Which Apostles Preached in Asia Minor?
817890
Toma went to India\n And Teddy and Bartolomeo to the Armenia
517378
Let me provide you two answers.  First, the question is unanswerable if you mean the apostles.  The apostles could have been great frauds, that possibility must always be admitted by a Christian.\n\nOn the other hand, lets look at some weak evidences.\n\nFirst, the faith of the apostles created the largest demographic group on Earth.  There are more people claiming memebership in a Christian Church than any single group on Earth.  For a fraud, it is very successful.  It could be profound mind control, but that is simply ignoring two millenia of writings and an extraordinary historical diversity.\n\nSecond, when the early Fathers were choosing Gospels one of the reasons they left out many of the competing books was that they provided "proof" of Jesus' resurrection.  The orthodox books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all have empty tombs, mixed accounts and to some extent unclear messages. (I can hear the screams now that it is clear, but you can find 46 impossible contradictions between them that if one element is true, then another Gospel must be false)  Still, that was part of the decision making.  You had faith in the Church and its proclaimation or you did not.\n\nThird, while the Church has spent two millenia finding new ways to tarnish Christ's name, it is really still proclaiming the same message as it was left.  The Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental and Coptic Churches all have maintained the apostolic succession that began in Acts 1:46.  The group of apostolic successors still lead the old Churches.  While all apostolic successors are sinners like the rest of us, it is clear from both the Gospels, Acts and the letters as well as the early letters from Christians who were ordained by the apostles, that the leadership is supposed to be in the hands of these apostolic successors.  The amazing thing about their leadership however is that it does not put them in charge, it puts us all in charge.  Their role is to make sure the message is not distorted, our role is to proclaim it and to accept correction when we are wrong.  The entirety of the apostolic message was handed on in the scriptures, in hymns, in the ancient services (which are still in use by the way), in writings and in stories.  It is available to any who wish to read, hear or sing them.  You cannot control what you widely proclaim.  Only the most naive can be controlled or the most powerless.  \n\nNow I do think there is a lot of Christians following a message that would have infuriated the early Christians and you can see that in the TV preachers especially.\n\nHas Christianity been used to influence or push the populace, absolutely, but every widely held concept has been used for that purpose.  That is the entire reason for politics.  It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy, that has to do with power.\n\nWhether it is the Tsar claiming divine right or the President of the United States claiming to act in the name of Freedom, the divine gift, it is always used by politicians.
1070284
Paul was an apostle--spreading the word of Jesus to the gentiles (non-Jews).\nHis message was about Jesus coming in the flesh as a man and going to the cross for all of humanitys sin.\n\nThe greatest act of love --Jesus dieing for us and then rising again on the 3rd day.\nPaul spread this good news--that was his mission.
574577
Istanbul..it is located on both Asia and Europe.
506823
I always wonder about that.\n\nJesus handpicked 12 apostles, spent at least a year with them and taught them much. Now, obviously one of those 12 didn't work out so well, but I am curious why Paul is even necessary?\n\nDid Jesus screw up on the other 11 he choose as well?  Why was Paul necessary to spread the word.  He never even met Jesus, nor does he tell anything about his life, his teachings, or any real details about what Jesus wanted.\n\nIt is also fairly obvious from Acts and Galatians that Paul and the Apostles' relationship was, at best, pretty icy.  It is also fairly obvious that Paul's message is radically different from the Old Testament, and quite different in many aspects from the Gospels.\n\nBut my central point, is Paul seems utterly unnecessary, give the resume's of the othe 11 original apostles.  Given that they didn't get along, my conclusion is that Paul simply tried to elbow his way in on the nascent Christian message, and the Apostles begrudgingly let him preach to the Gentiles.  After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the jewish Christians (which the apostles seemingly were) were scattered or destroyed, and the only thing left was Paul's version of Christianity.\n\nThere are many other ways Paul and Jesus disagree (works versus faith, did Jesus come to take away the law, etc).  Christians (particularly evangelicals), for some reason, always take Paul's version over Jesus, which seems odd since they believe Jesus IS God.\n\nBut the question that has never been satisfactorally answered remains:  If Jesus handpicked his Apostles, why was Paul (who self-appointed himself an apostle based solely on a dream he had) necessary?
972987
Apostles - 12, Disciples more than 12. It is not a specified number. Disciple is like a student or a learner.\n\nAll the Apostles were disciples, but not all disciples are apostles.
1083282
I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for with your question and it would obviously require quite a detailed and lengthy answer.   There is a wealth of information available about Paul and his epistles.\n\nHere are some interesting sites I found.  They may help you develop an answer.
794562
Hi, there was a time span between the Ascension of the Lord into heaven and the Roman murdering of the Christians in the coliseum so these Christians may not have seen Jesus directly, but how powerful was their faith in the Teaching of the Apostles to have gone so willingly to their death, and don`t forget that the Apostles willingly gave their lives too for Jesus and still modern people doubt the reality of the living Christ.
1085941
it doesn't matter whether peter went to rome or not.  Jesus told peter that he would be the rock that the church would be built upon.  peter then became the leader of the church (which was started before his death;some say the moment that Christ told peter this, others say at pentecost).  according to the roman catholic church and the easter orthodox church, peter is the first pope.\n\nthis argument has been going on for a long time and has to do more with "apostolic succession" which holds that the church is the direct spiritual successor of the beliefs of the apostles.  even more, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches would say that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles.  The problem arises when the great schism occured (when the Church split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church each saying that they are the true "One Holy and Apostolic Church).  Each church claimed/claims that their leaders were the true direct spiritual descendant of Peter(wish i could go into detail but time doesn't permit).
657761
Jesus was last seen by His apostles (Acts 1 verse 6-11) 40 days after Easter...as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.  \n\nTen days later, on the feast of Pentecost - 50 days after Easter (Acts 2 verse 1-13) tells of the apostles returned to Jerusalem to the Upper Room where they had been staying since the Ascension of Jesus and devoted themselves in one accord in prayer with some women and Mary, the mother of Jesus...\n\nOn the feast of Pentecost (Acts 2 (3-4) Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them (present in the room).  And they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues (languages) as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim (the teachings of Jesus).
644879
http://www.answers.com/topic/twelve-apostles-1?method=22\n\nSimon called Peter (Grk. petros, petra; Aram. kēf; Engl. rock) by Jesus, also known as Simon bar Jonah and Simon bar Jochanan (Aram.) and earlier (Pauline Epistles were written first) Cephas (Aram.) by Paul of Tarsus and Simon Peter, a fisherman from Bethsaida "of Galilee" (Jn 1:44; cf. 12:21) \nAndrew brother of Peter, a Bethsaida fisherman and disciple of John the Baptist \nJames ("the Great") and \nJohn, sons of Zebedee, called by Jesus Boanerges (an Aramaic name explained in Mk 3:17 as "Sons of Thunder") \nPhilip from Bethsaida "of Galilee" (Jn 1:44, 12:21) \nBartholomew, in Aramaic "bar-Talemai?", "son of Talemai" or from Ptolemais, identified with Nathanael \nThomas, also known as Judas Thomas Didymus, Aramaic T'oma', "twin", Greek Didymous, "twin" \nJames ("the Less") and \nMatthew the tax collector, sometimes identified with Levi, sons of Alphaeus \nSimon the Canaanite, called in Luke and Acts "Simon the Zealot" \nJudas Iscariot "the traitor"; name Iscariot may refer to the Judaean towns of Kerioth or to the sicarii (Jewish nationalist insurrectionists); he was replaced as an apostle in Acts by Matthias \nThaddaeus, but in some manuscripts of Matthew "Lebbaeus" or "Judas the Zealot" and in Luke Judas, son of James
967416
2 Thess. talks about a great apostasy, or falling away from the faith. However the book of Acts talks about a great revival. There will be an apostasy in the West, with Islam filling the void of Christianity in Europe, and a revival in the undevoloped countries. We can do missions in Europe, but I believe that many of their hearts are hardened to the gospel already.  : (
844557
Has to be Peter, if the question is confined to the original 12. \n\nMatt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 2 places.\n\nhttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html\n\n.
928375
The 12 Apostles were the first bishops. They began ordaining more to become bishops, priests, and deacons. John was the only apostle of the 12 that was not martyred. Paul was not of the original 12, but he became an apostle and was martyred, he was beheaded. \n\nHere is what someone provided me with when I asked a similar question:\nhttp://www.icnc.org/scratchpad/a133.htm
633195
Jesus was a messenger of God.
1026589
Let's frame this in the proper context.\nJesus was Jewish.\nHis disciples were essentially his students.\nThey all were raised on Torah and probably obeyed all 613 commandments.\n\nThe disciples:\nSimon, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Nathaniel, Matthew, Thomas, James, son of Alpheus, Simon, and Judas, son of James, and Judas Iscariot.\n\nTheir relationship:\nGo to the link and learn!
1061147
hahahha.  That will preach.  NOT\n\nDidn't this already happen?  snake handlers...  blah blah...\n\nWHO WAS JESUS TALKING TO?  HELLOOOOOOOO?\n\nJESUS GAVE THAT POWER TO WHO?  Not CHristians  He gave it too the Apostles.\n\n THE APOSTLES GAVE IT TOO...NOBODY.  That ended with the Last apostle.\n\nAny Christian that claims to have the power of a apostle, We can see.  A apostle had the power to raise the dead.\n We can go to a cemetary and, you raise the first one from the grave....I'll raise the second one.