Where did the Church first go wrong?

Albion · Feb 9, 2017

~Anastasia~ said:
I never saw anyone argue that the Apostles were supposed to be infallible. That's why the early Church was councilliar. The Holy Spirit led THE CHURCH as a whole, and when a person was part of it made a mistake (as quite often happened), it was corrected.

I appreciate this point you've made. Parts of the New Testament record the doings of the Apostles, but as with the case of the election of Matthias, there's no reason to think that some doctrinal truth was established by it.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
To be fair I do have the benefit of hind-sight but you're wrong about the growth because after the 10 days that they were waiting, (in which time the error occurred) the Holy Spirit came and on that day about 3000 became Believers.

The reason the lots cast was error was because we know Paul was Judas' replacement. They were only told to wait.

And where do we see the organization within those "10 days" mentioned?
It is a rhetorical because we don't. That comes 5 chapter later after an obviously extended period because they are already shown having established extended communities of Churches and needing an administrative structure not mentioned until then. Again, depending on the accuracy we could assign Jesus year of death and Stephens the interval could be at least a year maybe several.

Regardless of accepted dating efforts, it is definitely and logically not a just a couple of weeks before someone would need to ask, gee it takes a lot work to care for these hungry Greek widows and we need to remain focused on our primary mission. Maybe we need to create a structure within the Church to administer this need so we refocus on our primary mission.

Who added the thought to the story that they were told to wait before replacing Judas? (that is not rhetorical)

devon · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
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.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
There is no evidence that Jesus ever drew lots. This was only for the priests to do in the temple.

What I am saying is that each of us should be instructed by God but most fail in this because they do not even know what that instruction is. Instead they get together and start telling each other what to do and like sheep they follow whoever sounds like they know best, rather than listening to the Holy Spirit Who resides within them, who given a chance, would lead them into all truth as long as they are patient and read their Bibles daily. Then they would begin to learn what it is that the Holy Spirit wants them to do and to ultimately fulfil there personal destiny in Christ in order to obtain an incorruptible Crown.

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.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
In this context the Church are the 11 men and the other followers Jesus told to wait in Jerusalem and to not leave.

IOW the 120

~Anastasia~ · Feb 9, 2017

Albion said:
I appreciate this point you've made. Parts of the New Testament record the doings of the Apostles, but as with the case of the election of Matthias, there's no reason to think that some doctrinal truth was established by it.

Hey Albion, haven't seen you in a while. I wanted to say hello but I'm having trouble keeping up with notifications at the moment. I hope you've been well, and blessed.

And thank you. I don't really even have a comment on the choosing of Matthias, other than that it happened.

So I really have been wondering why so much stir about it, unless it's just the question asked by the thread title itself, which pretty much guarantees responses ...

It's good to see you, my brother.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
No your wrong, the church was well over 3120 strong on the day of Pentecost. Paul was tackling this problem full time from that day and Steven was stoned within days if not weeks. The Believers fled Jerusalem soon after this and Paul took chase and was converted with in a matter of weeks from Pentecost.

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?

Heaven's Child · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
Sorry if I touched a nerve, not my intention honest. I'm just pointing out the biggest mistake the Church ever made. They were instructed to wait not to introduce a man made voting systems to determine who leads, that decision is always God's. As proven by the fact that Jesus chose Paul just a few weeks later.

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...

Paul Yohannan · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
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.

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).

Citizen of the Kingdom · Feb 9, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
.... 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'm quite sure that needs to placed at the difference between Helenistics and Judaism

chevyontheriver · Feb 9, 2017

Albion said:
And I didn't mean to say that I see it myself. This may be part of the confusion that's developed here. My point was simply that Peter isn't shown in scripture to be any kind of universal head of the church...to which end I cited the role of James. But that wasn't to say he was the "real" pope instead of Peter; it was to say that there was not understood to be any such figure as a pope, and Peter, despite his prominence or importance, clearly did not exercise such authority.

We differ. At least we have it cleared up that there is no evidence that James was the host bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 1. Or maybe we have it cleared up. I donno.

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.

Paul Yohannan · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
No, no. Luke didn't have a clue that the lot casting was an issue, he was as clueless about it as the rest of them. That is why most people who read it think the same about it.

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.

devon · Feb 9, 2017

Paul said that after they threw the last shovel of dirt in his face, wolves would rise up and start the clerical system, Nicolaitan.
In 3John you have Diotrephes taking the preeminence above the folks.
In 1Peter5, we are told not to 'lord it over His sheep'.
In Matt.20, Jesus commanded that the world has its hierarchy, but 'it shall not be so among you'.
In Matt.23, in verse12, Jesus said that those that exalt themselves shall be brought low.
In the first century there was an every member participation dynamic in all their assemblies. That's gone.see: 1Cor. 12, Ephesians4, and Romans12.
Chapter14 of Isaiah shows us satan ascending 'above the congregation'. Does the word 'pride' come to mind.
No wonder Jesus said He hates the 'deeds of the Nicolaitans', Nicoower over, laitan: laity, the folks.
But man in his earnest pursuit of acclaim and power, and money, rejects these scriptures. Satan plays out his arrogance through men today who are more than happy to exalt themselves above other christians with a title. 'Pastors'.
Body life died about 1700 years ago. instead of an organic spiritual body of believers, we have been confined to a pew with duct tape over our mouths while paying a 'professional man and team' to do most if not all ministering. They give lip service to the gifts and functions of every member but in practice, it is never really realized in experience. Jesus gave the example for 'leadership'. He got down on His knees and washed smelly feet. He served humbly. Todays 'pastors', so called, are served with reverence. As kings.
The 'one man show' pastor cannot be validated by NT scripture. All elders are shepherds/pastors. See: 1Peter5 and Acts 20. And they are all suppose to be working secular jobs. Not talking itenerent preachers who deserve our support. The local body of elder pastors are to work. see; Acts 20.

So the folks remain weak, and impotent, subject to the world's influences.
Satan wins.

Paul Yohannan · Feb 9, 2017

DaveW-Ohev said:
What makes you think it is an assumption?

That is from someone (George Lamsa) that grew up speaking Aramaic in a version that was pretty much unchanged from the first and 2nd centuries.

This is inaccurate. Lamsa is from the community of the Assyrian Church of the East. I am from the Syriac Orthodox Church; both our churches use the Peshitta, the Syriac Bible, and make vernacular and liturgical use of various dialects of the Syriac language.

The vernacular language spoken by Assyrians and some Orthodox in Iraq is East Syriac Neo Aramaic, which is not the same as Classical Syriac, in which our Bible and liturgy are read. They are not even mutually intelligible; Assyrian priests tend to translate the Peshitta as they read it into Neo Aramaic from Classical Syriac.

What is more, Classical Syriac is not at all like Galilean Aramaic, which was spoken by our Lord, or Judean Aramaic.

In turn these are different from the Aramaic of the Old Testament.

The jump from Classical Syriac to Eastern Syriac Neo-Aramaic a bit like the hop from Old English to a thick Louisiana deep-South accent. And in that continuum, Galilean would be more like Old Dutch (with Imperial Aramaic being something like proto-Germanic).

---

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.

Jack Isaacks · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
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.

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!

Paul Yohannan · Feb 9, 2017

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

St. Paul did not even mention the Nicolaitans.

Dave B · Feb 9, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
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.

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.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 9, 2017

~Cassia~ said:
I'm quite sure that needs to placed at the difference between Helenistics and Judaism

I think my description of them as Greek speaking Christian widows in the same post accurately reflects the situation depicted. You are correct that shortening that to Greek widows does not.
Either way, I do not see that helps the other poster imposing on over 10 Chapters of Acts a view that says this all takes place over just a few weeks.
In the space of a few weeks we have a burden so onerous (takes time) that the Apostles had to create (takes time to decide how) another level of ordination to administer to that specific need, from that need that had to select from among recent converts reliable enough to be able to grant that title (takes time), that one the men selected to the role subsequently gets in trouble for it (took time), is charged and given a trial where he is convicted (took time), stoned by Saul who then wants permission to go on a personal vendetta which he apparently gets (more time) before Saul could have a desire to go out and round up people from the spreading Christian ministries (more time implied by the growing Church), is blinded and converted (more time) is taken in by and supported by Barnabas (time including time for Barnabas to be sent out there when Paul needed him most) before going out on his own some say apparently disappearing for as much as a few years (more time even with out adding those years) before finally being challenged and even recorded defending that he is an Apostle including reference/inference to it in Acts.
So to claim all this happens and that Saint Paul is immediately recognized as an Apostle, much less accepted as a replacement for Judas, is totally unsupported by the narrative we have, let alone congruent with the tradition we have concerning him that has been passed down from those who knew him.
So I do think it relevant to ask where the authority to insert the various details of this narrative into recorded Scripture (and in dispute of other records we have regarding same).

Guide To The Bible · Feb 9, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
And where do we see the organization within those "10 days" mentioned?
It is a rhetorical because we don't. That comes 5 chapter later after an obviously extended period because they are already shown having established extended communities of Churches and needing an administrative structure not mentioned until then. Again, depending on the accuracy we could assign Jesus year of death and Stephens the interval could be at least a year maybe several.

Regardless of accepted dating efforts, it is definitely and logically not a just a couple of weeks before someone would need to ask, gee it takes a lot work to care for these hungry Greek widows and we need to remain focused on our primary mission. Maybe we need to create a structure within the Church to administer this need so we refocus on our primary mission.

Who added the thought to the story that they were told to wait before replacing Judas? (that is not rhetorical)

To be clear the 10 days 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.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 9, 2017

Albion said:
And I didn't mean to say that I see it myself. This may be part of the confusion that's developed here. My point was simply that Peter isn't shown in scripture to be any kind of universal head of the church...to which end I cited the role of James. But that wasn't to say he was the "real" pope instead of Peter; it was to say that there was not understood to be any such figure as a pope, and Peter, despite his prominence or importance, clearly did not exercise such authority.

chevyontheriver said:
We differ. At least we have it cleared up that there is no evidence that James was the host bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 1. Or maybe we have it cleared up. I donno.

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 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?

Where did the Church first go wrong?

Facilitator

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Yet.

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Yet.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Guide To The Bible

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency