Where did the Church first go wrong?

[lismore]

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. .

Hello. Acts 1:21 says:

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.

Matthias had been with Jesus the whole time. Paul had to be an Apostle 'unnaturally born'. God Bless

 

[Albion]

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.

While not making more of Peter than is warranted, we ought not to blame him for all sorts of decisions made by the church in later years.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Hello. Acts 1:21 says:

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.

Matthias had been with Jesus the whole time. Paul had to be an Apostle 'unnaturally born'. God Bless

I don't dispute that but it doesn't address the OP.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

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.

Nothing in the Bible says it was a mistake. For that matter, as far as I am aware, no prominent theologians of antiquity or modern times claim it to be a mistake, so there is no tradition saying it to be in error, either.

There is conversely a tradition which indicates that it is correct: His Holiness the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is chosen by the casting of lots from one of three candidates elected by the Holy Synod upon the death of his predeccessor:

The Coptic Pope, and his Greek Orthodox counterpart (His Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, who is simply elected by the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria), are jointly the successors of St. Mark the Evangelist, St. Athanasius the Apostolic and St. Cyril the Great.

St. Mark established the Church in Alexandria. He also wrote the Gospel bearing his name, and owned the Cenacle, among other things. Thus, the process by which one of his two successors is elected provides a traditional validation of the election of St. Matthias by the Apostles in the Acts of St. Luke.

 

[readyfor mysavior]

Bar Kochba.

I never hear d of that.

 

[Brian Sellers]

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.

Jesus gave Peter authority to lead His church and this is one of the first instances where Peter exercises that authority. There are many more examples in Acts. Simply because it was an old testament practice does not make it inappropriate for the Church.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

As I say the current Catholic church started with this:

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

If that hadn't of happen and instead they 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.

All i'm saying is you have a lot on your plate here, not as much as the post you had about the holy spirit being a female or whatever but still a lot. It's hard to link the selection of a new disciple with a preponderance of the church problems today. Ima keep up with the post to see if you can do it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

They were still in a transitional stage from the traditional way of seeking the Lord by the casting of lots. Because they were still in the transitional stage before Pentecost they weren't accustomed to the leading and guidance of the indwelling Spirit Romans 8:14, unlike the apostle Paul later, in Acts 16:6-8.
They were still in the initial stage of God's way of leading before the day of Pentecost. So far they had initially recieved the Holy Spirit John 20:22 and trained for 40 days by the Lord before His ascension to practice and become accustomed to His invisible presence Acts 1:3.
They had not acquired what the Lord had for them to learn when they cast lots. They had been told to wait for the power from on high with which to fulfill the leading they needed.
In that sense I think they were the blind leading the blind because of not being lead by the Lord to do so. My 2c

But tbh I have no idea why that should matter except in the case that we are to each and everyone His disciple Strong's Number G3101 ~ disciple~ matches the Greek μαθητής (mathētēs) in which case we all have replaced Judas.

 

[motsog]

The Church has never gone wrong and it never will, not to say individuals won't go wrong, because we always will.

The Church is protected by Christ. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it. The Holy Spirit is leading it in all Truth. Jesus will be with it until the end of the world.

I would say the Church went wrong just like ancient Israel went wrong. Israel was captive in Babylon, and the Church is captive in spiritual Babylon.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

It proves enough as even your posts suggest acknowledgement of a position he both held and was respected for. That hundreds years later a dispute arose is not particularly relevant to this discussion, but as it was mentioned my recall could be off, but seems the principal is that by then, no one could prove to the satisfaction of all that they had a claim to have the authority passed down from Saint Peter, so then at the most all regional Authorities with claims of Authority passed from an Apostle should be granted equal status rather than any one superior. That is a different argument and one for another thread.

Rhetorical question/point and you can direct my attention elsewhere if you wish, as to go on here further derails this discussion about "where the Church first went wrong."
Am more interested in hearing how in this thread we get from no Church and maybe a month later needing ordained administrators to take care of widows, sufficient to time to vet candidates down to selective seven, established missions by disciples and those newly ordained deacons, more time for one of those to get in trouble have a trial and be stoned, a vendeta by Saul after that stoning that he saught a writ to authorize going out and rounding up Christian leaders like Stephen in his travels, Saul's obtaining that permission and going out on that mission, a conversion by Saul who gets help afterwards from an already established Christian missionary/disciple/apostle (not one of the 12)all this in a matter of a few weeks.
Add to that years of theologians having apparently been unable to ascertain anything more than perhaps a 36 AD stoning of Stephen and maybe a later 30s beginning to Saint Paul's mission, which defies the "few weeks" narrative being promoted here in this thread, So my thinking it very valid to be asking by whose authority does someone insist such a short timeline is clearly evident from Scripture. Or that God's "wait for it" in Jerusalem meant for Peter to do nothing about Judas empty seat.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

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.

Jesus was clear about how the leaders of His Church were to lead. Mark 10:42-44: “And Jesus called them to him and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all."

And in His condemnation of the Chief Priests, Pharisees, and scribes (in Matthew 23:1-12) Jesus indicated what our leaders were to avoid doing: Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

How did these clear commands of Jesus become ignored by the early Church? I can tell you why-- because of sin. It is human hubris and ego to desire power and public prestige. The governments and military in Greek and Roman lands were quite hierarchical in their power structure, and their cultures had a clear caste system. Once the Apostles were gone and the churches started to become larger and more organized, the Church co-opted some of these systems and turned it into clericalism. This was an early form of revisionism, following the culture rather than the words of Jesus.

John R.W Stott on the scandal of clericalism: “It is only against the backdrop of the equality and unity of the people of God that the real scandal of clericalism may be seen. What clericalism also does, by concentrating power and privilege in the hands of the clergy, is at least to obscure and at worst to annul the essential oneness of the people of God. Extreme forms of clericalism dare to reintroduce the notion of privilege into the only human community in which it has been abolished. Where Christ has made out of two one, the clerical mind makes two again, the one higher and the other lower, the one active and the other passive, the one really important because vital to the life of the church, the other not vital and therefore less important. I do not hesitate to say that to interpret the church in terms of a privileged clerical caste or hierarchical structure is to destroy the New Testament doctrine of the church.”

 

[devon]

St. Paul did not even mention the Nicolaitans.

So what does that have to do with anything? He didn't mention the mount of transfiguration either.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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. .

I think we are not answering any questions of an assertion made against the claim that the acknowledged leader of the Apostles was impatient and needed to only wait maybe three more weeks to get Saul's conversion as an alleged replacement of the vacancy of Judas seat. That they were told to wait in Jerusalem for the Comforter is not being denied. What is being denied is

1. that command meant they could do nothing until then and
   
2. that had Peter been more compliant/patient his concern would have been addressed in short order by Saul's conversion.

Those points would be required to be assumed valid if the conclusion made is to be accepted by anyone simply saying "well it reads that way to me". Saying that is how it reads to me doesn't cut it because to my knowledge no one of any authority or qualification to make such claims has ever made them. Which is why I keep asking who besides the OP has, what authority does the claim have. If the answer is your authority and some unstated qualification for defying so many qualified that would dispute any merit to it, you should pardon the rest of us for accepting that as anything more than an opinion. You are entitled to an opinion and freely express it. To defend it requires more work than simply, "well it reads that way to me".

Where did God tell them He would replace Judas for them?
Why replace anyone who dies for that matter since God did not tell them to do that either?

Was Saint Paul ever accepted as or even made a claim himself as a replacement for Judas? (that is rhetorical the answer is no)
Other than having to deal with stubborn headed Apostle, was Saint Peter punished for not waiting? (another rhetorical)
Was Saint Matthias Apostleship ever devalued because of the alleged mistake by Saint Peter besides anyone not posting in this thread? (again likely rhetorical as I believe we have gone 17 plus pages without anyone posting links to serious theologians making similar assertions or there being any made besides those from people in this thread for that matter)
Same rhetorical question and comment on the absurdly short timeline that is allegedly the way we all should read it - though no one else ever did apparently?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So what does that have to do with anything? He didn't mention the mount of transfiguration either.

You wrote:

Paul said that after they threw the last shovel of dirt in his face, wolves would rise up and start the clerical system, Nicolaitan.

What I am saying is that St. Paul did not say that.

 

[Monk Brendan]

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:

Forgive me for inserting myself in this, but hadn't the apostles received the Holy Spirit? See Acts 1:20 and John 20:22. If Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit (and He did), then these men were being led by the Spirit. As far as casting lots, do we not read in Proverbs (16:33 KJV) “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD?" Now if casting lots in evil, then why would He say it was good in the OT?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

Not drifting away at all and it is not a side issue. My points about two assumptions made, assumptions that are central to and required to be true if the opinion expressed in the OP has any merit at all as being a real issue.

 

[Albion]

It proves enough as even your posts suggest acknowledgement of a position he both held and was respected for.

No, I merely said that he was respected, had been commissioned to perform a certain task by Christ (the Pentecost sermon), was something of a spokesman for the Apostles, etc.

NONE of that adds up to evidence that he was a Pope or that the church even had a concept of such a position.

Rhetorical question/point and you can direct my attention elsewhere if you wish, as to go on here further derails this discussion about "where the Church first went wrong."
Am more interested in hearing how in this thread we get from no Church and maybe a month later needing ordained administrators to take care of widows, sufficient to time to vet candidates down to selective seven, established missions by disciples and those newly ordained deacons, more time for one of those to get in trouble have a trial and be stoned, a vendeta by Saul after that stoning that he saught a writ to authorize going out and rounding up Christian leaders like Stephen in his travels, Saul's obtaining that permission and going out on that mission, a conversion by Saul who gets help afterwards from an already established Christian missionary/disciple/apostle (not one of the 12)all this in a matter of a few weeks.

I do agree that this discussion has wandered and ought to return to the first mistake, etc. The creation of the Papacy is obviously not that, since it only dates from the late fourth or early fifth century.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

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.

The fact is that we all are sin free! All we are suppose to do is to love one another; John 13:34, 2 Timothy 3:15 & Ephesians 2:8.
Now; how is the church going to extract money from the masses with a belief like that? It's not; enter sin, and we have death and power. I believe that it all began to go wrong for the church; when the church chose to add your sin over Christ's love, as the basis for salvation.

 

[Meowzltov]

The casting of lots (dice) is not the same thing as casting votes, which is how Pope are elected.

I don't think the Church went wrong.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No, I merely said that he was respected, had been commissioned to perform a certain task by Christ (the Pentecost sermon), was something of a spokesman for the Apostles, etc.

NONE of that adds up to evidence that he was a Pope or that the church even had a concept of such a position.

I do agree that this discussion has wandered and ought to return to the first mistake, etc. The creation of the Papacy is obviously not that, since it only dates from the late fourth or early fifth century.

Albion, if you want to discuss the claim, happy do it elsewhere though admittedly it does not interest me that much any more. I believe it to be true, and that is why I am RCC and not some EO or other early division from the Church (or in their view from their Church)

So we agree the leader of the Apostles was validly acting within his acknowledge special role in "standing up" ito declare basically "that God made us 12 for His Good and Perfect reason, so we should discuss and pray about making us 12 again". Thanks for agreeing with something I posted. ; )