Nit picking, you know what I meant."Your list of Apostles is a list of straw men."
It is not my list; it is history
That's immaterial to my point. If it is that important to you, what about Barnabas?In the first century , there were 12 Apostles, 12 disciples.
You are incorrect; there were at least fourteen apostles. You overlook Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas. You also overlook Paul, who became an apostle after the death of the Savior.
Obviously the history lesson is superfluous to this conversation, but thanks anyway.
My point was that that the 12 originals were unique.
Disciples and Apostles.
Yes I know, I didn't say original, and that gave you the opening to continue the history lesson, not pertainate to this communication.
The point is that Christians relate to the original Apostles as being Apostles of Jesus Christ, not someone who declares himself such with no overseeing authority so as to give credence to a false belief system.
As far as the question to Mr. Robinson (I was only speaking about one of them, not both) it's much too hypothetical imo.
Catholics would never post a title like you suggested.
But good luck, maybe you will get a hypothetical answer!
>Catholics would never post a title like you suggested.
I would not be shocked or offended if a Catholic wrote an article titled “Pope Benedict XVI is an Apostle of Jesus Christ.”
It is my understanding that Catholics consider the Pope to be the successor to the Apostle Peter. Whether I agree with that premise or not doesn’t matter. My opinion shouldn’t keep them from posting such an article in their caucus.
In fact, I might find the article interesting and informative. But either way, that title certainly wouldn’t offend me.
Would it offend you?