Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
According to Bob, this prophecy is false because at least one of the disciples wouldn't get to fulfill this role: Judas. So this led me to a couple of questions: Why is it that Judas could not have sat on a throne to judge the twelve tribes? He was a traitor, I know, but how could that stop him from sitting on a throne in heaven? Also, what about Matthias, Judas' replacement?
Bob Responded as follows and gave me permission to post this on my blog. His words will be in italics and my response will be in bold:
Judas could not have sat on a throne at the Judgement Day because Christian theology holds that Judas burns forever in Hell because he betrayed Jesus. The usual verse cited for this is Matthew 26:24, "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".
I agree. Saying that it would have been better for a traitor of Jesus not to have been born very, very clearly implies hell.
Matthias is never mentioned in the Gospels. Jesus very specifically named the Twelve Apostles, which did not include Matthias (Luke 6:13-16). Although the book of Acts says that Matthias was chosen by lot (Acts 1:23-26), he is only mentioned in that one passage. Matthias is mentioned nowhere else in the whole Bible.
Although Matthias might have been present (Acts 1:21) when Jesus spoke the words in Matthew 19:28, his complete absence from any mention in any of the Gospels, and his complete absence from any other book in the Bible, except for a brief mention in Acts, would indicate that his position in the early church was not significant, and that his "apostleship" was not recognized.
Christian theology teaches that God chose the twelfth Apostle - Paul, who is believed to have written many of the letters in the New Testament. He specifically says that God chose him as an apostle in Galatians 1:1. He calls himself an Apostle in many places - Romans 1:1, Romans 11:13, 1 Corinthians 1:1, and many others.
Having been present at Matthew 19:28 would have been an extremely powerful argument in favor of Paul's Apostleship, since Jesus' own words would have placed him on one of only twelve thrones on Judgement Day. But there is no evidence that Paul ever made this claim, in spite of the fact that his Apostleship was not widely recognized at first (Acts 9:26).
Even late in his ministry, some questioned Paul's apostleship (2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11-12). Paul had to very strongly argue for his apostleship. Paul having been present at Matthew 19:28 would have greatly strengthened this argument, but it is not mentioned.
Since Paul did not convert until a long while after Jesus' death, and his letters never once mention him meeting Jesus before he died even when there would have been extremely good reasons for him to do so, we can be sure that the Bible makes no claim that Paul was present when Matthew 19:28 occurred and in fact strongly supports the contention that Paul was not there.
Thanks again,
Bob Collins
Sounds like an airtight case for a contradiction, Bob. Thanks! By the way, those who want to order Bob's book should check out his website: http://www.freethinkersbooks.com/
As of this writing, his website is under construction, but I'm sure you can contact him here:
robertcollins1776 AT gmail DOT com
No comments:
Post a Comment