mwc Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I just have a real quick question that I hope someone can clear up for me. In Revelation 21 there's this little verse: 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. So who is the twelfth name/foundation? Is it Judas Iscariot (the betrayer)? Is it the vision/self-appointed Paul? Or Matthias (who gets the official spot in Acts 1:26)? We have 14 candidates but only 12 finalists. Who will get the honors? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Matthias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 It's not a party without the patron saint of alcoholics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Matthias woops. Not so fast, cc. It was Judas who was there as the 12th disciple when Jesus said "you who have followed me will be seated on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 And, then we also have this: and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. Now, we have all kinds of weird shit here. It says he appeared to Peter, then to the twelve. Wasn't Peter one of the twelve? Then, later he appeared to James - this one's a little sticky, cause there was more than one James. And, he appeared to Paul. As a ecstatic/revelatory experience. Well, what's to keep all of the other appearances from being ecstatic/revelatory vision / type / shit? But - WHO WERE THE TWELVE? If you read in Acts 1 - Jesus flew into the sky before Matthias won the toss of the dice. So, saying the twelve saw the risen christ doesn't square up. According to the story, it was eleven, plus a whole bunch of other apostle wannabe's. Sigh. How people can take this stuff to be literal truth is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 woops. Not so fast, cc. It was Judas who was there as the 12th disciple when Jesus said "you who have followed me will be seated on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" Matthias was there, too. But, you make a good point. If grace is truly amazing*, then why not have Judas redeemed, as well? Now that I think about it, sure might be the case. *See this recent book by "heretic" evangelicals: If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person. -CC in MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 And, then we also have this: and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. I notice that he makes a distinction between the "Twelve" and "all the apostles." He doesn't say "twelve" twice which indicates he's most likely speaking of two different groups (or a super/subset of a group...there are more than 12 apostles...probably many more). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 So far I see a "vote" for Judas and for Matthias. The thing about the original verse I quote is that, while the names are just listed on the foundations, it's the symbolic meaning of the foundations themselves that are important as well (I think). Matthias, to our knowledge, didn't do much in the way of being a foundation (but this is true of most of the twelve really). Paul did by founding churches and all that. Judas might have depending on how you see the act of betrayal (without it you have no crucifixion and so on). Does any of this change anything? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Looks to me like Judas was the most important apostle of all. Without him, no one could figure out who Jesus was. In a way, that's kinda odd, considering we had just had a parade in his honor. I haven't read the Gospel of Judas in depth, but I believe it portrays Judas as the hero of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 ...Sigh. How people can take this stuff to be literal truth is beyond me. It's extraneous detail, Mythra, and is not essential. IMO. There were men called (in English) "apostles." There were "12" of them. They followed the "Big Guy" around, as intimates of his for a couple of years. It's the heart of the story that matters, to me at least, not the precise details. And, frankly, I rather enjoy all the contradictory (and seemingly contradictory) detail. History is full of such questons and contradictions: What did FDR know and when did he know it? Were there two gunmen in Dallas on 11/22/63 or just one? Was Dr. Mudd involved in the assassination plot against Lincoln or was he simply an innocent doctor caught up in the aftermath? What exaclty did John Wilkes Booth say as he leapt from the presidential box that evening? Did James Earl Ray murder MLK? Was the Nation of Islam involved in the assassination of Malcolm X? Was that an extraterrestrial UFO Jimmy Carter saw back in the 1960's? Did J. Edgar Hoover really wear dresses? What was going on with Lincoln and his "good friend" Joshua Speed those four years they shared a bed? These are the things that make history fun! The Bible is full of unanswered questions and contradictory views, and that's part of the reason it's great, great literature. -CC in MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 It's extraneous detail, Mythra, and is not essential. IMO. Yeah. Well, remember - I know the essential details too. And, they're worse. (in the terms of believability) What would we do today with a mother who insisted that no one could come near the corpse of her son, so that she could continue to pray over it - convinced that it was going to re-animate? Of course, we'd get her mental help. By force if necessary. Because we all know that a corpse is a corpse. We have not one shred of real proof that it has ever been different. The natural laws were suspended for a time in a story in a book. Well, off to the snail races (work) Have a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Well, off to the snail races (work) Have a good day. I know. Me, too. I'd rather sit here all day with all of you. But I think that's a sign of addiction or something. I'm outta here. -CC in MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Number twelve belongs to............... drum roll please.............. Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Well, if you really go by Christian theology, if it weren't for Judas, then there would be no Crucifixion, and thus no salvation. It's kind of like the anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages and some fundamentalist sects today: "We should hate the Jews because they killed our Lord!" .....But that "killing" was neccessary for salvation, wasn't it? That would be like hating your mother for pulling you out of the path of a speeding car. (Unless you were suicidal, of course........) At any rate within the Christian church, a step they could take that I would approve of would be to make Mary Magdelene an apostle officially. I don't think she had a sexual relationship with Jesus since I see no evidence of that, given what we do know fairly certainly, but she was obviously a very close friend, associate, and follower. Although I doubt it would happen anytime soon. Even the Catholic/Orthodox churches, which generally have a more favorable view of women than the Protestant ones, would balk at making a woman an apostle. After all, in order to avoid it in the first place, they invented the tradition of her being a prostitute, which is even more unlikely than the da Vinci Code-esque marriage to Christ. When I was growing up a Lutheran, the whole reformed-prostitute story was told to us about Mary M., even after the Catholics had long dropped it. She was a sinful, impure woman, just like any other woman. She and Jesus were friends, but only little more than acquaintances - Jesus had better, more important people to keep around himself than some silly former slut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 After a long contemplative and deep analysis of the question and especially the title of the topic, and came to the conclusion that there were 0 (zero) apostles, and hence their names where nil, nada, zilt, zip, null, none, nothing... and they all went to town in nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts