Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Guide To The Bible]

Jewish leaders, correct. We were talking about the new Christian leadership, all Jews, and led by a Jew who felt moved to "stand up" and get on with the mission he was given by God -feed my sheep. And he saw the wisdom and necessity as well as significance in God having picked 11 other men to help in that effort. So he logically and perhaps spiritually (as that is unsaid) felt the need to get a replacement for the task at hand, which would be a part of the understood role Jesus personally gave him.

That those Jews would pray and ask for guidance in what Peter suggested they do after apparently A LOT of discussion on the topic indicates them not only endorsing the leadership He gave them but willing to listen to the man appointed to lead them. That the decision would be they would simply vote and agree on the outcome indicates a faith in both the guidance of Saint Peter and that God would help them do what they needed to do. I see no problem with that, especially if I do not out of the blue attempt to add to the story that they were told to wait before picking someone to replace Judas.

I agree that's how they saw it but with the benefit of hind-sight, we now know that Paul, who wrote more of the NT than the others, was picked by Jesus and made an apostle. We should be learning from this event not ignoring what Jesus did and its relevance. But then that's people for you. It's human nature I suppose.

 

[Albion]

All sorts of people have a need to be able to show how Peter was no big deal. The original poster had to show how Peter violated the command of the Lord to wait until Paul became the replacement apostle. To justify not being Catholic I suppose. Whatever. This was originally misplaced in 'Traditional Theology'. Now it's in 'General Theology', which is alien land for me. I'm out.

I can't speak for that other person, but I have no particular need to demote Peter. The facts are plain, however, that much which is claimed for him simply isn't true or, if not that, is without evidence and so remains in the realm of speculation.

So if all of that scenario is essential to the claims of any particular church body, that church has nothing over dozens of other church bodies in the validity department. That's because these likewise can point to their own interpretations of historical events, imputing significance to them that isn't clearcut but theoretically possible, just as the Roman Catholic Church does.

 

[Albion]

I would ask who stood up first among the disciples taking action in regards to Church leadership without any recorded objection. If not the leader, why wouldn't the "sons of thunder" challenge such an obvious alpha leadership move?

Here's the point to be made about that. You can describe Peter as prominent among the Apostles, as one of the most outspoken, as admired by the others, as having been chosen by Christ for an important task, and all of that. But none of this makes him a Pope with all that the church claims for that position. Nor was there any agreement among the early Christians that either Rome or the bishop of Rome had been chosen by Christ to be the presiding officer of the universal church.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Again we are adding to the story assumptions and elements that are not present in it.
Where is evident in that story that within those thousands of believers, which clearly (because of the language barrier) no doubt included people from all over who would return to all over rather than stay in Jerusalem, are a bunch of Greek widows who become such a burden to what could only in a few weeks be a local Church community that they needed to appoint seven deacons to take care of their needs?

I do not see how we can impose more into the story of the Pentecost than is there. Or add the absurdity of a claim the Pentecost immediately created an over burdensome demand on the Apostles from Greek speaking Christian widows. The story plays out but proximity within a writing complied decades later, does not often equate to any meaningfully linear passage of time. Time is difficult to assign partly for that reason. So again, by whose authority do we make such assignments in order to reach the conclusions being made?

The point about the the widows actually shows that they were very busy teaching and preaching to many others who had and were becoming believers.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

To be clear the 10 day are from Ascension to Pentecost and it was Jesus who told the 120 to wait in Jerusalem. Around 3000 were added that day. Up to Acts ch.6 was all within weeks, may be as little as 3 weeks, it was a shorter time frame than most think. These event took on a life of there own as soon as there were the 3000 believers. It was a chaotic time and Steven's stoning was the result of this chaos.

Again review what I said to another poster about the absurdity of claiming only a few weeks pass. The statement just made demands "wait for it" must be understood as do nothing, which is not at all clear that is what was expressed or understood. To say otherwise is adding detail to the story that is totally absent as no timeline is offered.

The declaration it was only a few weeks to Stephens stoning is also unsupported by the details of the story given in that it would not be possible to accomplish all that is implied accomplished or depicted happening in that amount of time. Just a casual reading of people way more knowledgeable than us who diligently and carefully try to work out ministry of Saint Paul timeline starting with Stephen's stoning do not result in a span of a few weeks. The death of Stephen is not even known to be within a few weeks of the ascension. So again am asking by what authority does anyone here declare special knowledge that eons of people qualified to comment on the matter apparently lacked?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Here's the point to be made about that. You can describe Peter as prominent among the Apostles, as one of the most outspoken, as admired by the others, as having been chosen by Christ for an important task, and all of that. But none of this makes him a Pope with all that the church claims for that position.

And here is what I would note of this denial, that nothing was stated in Acts 1 that denies the others were respecting Saint Peter as their leader, including the silence of two famous for wanting recognition for their roles as leaders.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

One must remember, they didn't have the word of God as we do today (except the OT), neither did they have the Holy Spirit to speak to them. So they trusted, believed and prayed that the Lord would show them whom He had chosen. As you can see from the scriptures below, they acknowledge God in this.

24 And they prayed, “Lord, You know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two You have chosen 25 to assume this ministry and apostleship, which Judas abandoned to go to his rightful place." 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell on Matthias; So he was added to the eleven apostles...

Yes and notice how there was no word from the Lord either. Just silence. How often do people pray about something and although they get no answer they then act anyway. It's human sin nature to act without God's command.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

This is of course in error. St. Matthias was the legitimate replacement for Judas Iscariot. The idea that St. Paul derives his apostolic validity from being a member of "the Twelve" is misleading. St. James the Just, who wrote an Epistle, is a valid apostle, and not the same person as St. James the Great, the Son of Zebedee.

There are in Orthodox thought two groupings of Apostles, the Twelve, and the Seventy, but by most reckonings St. Paul is supernumary to both groups.

We also regard St. Mary Magdalene, St. Theclas, and even fourth century saints like St. Nino, the Armenian woman who brought Christ to the Georgians, as equal to the Apostles. And in the Coptic church St. Athanasius is called "the Apostolic."

---

There is no record of any misconduct or any incidents on the part of St. Matthias to discredit his valid apostolate.

The only cleric ordained by the Apostles who did fall into error, but who was separated from the church, was Nicolas the Deacon (one of the Seven Deacons), not to be confused with the fourth century bishop St. Nicholas of Myra.

Nicolas the Deacon founded the Gnostic sect known as the Nicolaitans, who engaged in among other things the sharing of wives in common, thus incurring the displeasure of our Lord in Revelations.

Now, as that book shows, there have always been errors in the Church, more specifically, in individual local churches, but the Church as a whole, as the Body of Christ, is guaranteed to be protected from error (Matthew 16:18).

We actual discussed the 'stone' issue earlier and the fact that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone that Peter is placed next to and on which the Church is built.

 

[Albion]

And here is what I would note of this denial, that nothing was stated in Acts 1 that denies the others were respecting Saint Peter as their leader.

Oh c'mon. Surely you know that the lack of any recorded denial of RESPECT towards Peter does not prove much of anything, let alone that any of these people even had a concept of a Pope figure. Not only does that argument turn on a lack of evidence, rather than upon evidence, but you're only saying that this alleged lack of a certain response indicates a RESPECT for the man. We all believe that he was respected. That doesn't make him a Pope! What's more, most Christians agree that Peter was a leader in one sense or another. But again, being a leader or the spokesman for the group doesn't come anywhere near to establishing a Papacy.

Incidentally, many EOs and Anglicans have argued this point in more or less this way for some time now. There is no intent to defame Peter or make out that he was some kind of shrinking violet. But he can be given his due--and that of other bishops of Rome--without it following logically that he or they must therefore have been what is attributed by your church to the position of Pope.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

We actual discussed the 'stone' issue earlier and the fact that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone that Peter is placed next to and on which the Church is built.

This is of course irrelevant to my post as I did not mention St. Peter.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

It takes us down a dangerous road when we start presuming to have more of a clue than the authors of the canonical New Testament.

We should be learning from their mistakes rather than ignoring them and carrying on making them.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I suggest you read a book called THE APOSTASY THAT WASN'T.

It's available as an e-book for Kindle.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Interesting

 

[Paul Yohannan]

We should be learning from their mistakes rather than ignoring them and carrying on making them.

It is extremely presumptuous to say there is a mistake in the writings of St. Luke. How do you know? Were you there?

His writings are more authoritative than any private opinions you or I might have. On that point I expect even Sola Scriptura members like my friend @Albion would agree.

 

[Your Alli]

Not many consider where it first began to go wrong for the church:

Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

Jesus gave the Apostle this one command just before His Ascension but in that 10 days the apostles chose by votes and lot, and also apart from Gods’ instructions, to replace Judas with Matthias:

Acts 2:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

This seemly innocuous act carried over and into the Christian faith the Jewish priesthood practice of drawing lots and started an unofficial man made tradition of voting and drawing lots to replace the disciples after they had died, including Peter and which has continued until this day with each new selection of Pope. However, this was never God’s intention as it is God alone who selects His chosen people as proven by the fact that Jesus chose Paul shortly afterwards to be the replacement apostle:

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

The casting of lots is OT and is not for the Church. If they had of waited on God as they were instructed by Jesus to do, then after the day of Pentecost Paul would have been added to their number. This failure to wait on God and not act in ones own power is probably the most basic and commonly made errors all Christians make.

When you enter a church and don't receive any words from Christ i.e the Gospels ... This is the first is most important error the church is currently making.

Your Alli

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Actually, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament and made a new covenant with all mankind. The 12 Apostles were Jews and they took place of the 12 leaders of the tribes in Israel from the Old Testament as leaders in the New Testament. They were the true original Apostles. Matthias replaced Judas as selected by lots. They had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you check it out, all the the 12 Apostles were confirmed by the Holy Spirit (including Mathias). Paul became an Apostle several years after the event of being blinded and converted (baptized & confirmed at the same event) to Christianity. Even Paul admitted that he wasn't an Apostle in the way the 12 were.

The events of the Old Testament foreshadowed events in the New Testament. The Jews were freed from physical slavery in the Old Testament. Jesus saved us from slavery from sin. The Arc with Noah was a vessel that saved mankind and Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the vessel carried Jesus who saved mankind from the bondage of sin. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son to show his love for God. The Father sacrificed His Son, Jesus, to show us how much He loved us.

The Holy Spirit was not involved. God did not tell them to do it, neither did Jesus, even after praying about it there was no answer about doing it. It was a man made system introduced needlessly into the church that carried on a corruptible tradition. .

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Again review what I said to another poster about the absurdity of claiming only a few weeks pass. The statement just made demands "wait for it" must be understood as do nothing, which is not at all clear that is what was expressed or understood. To say otherwise is adding detail to the story that is totally absent as no timeline is offered.

The declaration it was only a few weeks to Stephens stoning is also unsupported by the details of the story given in that it would not be possible to accomplish all that is implied accomplished or depicted happening in that amount of time. Just a casual reading of people way more knowledgeable than us who diligently and carefully try to work out ministry of Saint Paul timeline starting with Stephen's stoning do not result in a span of a few weeks. The death of Stephen is not even known to be within a few weeks of the ascension. So again am asking by what authority does anyone here declare special knowledge that eons of people qualified to comment on the matter apparently lacked?

That's how it reads to me but I think we are drifting away from the point that the Holy Spirit was not involved in Matthias' selection. God did not tell them to do it, neither did Jesus, even after praying about it there was no answer about doing it. It was a man made system introduced needlessly into the church that carried on a corruptible tradition. .

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The point about the the widows actually shows that they were very busy teaching and preaching to many others who had and were becoming believers.

No, the point about the widows is that it had become a burden on the 12 which they saw as a distraction from the ministry they were given. They wanted to be free to busy doing that I agree, so they had to do something - all of which requires time to come about. Time that is not mentioned to either your or my favor, which is why should we ask by whose authority someone declares it so, before we believe that something obviously apparent that should take a significant amount of time actually did not. If it is not apparent in the story, and obviously not apparent to people qualified to study that story given various opinions on a suggested timeline, how is it apparent to you?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

It is extremely presumptuous to say there is a mistake in the writings of St. Luke. How do you know? Were you there?

His writings are more authoritative than any private opinions you or I might have. On that point I expect even Sola Scriptura members like my friend @Albion would agree.

I never said Luke made a mistake in what he recorded, except perhaps the same mistake that Peter made in not realising that he was introducing a man made system into the church that quickly became a corruptible tradition. The Holy Spirit was not involved. God did not tell them to it, neither did Jesus, even after praying about it there was no answer about doing it. It was a mistake.

 

[SteveCaruso]

What is more, Lamsa made a completely bogus claim, rejected by the serious scholars of his church, my church and also prominent Syriologists like Sebastian Brock, that the Peshitta is the "original" New Testament. This is untrue; linguistic analysis confirms that the Koine Greek manuscripts are not translations, although they do contain what one might call an Aramaic substrate. But this Aramaic substrate is first century Gallilean or Judean, not the highly refined Classical Syriac of the Fourth Century.

@SteveCaruso is also expert in this area and may have something to add.

Not much to add really as you've addressed it quite well.

Simply put, Lamsa was a fringe theorist whose work doesn't pass academic scrutiny (and "Peshitta Primacy" is one of those things). He was quite fond of anecdotes and folk etymology, even after those anecdotes and folk etymologies had long been disproven by his contemporaries.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

No, the point about the widows is that it had become a burden on the 12 which they saw as a distraction from the ministry they were given. They wanted to be free to busy doing that I agree, so they had to do something - all of which requires time to come about. Time that is not mentioned to either your or my favor, which is why should we ask by whose authority someone declares it so, before we believe that something obviously apparent that should take a significant amount of time actually did not. If it is not apparent in the story, and obviously not apparent to people qualified to study that story given various opinions on a suggested timeline, how is it apparent to you?

Again this is drifting away from the issue and is a side issue that can't be clearly determined unlike the casting of lots issue.