem church."

Both Peter and Paul preached in and around Rome. In fact, both were martyred there and both were buried there. In fact, Paul visited many Christian churches in Rome that was established by Peter.

I think it only common sense to realize that both Peter and Paul, although having some differences in the past, were united for one cause which is proclaiming the resurrection of Christ and its implications. If you don't believe me simply read the book of Peter. The common enemy, rather, were the forces that killed them both for proclaiming this resurrection.

As far as the dates, what are you asking about?

Originally posted by whodey
Both Peter and Paul preached in and around Rome. In fact, both were martyred there and both were buried there. In fact, Paul visited many Christian churches in Rome that was established by Peter.

I think it only common sense to realize that both Peter and Paul ... were united for one cause which is proclaiming the resurrection of Christ and its implications. If you don't believe me simply read the book of Peter.

Ahosney:

Just to be clear, most Scripture scholars (except Biblical literalists) do not think all of the letters
attributed to St Paul were actually written by St Paul, and most do not think that he ever went to
Rome.

Similarly, the two letters attributed to St Peter were almost certainly written by two different
people and were written long after the real St Peter was dead (with the second likely coming in the
second or third decade of the second century).

Whodey will no doubt deny these claims, but you can read about this yourself in any mainstream,
non-literalist publication on Scripture, including the prefatory remarks in the Roman Catholic Bible
(that is, a tradition committed to Christ and Scripture).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ahosney:

Just to be clear, most Scripture scholars (except Biblical literalists) do not think all of the letters
attributed to St Paul were actually written by St Paul, and most do not think that he ever went to
Rome.

Similarly, the two letters attributed to St Peter were almost certainly written by two different
people and were written long ...[text shortened]... n the Roman Catholic Bible
(that is, a tradition committed to Christ and Scripture).

Nemesio

I'm somehow aware of that, that is why I asked him about the accuracy of the dates he gave.

Originally posted by whodey
I am glad you asked. There is a good bit about Paul in the book but I did not include him because he was not known as one of the 12. The author rightly points out that the first half of Acts begins with Peter and the second half ends with Paul.

The author writes, "In Corinth the memory of Peter was closely associated with that of Paul by the bishop Di ...[text shortened]... both for proclaiming this resurrection.

As far as the dates, what are you asking about?

I will come back to the posts later, but I will comment on the date.

Don't you see that Paul lived long after the 12 apostles.

Does this tell you anything?

Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]Ahosney:

Just to be clear, most Scripture scholars (except Biblical literalists) do not think all of the letters
attributed to St Paul were actually written by St Paul, and most do not think that he ever went to
Rome.

Ok, so here we go. I have my sources and you have your sources and each are suspect according to what the other is trying to prove for one reason or another. Perhaps then we can settle on Wiki? Perhaps there is some level ground that is more objective than subjective?

According to Wiki, Paul was in fact in Rome which says, "According to Acts, Paul spent another two years in Rome under house arrest. Whether Pual died in Rome or was able to go to Spain as in his letter to the Romans he hoped, is uncertain. Eusebius of Casarea, who wrote in the 4rth century, states that Paul was beheaded in the reign of the Roman Emporer Nero. This event has been dated either to the year 64, when Rome was devastated by fire, or a few years later, to 67 AD. An ancient liturgical solemnity of Peter and Pual, celebrated on June 29, could reflect the day of martyrdom, and many ancient sources articulated the tradition that Peter and Paul died on the same day (and possibly the same year).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Originally posted by Nemesio
Whodey will no doubt deny these claims, but you can read about this yourself in any mainstream,
non-literalist publication on Scripture, including the prefatory remarks in the Roman Catholic Bible
(that is, a tradition committed to Christ and Scripture).

Nemesio[/b]

So you seem to think it mainstream to dismiss any writing of the apostle Peter from the cannonized Bible? Wiki states, "The NT includes 2 letters (epistles) ascribed to Peter. Both demonstrate a high quality of cultured and urban Greek, at odds with the linguistic skill that would ordinarily be expected of an Aramaic-speaking fisherman, who would have learned Greek as a 2nd or 3rd langauge. However, the author of the first epistle explicitly claims ot be using a secretary, and this explanation would allow for discrepancies in style without entailing a different source. The textual features of these two epistles are such that a majority of scholars doubt that they were written by the same hand. This means at the most that Peter could not have authored both, or at least that he used a different secretary for each letter. Some scholars argue that theological differences imply different sources, and point to the lack of references to 2 Peter among the early church Fathers.

Of the 2 epistles, the first epislte is considered the earlier, and hence more likely to be geniune. A number of scholars have argued that the textual dicrepancies with what would be expected of the biblical Peter are due to it having been written with the help of a seretary or as an amanuensis. Indeed in the first epistle the use of a secretary is clearly described: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand" (1 Peter 5:15). Thus, in regards to at least the first epistle, the claims that Peter would have written Greek poorly seem irrelevant. The references to persecution of Christians, which only began under Nero, cause most scholars to date the text to at least 80 AD, which would require Peter to have survived to an age that was, at that time, extremely old, and almost never reached, particularly a common fisherman. However, the Roman historian Tacitus and the biographer Suetonius both record that Nero's persecution of Christians began immediatly after the fire that burned Rome in 64 AD. Such a date, which is in accord with Christian tradition, especially Eusebius, would not have Peter at an improbable age upon his death. On the other hand, many scholars consider this in reference to the persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during the reign of the emperor Domitian."

Also of interest is the gospel of Mark. Wiki says, "Traditionally, the Gospel of Mark was said to have been written by a person named John Mark, and that this person was an assistant to Peter, hence its content was traditionally seen as the closest to Peter's viewpoint. According to Eusebius's "Ecclesiastical History, Papias recorded this belief from John the Presbyter:

"Mark having become the interpretor of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard of the Lord nor accompanied him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities (of his hearers), but with no intention of giving a normal or chronological narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistakes in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictional into the statements--Eusebius."

Also Irenaius wrote about this tradition:

"After their (Peter and Paul's) passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

So here we have two works which are the first epistle of Peter and the gospel of Mark that are more than likely heavily influenced by Peter himself. That is, according to Wiki. What say you?

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will come back to the posts later, but I will comment on the date.

Don't you see that Paul lived long after the 12 apostles.

Does this tell you anything?

According to Wiki it seems that Pual and Peter died about the same time if not the same day.

If I may, I would like to ask you a quesion myself. I assume that you would agree that the NT consistenty preaches on Christ and his subsequent resurrection. Therefore, since you do not beleive in the resurrection you must assume one of two things. The first assumption would be that the authors of the NT were corrupted by outside influences other than the original 12 disciples. The only alternative would be that the original 12 corrupted the NT with such teachings. If either assumption is correct, the true teachings of Christ are gone forever. We must, therefore, rely on someone hundreds of years later to say that God told him what the true teachings were. The eye witness accounts of what acutally happened must, therefore, be counted as dung. It then begs the question as to why Jesus would go to the trouble of having 12 disciples in the first place. Either God did not know that having the 12 would not be beneficial to get his true message out or Christ recruited the 12 on his own without instruction from God in doing so.

If one insists that the original 12 did not believe in the resurrection of Christ, then show evidences for this. I have challenged you to do this in the past but have as yet recieved no answer. Conversly, I have shown you evidence that they, in fact, helped to orchastrate what was written in the NT if not author such works by themselves. What say you?