Were the Twelve and the Seventy Unique ?

[lekh l'kha]

You all who have assumed that God has given a greater wherewithal to accomplish the tasks given the ones with Jesus, than all other followers since that time.

You have made an assumption, because there is not one teaching along those lines, ie, the uniqueness of the twelve and seventy apostles. in the entire new testament. There is, however a very structured teaching of this belief in some of the major theological seminaries.

One verse by Paul in 2 Cor 12:12 "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles."

This one verse does not establish this assumption as truth. Jesus was very well aware of those who would follow after the first apostles, because He counted them in His prayer in John 17:20 where He prayed for those later, who would believe through their word.

It's not an assumption - go read the Biblical record. Of the ten records of miracles and signs, nine were performed by the apostles, who Mark.16: 14-20 says were sent out by Jesus to preach the gospel to all the world. Only one of them was performed by a none-apostle - Stephen. And Barnabus performed miraculous sign when he was in Paul's company, when Paul and Barnabus had preached the gospel and the gospel was accompanied with miracles of healing. Read the BIBLICAL record, brother - the link is in my signature.

I know of miracles which have occurred after THE CHURCH prayed for people. Nothing sensational, nothing spectacular. But Jesus answered their prayers and healed the people they were praying for.

How do you know a false teacher/prophet? It's really simple. Whenever there's a false teacher/prophet in the room/church/tent or at the open-air meeting, there are always a lot of dramatics accompanying miracles and prophetic or apocalyptic visions, dreams and "tongues", and SOMEONE gets given the glory BY LIP-SERVICE, while someone else gets exalted - to such an extent that A BLOG might be started decades later about him!!!

Lekh

[OneLight]

In a face to face discussion recently on this subject, I was asked the question, "Could you write a book in the new testament, as the true apostle Matthew did.?

My answer was yes, The Holy Spirit can write through me the same as He did Matthew.

Luke wrote a book, and he was not listed among the twelve.

Luke had first hand information. We do not. We can not even understand the simplest instructions of the Holy Spirit, let alone be trusted to write a book for His word. Be careful to not become to vain in your understanding, placing yourself into an election and calling that has not been assigned to you

First hand or Holy Spirit, absolutely no difference with our supernatural God, He can anoint by His Holy Spirit today just as effectively as Jesus did in person, when He sent out the 12 or70.

You're saying we are all today at a disadvantage, because we were not there in person with Jesus. In no way has God set that up.

First, the 70 had no power until after they returned. You should read what has been discussed already. Secondly, God did not set up the gifts of the Holy Spirit the same way Jesus gave authority to the Disciples. You really should study the differences of the two. Thirdly, No where did I say that we are at a disadvantage. If anything, God's will is still being done according to His plan. If you think we are at a disadvantage because He is not giving the same authority to the church today as He did the Apostles, you do not know scripture as well as you think.

You say we can not even understand the simplest instruction from the Holy Spirit. I suggest you reread the 2 chapter of 1 corinthians especially verse 16, which says "we have the mind of Christ"

Yes, scripture does state that, and I am not saying any different. What I am pointing you to is that there are many today that claim to be taught by the Holy Spirit, yet do not understand the simplest of teachings. Why? Because they take what He teaches and twists it to fit their beliefs. This is very prevalent if you care to check the other online christian forums where there are many who claim this.

So Yes I can write whatever God tells me to write, and if so it would not be in a spirit of vanity, but in the knowledge that it would be for His glory, if done with a pure heart. God is a "heart checker".

The vanity is within the person who thinks that God would use them to add to His word. Again, just because God can do something does not mean He would. This argument is moot.

You all who have assumed that God has given a greater wherewithal to accomplish the tasks given the ones with Jesus, than all other followers since that time.

You have made an assumption, because there is not one teaching along those lines, ie, the uniqueness of the twelve and seventy apostles. in the entire new testament. There is, however a very structured teaching of this belief in some of the major theological seminaries.

Show me anywhere in scripture that Jesus called the 70 He sent Apostles. You can't because it is not there. If you are going to try and use the basic meaning of apostle as "one sent" universally, then you are not using it properly. "Apostle" and "apostle" have different meanings. Maybe you should start with finding this understanding so you will not continue to teach false teachings of scripture.

One verse by Paul in 2 Cor 12:12 "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles."

This one verse does not establish this assumption as truth. Jesus was very well aware of those who would follow after the first apostles, because He counted them in His prayer in John 17:20 where He prayed for those later, who would believe through their word.

Again, you are teaching falsely. Paul did mean what he said. Every Apostle had these signs, wonders and mighty deeds. To say otherwise is calling His word a lie. John 17:20 has nothing to do with whether or not we have the same anointing as the Apostles. Yet, we can find the works of the Apostles elsewhere in scripture, so there is more then one place to comfort your concern.

Acts 2:40-45

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying,

[Franky67]

Luke had first hand information. We do not. We can not even understand the simplest instructions of the Holy Spirit, let alone be trusted to write a book for His word. Be careful to not become to vain in your understanding, placing yourself into an election and calling that has not been assigned to you Quote by OneLight

Reply by franky67

First hand or Holy Spirit, absolutely no difference with our supernatural God, He can anoint by His Holy Spirit today just as effectively as Jesus did in person, when He sent out the 12 or70.

You're saying we are all today at a disadvantage, because we were not there in person with Jesus. In no way has God set that up.

First, the 70 had no power until after they returned. You should read what has been discussed already. Secondly, God did not set up the gifts of the Holy Spirit the same way Jesus gave authority to the Disciples. You really should study the differences of the two. Thirdly, No where did I say that we are at a disadvantage. If anything, God's will is still being done according to His plan. If you think we are at a disadvantage because He is not giving the same authority to the church today as He did the Apostles, you do not know scripture as well as you think. Quote by OneLight

Reply by franky67

No, you have read it wrong, the 70 DID have power when He sent them out. Here's why....

In Luke ch 10, verse 9 Jesus tells them to heal those in the house who are sick, and tell them that Kingdom has come near to them. Jesus gave them authority then. He reminds them, in detail of this in verse 19

Then in verse 17, they return with joy because of their success in using Jesus' name.

Then, in verses 19, and 20 Jesus tells them, "I have given, (past tense), you authority, etc...", but don't rejoice in that, (which they did in verse 17), but rejoice that your names are written down in Heaven."

So, in summary, Jesus gave them authority, they went out and used it, and then came back rejoicing about how well it worked.

Remember, in verse 17 , they said that even the demons were subject to them when they used Jesus name. So they DID go with power, (exousia) delegated authority.

The 12 used Jesus' name, for instance at the Gate Beautiful Acts ch 4, Peter said to the crippled man, "In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk."

Then you said,

" God did not set up the gifts of the Holy Spirit the same way Jesus gave authority to the Disciples" quote by OneLight

Where do you get this idea ?

The work of the cross has provided everything every believer will ever need to accomplish whatever God the Holy Spirit tells them to do.

Then you said,

" No where did I say that we are at a disadvantage. If anything, God's will is still being done according to His plan. If you think we are at a disadvantage because He is not giving the same authority to the church today as He did the Apostles, you do not know scripture as well as you think." quote by OneLight

reply by franky67

That's how it came across, You said, "Luke had first hand information. We do not. We can not even understand the simplest instructions of the Holy Spirit, let alone be trusted to write a book for His word. "

Again, reread Ephesians

Edited October 28, 2009 by Franky67

[OneLight]

Luke had first hand information. We do not. We can not even understand the simplest instructions of the Holy Spirit, let alone be trusted to write a book for His word. Be careful to not become to vain in your understanding, placing yourself into an election and calling that has not been assigned to you

First hand or Holy Spirit, absolutely no difference with our supernatural God, He can anoint by His Holy Spirit today just as effectively as Jesus did in person, when He sent out the 12 or70.

You're saying we are all today at a disadvantage, because we were not there in person with Jesus. In no way has God set that up.

First, the 70 had no power until after they returned. You should read what has been discussed already. Secondly, God did not set up the gifts of the Holy Spirit the same way Jesus gave authority to the Disciples. You really should study the differences of the two. Thirdly, No where did I say that we are at a disadvantage. If anything, God's will is still being done according to His plan. If you think we are at a disadvantage because He is not giving the same authority to the church today as He did the Apostles, you do not know scripture as well as you think.

No, you have read it wrong, the 70 DID have power when He sent them out. Here's why....

In Luke ch 10, verse 9 Jesus tells them to heal those in the house who are sick, and tell them that Kingdom has come near to them. Jesus gave them authority then. He reminds them, in detail of this in verse 19

Not so. The Apostles did not need to use Christs name to do anything. They did so to give credit to God since people started to think they themselves were some kind of god. The 70 did, for they were not given authority like the Apostles. For some reason you fail to recognize this fact. It is right there in black and white.

Then in verse 17, they return with joy because of their success in using Jesus' name.

Then, in verses 19, and 20 Jesus tells them, "I have given, (past tense), you authority, etc...", but don't rejoice in that, (which they did in verse 17), but rejoice that your names are written down in Heaven."

So, in summary, Jesus gave them authority, they went out and used it, and then came back rejoicing about how well it worked.

Remember, in verse 17 , they said that even the demons were subject to them when they used Jesus name. So they DID go with power, (exousia) delegated authority.

The 12 used Jesus' name, for instance at the Gate Beautiful Acts ch 4, Peter said to the crippled man, "In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk."

No so. Scripture reads as follows

Luke 10:12-20

Then the seventy returned with joy, saying,

[KC02]

First, the 70 had no power until after they returned. You should read what has been discussed already.

I believe Franky pointed that the 70 had power to heal the sick before they were sent out. When the 70 returned, they told Jesus that even the devils were subject to them through the name of Jesus. Jesus agreed with them.

Not so. The Apostles did not need to use Christs name to do anything.

Can you show me ANYWHERE where an apostle healed the sick in their own name or even failed to use the name of Jesus?

(Acts 3:6 [KJV])

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

The apostles used the name of Jesus and not their own.

They did so to give credit to God since people started to think they themselves were some kind of god. The 70 did, for they were not given authority like the Apostles. For some reason you fail to recognize this fact. It is right there in black and white.

This is pure fantasy; the Bible doesn't teach that they used their own name. They always used Jesus' name just like we do today.

You are incorrect by trying to use a past tense when it is present tense, meaning that Jesus was giving them authority AFTER they returned, not before.

You can't create a doctrine from the tense of one translated word in the Bible. How did the 70 know the devils were subject through the name of Jesus? Common sense would indicate that they found out "in the field" before they returned. I can think of no other explanation.

[KC02]

It's not an assumption - go read the Biblical record. Of the ten records of miracles and signs, nine were performed by the apostles, who Mark.16: 14-20 says were sent out by Jesus to preach the gospel to all the world. Only one of them was performed by a none-apostle - Stephen. And Barnabus performed miraculous sign when he was in Paul's company, when Paul and Barnabus had preached the gospel and the gospel was accompanied with miracles of healing. Read the BIBLICAL record, brother - the link is in my signature.

Let me see if I can get this straight. You did some research, mainly in the book of Acts, that show mostly apostles preforming miracles. (Therefore only apostles can do miracles). You're syllogism is faulty.

The Acts of the Apostles is a book primarily about ... ... ... (if you know the answer, it's ok to just shout it right out)

It is a book about the apostles, so it's no mystery why few others are given a lot of attention in the book. You can't make important doctrines out of that fact, unless the doctrine is simply, "Acts is about the Apostles."

I know of miracles which have occurred after THE CHURCH prayed for people. Nothing sensational, nothing spectacular. But Jesus answered their prayers and healed the people they were praying for.

Says who? If raising the dead and opening blind eyes isn't spectacular, that I don't know what is.

How do you know a false teacher/prophet? It's really simple. Whenever there's a false teacher/prophet in the room/church/tent or at the open-air meeting, there are always a lot of dramatics accompanying miracles and prophetic or apocalyptic visions, dreams and "tongues", and SOMEONE gets given the glory BY LIP-SERVICE, while someone else gets exalted - to such an extent that A BLOG might be started decades later about him!!!

Nobody is saying there isn't shenanigans out there begging for money and selling miracles to the vulnerable. But to make a blanket statement like that is wrong. Not everyone who believes in miracles are false prophets. Please! Let's stick to the Bible.

[lekh l'kha]

Let me see if I can get this straight. You did some research, mainly in the book of Acts, that show mostly apostles preforming miracles. (Therefore only apostles can do miracles). You're syllogism is faulty.

The Acts of the Apostles is a book primarily about ... ... ... (if you know the answer, it's ok to just shout it right out)

It is a book about the apostles, so it's no mystery why few others are given a lot of attention in the book. You can't make important doctrines out of that fact, unless the doctrine is simply, "Acts is about the Apostles."

No, I did state that the research was done on ALL the records of and references to signs, wonders and miracles + visions and dreams which were either done or seen by (all) of the disciples of Jesus, FROM Acts THROUGH TO Jude.

The fact that the records all come up in "the Acts of the apostles" where nine of the ten records were done at the hand of the apostles; and the fact that the references speak of the records as "the signs of an apostle" certainly does not give a Biblical basis for the claim that any other disciples received (or receive) the same special anointing that the 12 and the 70 were given.

(Quote Lekh): I know of miracles which have occurred after THE CHURCH prayed for people. Nothing sensational, nothing spectacular. But Jesus answered their prayers and healed the people they were praying for. (unquote)

Says who? If raising the dead and opening blind eyes isn't spectacular, that I don't know what is.

What I meant is, they did not make a big dramatic thing out of it. The woman was healed - completely healed, and the following Sunday the minister prayed from the pulpit, thanking Jesus for her healing and for answered prayer.

Everybody thanked Jesus and praised Jesus for it, without making a Hollywood movie-scene out of it, the way it gets done at "faith-healing meetings".

Neither were the "faith-healers" (the people who prayed for her healing) exalted by others because "they" had healed the woman. Everyone knows that it is Jesus alone who healed her.

Nobody is saying there isn't shenanigans out there begging for money and selling miracles to the vulnerable. But to make a blanket statement like that is wrong. Not everyone who believes in miracles are false prophets. Please! Let's stick to the Bible.

I'm glad you say "Let's stick to the Bible", because that's my entire point - let's stick to the Bible - and the Bible does not give ANY basis for the claim that other Christians received (and receive) the same anointing of power which first the 70, then the 12 received.

The whole point in my argument is - stick with the Bible - and from Acts to Jude, you won't find a Biblical basis for your argument that any other Christians aside from the 12 received (or receive) the same anointing of power which the 12 did (and which the 70 received prior to the days of the Acts).

Please understand that I do not disrespect those who believe what you do - I have two brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, + an aunt who I would call "hyper-Charismatic"; and they (and all their Christian friends who go to their church) see prophetic and apocalyptic visions and dream prophetic and apocalyptic dreams all the time, yet none of their visions and dreams ever come to pass. My aunt is forever and always trying to lay hands on my head and "prophesy" over me whenever she sees me, and though I tell her to please stop, she just don't get it

My brothers and sisters-in-law know I don't agree with them, and why. We don't argue about it. They joke with me and say that I don't have enough faith, therefore I won't believe it when I see the rapture happening, and therefore I'll just stay where I am (and things like that), and I joke back at them.

Like I said, the whole point in my argument is - stick with the Bible - and from Acts to Jude, you won't find a Biblical basis for your argument that any other Christians aside from the 12 received (or receive) the same anointing of power which the 12 did (and which the 70 received prior to the days of the Acts).

Lekh

[OneLight]

First, the 70 had no power until after they returned. You should read what has been discussed already.

I believe Franky pointed that the 70 had power to heal the sick before they were sent out. When the 70 returned, they told Jesus that even the devils were subject to them through the name of Jesus. Jesus agreed with them.

As I told Franky, I will tell you. There is a difference between evoking the name of Jesus and not evoking His name. The 70 were not given any authority on their own until after they came back. The scripture I quoted states that clearly.

Not so. The Apostles did not need to use Christs name to do anything.

Can you show me ANYWHERE where an apostle healed the sick in their own name or even failed to use the name of Jesus?

(Acts 3:6 [KJV])

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

The apostles used the name of Jesus and not their own.

They did so to give credit to God since people started to think they themselves were some kind of god. The 70 did, for they were not given authority like the Apostles. For some reason you fail to recognize this fact. It is right there in black and white.

This is pure fantasy; the Bible doesn't teach that they used their own name. They always used Jesus' name just like we do today.

You are incorrect by trying to use a past tense when it is present tense, meaning that Jesus was giving them authority AFTER they returned, not before.

You can't create a doctrine from the tense of one translated word in the Bible. How did the 70 know the devils were subject through the name of Jesus? Common sense would indicate that they found out "in the field" before they returned. I can think of no other explanation.

KC, show me one place in any post I have ever made where I said that the Apostles went around using their own name for anything ... just one, and I will own up to it and apologize and correct myself. I never said that they went around doing anything in their own name. Please don't add anything to what I said. If you don't understand, just ask, and I will answer. We all know what assuming will do ...

Using the same common sense, one would conclude that they were told to use His name. I am just as sure that the 70 Jesus choose to send out, out of the thousands available, were also close to Jesus and followed Him as much as they could.

[KC02]

My brothers and sisters-in-law know I don't agree with them, and why. We don't argue about it. They joke with me and say that I don't have enough faith, therefore I won't believe it when I see the rapture happening, and therefore I'll just stay where I am (and things like that), and I joke back at them.

Like I said, the whole point in my argument is - stick with the Bible - and from Acts to Jude, you won't find a Biblical basis for your argument that any other Christians aside from the 12 received (or receive) the same anointing of power which the 12 did (and which the 70 received prior to the days of the Acts).

I doubt that we as far apart as you might think. I believe 90 percent of the craziness we see on Christian TV is just that -- craziness. If there is no Bible for something I want to stay away from it... far away from it.

Your main point, that God only used 1st century folks (mainly the 12 and 70) to preform miracles, is not what the Whole Bible teaches. You have to discard the OT, most of Jesus' teaching and certainly the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Otherwise your teaching falls apart.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the rest of the Bible, especially Paul's letters and Christ's own words that have been posted in this thread?

[lekh l'kha]

My brothers and sisters-in-law know I don't agree with them, and why. We don't argue about it. They joke with me and say that I don't have enough faith, therefore I won't believe it when I see the rapture happening, and therefore I'll just stay where I am (and things like that), and I joke back at them.

Like I said, the whole point in my argument is - stick with the Bible - and from Acts to Jude, you won't find a Biblical basis for your argument that any other Christians aside from the 12 received (or receive) the same anointing of power which the 12 did (and which the 70 received prior to the days of the Acts).

I doubt that we as far apart as you might think. I believe 90 percent of the craziness we see on Christian TV is just that -- craziness. If there is no Bible for something I want to stay away from it... far away from it.

Your main point, that God only used 1st century folks (mainly the 12 and 70) to preform miracles, is not what the Whole Bible teaches. You have to discard the OT, most of Jesus' teaching and certainly the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Otherwise your teaching falls apart.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the rest of the Bible, especially Paul's letters and Christ's own words that have been posted in this thread?

You have to be more specific about which parts of the OT, Jesus' teaching and the teachings of the apostle Paul you say I'm disregarding, but I'll mention two that I think you have in mind.

"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (Joh 14:11-12).

What's the context of the passage the above verse is found in? Where was Jesus when He said this, and who was Jesus talking to?

The previous chapter (John 13) shows us that it was at what we call "the last supper" (the Passover meal) that Jesus said these things to "His disciples". Which disciples was He talking to?

Luke gives us the answer:

"... And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat...

... And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:" (Luk 22: 8, 14-15).

It was at the last supper that Jesus said to the twelve who were with Him:

"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (Joh 14:11-12).

Now let's take a look again at Mark, bearing in mind that He said this after His resurrection:

"... Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen...

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them (the eleven), he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they (the eleven) went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mar 16: 14, 17-20).

Remember that the Lord was speaking to the twelve at the last supper when He said,

"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (Joh 14:11-12).

Now go and compare the above facts with the fact that from Acts to Jude, there are only ten records of miracles and signs, and nine of the them were performed by the apostles, and one by Stephen before he was martyred.

Compare the above facts also with the fact that in the apostle Paul's references to signs, wonders and miracles and the author to the Hebrews' references to signs, wonders and miracles, the signs, wonders and miracles are called "the signs of an apostle".

I'm not ignoring any of Jesus' statements - I'm simply looking at the Biblical record.

"... And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" (1Co 12:28-30).

There's a very good explanation of how the early church functioned at this link HERE which is extremely helpful to understanding the different offices and functions of various parts of the body of Christ or the church.

You will have to be more specific and say which scriptures I'm ignoring, rather than just make a blanket statement like the one you made, KCO2

The reason why I searched the scriptures for an answer on the claims of the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches is because

(1) The first church I ever attended after I was born again and the church I was baptized in is a Charismatic church, and I soon discovered there were things they taught that just didn't add up.

(2) My late father-in-law was a Pentecostal, my motehr-in-law is a Pentecostal, m y aunt is a Pentecostal, my two brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law are Pentecostals, many of our friends who weren't Pentecostal before, are now Pentecostal.

All of them think my wife and I are Christians, but we "lack" something - we just aint got it (whatever "it" is), and so they're always trying to convert us.

I had to know whether these things are so, because a few things just didn't add up for me, and so I had to do a thorough search of the entire New Testament to see whether their claims are indeed Biblical, and the results of my sarch are what I posted up on the link in my signature below.

I need the specific scriptures you say I'm ignoring, not a blanket statement saying I'm ignoring "most of the OT, the teaching of Jesus and the writing of the apostles". That doesn't say anything to me.

God bless bro,

Lekh