Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Albion]

Clearly, if they were in the wrong for electing Matthias, do you believe that Jesus would have still baptized them with the Holy Spirit in the next chapter?

Yes. These fellows let Jesus down repeatedly during the years of his public ministry, yet he nevertheless kept them as his closest associates and entrusted the responsibility of converting the whole world to them.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

i'm not disputing that bit. It the other stuff.

Your disputing that Paul could not be the logical candidate for replacement for Judas? Sounds like another thread to me.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Yes. These fellows let Jesus down repeatedly during the years of his public ministry, yet he nevertheless kept them as his closest associates and entrusted the responsibility of converting the whole world to them.

Correct, however my point being that, seeing how it was Peter that selected Matthias, every time in the Bible that we find that Peter has failed Jesus, he is rebuked.

I would assume that this would follow as Peter prayed to God before he elected Matthias as the replacement for Judas. But nowhere in acts are we shown they Peter is rebuked for this.

 

[Monk Brendan]

John 20:22 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Really, I've heard that the Apostles received a measure of the Holy Spirit, even if they were not BAPTIZED in the Holy Spirit.

That means that these Apostles, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, cast lots, and it seemed good to them and to the Holy Spirit that they select Matthias.

 

[Albion]

Correct, however my point being that, seeing how it was Peter that selected Matthias, every time in the Bible that we find that Peter has failed Jesus, he is rebuked.

I would assume that this would follow as Peter prayed to God before he elected Matthias as the replacement for Judas. But nowhere in acts are we shown they Peter is rebuked for this.

I'm of the opinion that we're comparing apples to oranges when we compare the time when Jesus walked with the Apostles and taught them...and the time after the Ascension. In any case, the choice of Matthias certainly wasn't Peter's alone and it's not even to be taken for granted that God directed the choice.

 

[Wolf_Says]

I'm of the opinion that we're comparing apples to oranges when we compare the time when Jesus walked with the Apostles and taught them...and the time after the Ascension. In any case, the choice of Matthias certainly wasn't Peter's alone.

Correct, it was not Peter's alone, however it was (as shown in Acts) Peter that prayed and layed down the requirements to be selected to fill Judas' position.

This primarily places the responsibility on Peter.

The point I am trying to make, is that Guide states that this was wrong. How could he know more, than the man that Jesus elected as head of the apostles?

 

[Albion]

He's trusting that other information given in the Bible casts the matter in a light different from the approach you've taken.

 

[Rick Otto]

Correct, it was not Peter's alone, however it was (as shown in Acts) Peter that prayed and layed down the requirements to be selected to fill Judas' position.

This primarily places the responsibility on Peter.

The point I am trying to make, is that Guide states that this was wrong. How could he know more, than the man that Jesus elected as head of the apostles?

Calm down from the Peterphrenia enough to realize all Guide had to know is what Jesus instructed and how frequently errant Peter failed to follow
Your authority issue is one of your chief blinders to what people are trying to say.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I made a guess in the amount since I did not have the time to calculate it out, thank you.

Why do you keep placing words in my mouth? Seriously? Can we please just get beyond that and take each quote for what it is? Or do you seriously need to place words in my mouth that were never there to begin with?

I have not once moved away from the fact that Paul was chosen by Jesus. Not once. What makes you think that Matthias was not chosen by Jesus?

WHEN did I ever make the claim that Jesus got it wrong?? Please show me where, please.

I am arguing because it is the simple fact that Matthias was the replacement for Judas.

Acts 1:4 is very specific in why Jesus told them to wait, for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which they receive in Acts 2. Clearly, if they were in the wrong for electing Matthias, do you believe that Jesus would have still baptized them with the Holy Spirit in the next chapter? Or would Jesus have rebuked them?

Jesus told them to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in Acts 1:4

Matthias is elected in the end of Acts 1

The Apostles are baptized with the Holy Spirit in the beginning of Acts 2

Paul is not chosen by Jesus until the beginning of Acts 9

Way before Paul is chosen, Jesus already fulfilled his promise to the Apostles from Acts 1:4.

So, why cant both Jesus and the Apostles be right? Is that not a possibility???

Looking at the timeline between Acts 1 and Acts 9, 4 years have passed. There is a 4 year difference from when the Apostles elect Matthias and are baptized by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus converting Paul, there is another 3 years before Paul starts preaching to the gentiles.

Oh my G-d. You think it took 4 years before Paul met Jesus!!! It was a matter of weeks and you ask "So, why cant both Jesus and the Apostles be right? Is that not a possibility???" Because Jesus didn't have anything to do with Peter's cost casting decision. There was no manifestation of the supernatural! As there was with Paul.

You keep saying things like "Show me where Jesus said not to cast lots"? That's like me saying "Show me where Jesus taught them to cast lots." Your logic is illogical.

 

[Philip_B]

Acts 1:24-26
Then they prayed and said, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’ And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.​

There is nothing to suggest that the lot falling on Matthias was not the mind of Christ speaking, and indeed to the contrary the witness of Acts is that this was prayerful and appropriate. Remember of course at this time Saul was not what one might perceive as available for selection.

Whilst the witness of Scripture is silent on Matthias, there is some evidence that he was influential in the establishment of the Church in Capadocia which is a place that many who study Church History will be familiar with. We certainly do not have the evidence to support the suggestion that Matthias come to nothing.

Paul, however, clearly achieved a great deal, and because to the extent of his travels, and the regions in which he travelled, and because he had enough time under arrest to write extensively, and his letters were preserved and cherished, means that we are very familiar with his thinking, and his great work. His own understanding is that he was sent (apostolos) to the Gentiles, and I don't think he saw himself in any way second fiddle to the Galilean Fishermen and others who made up the 12, I am not totally convinced that he numbered himself among them. The criteria in Acts was not likely to include Paul.

Acts 1:21-22
So one of the men who have accompanied us throughout the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.’​

I don't believe that the case has been made that the Church got in wrong in selecting Matthias. I have no need to make Paul one of the twelve in order to esteem and value his contribution to the ongoing life of the Church. He has much more to offer us.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Correct, it was not Peter's alone, however it was (as shown in Acts) Peter that prayed and layed down the requirements to be selected to fill Judas' position.

This primarily places the responsibility on Peter.

The point I am trying to make, is that Guide states that this was wrong. How could he know more, than the man that Jesus elected as head of the apostles?

Your saying that the squeeky wheel that got all the grease because of Peter's boisterious personality should still have been informed as a servant after the event of Jesus calling him friend. Well granted that was the reasoning to Abraham that he should not be kept in the dark as to Sodom, but I tend to agree more with Albion in this instance because of timeframe and natural order of events. Timeframes shift.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Your disputing that Paul could not be the logical candidate for replacement for Judas? Sounds like another thread to me.

I think you need to read the OP. I'm saying the opposite to that!

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Correct, however my point being that, seeing how it was Peter that selected Matthias, every time in the Bible that we find that Peter has failed Jesus, he is rebuked.

I would assume that this would follow as Peter prayed to God before he elected Matthias as the replacement for Judas. But nowhere in acts are we shown they Peter is rebuked for this.

Wrong, Paul rebuked Peter himself, Jesus didn't need to do it as Jesus had already selected the right man for the job in the first place. God does not make mistakes:

Galatians 2:11
But when Kaypha came to Antiakia, I rebuked him to his face because they were tripped up by him;

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Really, I've heard that the Apostles received a measure of the Holy Spirit, even if they were not BAPTIZED in the Holy Spirit.

That means that these Apostles, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, cast lots, and it seemed good to them and to the Holy Spirit that they select Matthias.

Wrong. The Holy Spirit had not been given. When Jesus breathed on them it was a prophetic foreshadowing of what was about to happen to them.

Acts 1:5
"for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Correct, it was not Peter's alone, however it was (as shown in Acts) Peter that prayed and layed down the requirements to be selected to fill Judas' position.

This primarily places the responsibility on Peter.

The point I am trying to make, is that Guide states that this was wrong. How could he know more, than the man that Jesus elected as head of the apostles?

By studying the Bible.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Oh my G-d. You think it took 4 years before Paul met Jesus!!! It was a matter of weeks and you ask "So, why cant both Jesus and the Apostles be right? Is that not a possibility???" Because Jesus didn't have anything to do with Peter's cost casting decision. There was no manifestation of the supernatural! As there was with Paul.

You keep saying things like "Show me where Jesus said not to cast lots"? That's like me saying "Show me where Jesus taught them to cast lots." Your logic is illogical.

That is the timeline of Acts, you can look it up yourself.

You are the one who continues to make the claim that casting lots was not for the Church. Therefor, you are the one responsible for providing the evidence that this is in the Bible.

So far you have not.

There doesn't need to be any form of manifestation, why does there need to be? I am not discrediting Paul, not in the slightest.

Wrong, Paul rebuked Peter himself, Jesus didn't need to do it as Jesus had already selected the right man for the job in the first place. God does not make mistakes:

Galatians 2:11
But when Kaypha came to Antiakia, I rebuked him to his face because they were tripped up by him;

Because Peter did not like the Gentiles, and Paul was showing him that this was an error. That has nothing to do with electing Matthias as an apostle.

 

[Rick Otto]

Oh my G-d. You think it took 4 years before Paul met Jesus!!! It was a matter of weeks and you ask "So, why cant both Jesus and the Apostles be right? Is that not a possibility???" Because Jesus didn't have anything to do with Peter's cost casting decision. There was no manifestation of the supernatural! As there was with Paul.

You keep saying things like "Show me where Jesus said not to cast lots"? That's like me saying "Show me where Jesus taught them to cast lots." Your logic is illogical.

You sound angry.

 

[Wolf_Says]

By studying the Bible.

Hillarious, now I know that you are full of it. I highly HIGHLY doubt that you know more than St Peter, or any of the Apostles. I don't know more than them, and I doubt there is a single person on these forums that knows more than them.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hillarious, now I know that you are full of it. I highly HIGHLY doubt that you know more than St Peter, or any of the Apostles. I don't know more than them, and I doubt there is a single person on these forums that knows more than them.

Since you cant address the issues, you might as well be amused.


"If we're fools in life, a happy fool I'd rather be." -Taj Mahal

 

[Wolf_Says]

Since you cant address the issues, you might as well be amused.


"If we're fools in life, a happy fool I'd rather be." -Taj Mahal

Where have I not addressed the issue?

OP states that the Church was wrong in electing Matthias as the replacement for Judas, and uses Acts 1:4 to back up that claim.

I point out that the OP failed to quote the entier verse and took it out of context, and that nowhere does it state that electing Matthias was wrong, or that lots are "not for the Church."

How have I not addressed the issue then??