Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Rick Otto]

Yes, the Church that is 2000 years old and that most Christians belong to.

Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church. He gave his Church his authority to make rules and to forgive sins. His Church then wrote down his teachings and proclaims throughout the world as it has been doing for 2000 years.

What did Jesus tell us to do when two Christians have a dispute?

Certainly not what Anicitus did regarding the celebration of Easter.

 

[Wolf_Says]

You only need read the OP.

Does that count as a submission point?

Yes, that has been pointed out to me now thank you. If memory serves me right, the verse was not in the OP originally so I was unaware that you updated it.

Now that I have the verse, I can go back to the originally question and purpose of this thread and give my answer (again).

No, the Church did not go wrong. The reason being all you have to do is read the rest of the verse. I shall quote it below.

Acts 1:4-5 " 4 And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

It is clear that Jesus was not referring to a replacement for Judas in anyway, but to wait in Jerusalem for their baptism of the Holy Spirit; the tongues of fire.

This is delivered in the next chapter, Acts 2:1-4 "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

The apostles clearly obeyed and listened to Jesus, and waited, as it is not shown in chapter 1 that they ever left Jerusalem.

The Church was not in error in electing Matthias to replace Judas, as it is shown that Matthias was also with them the entire time, as a disciple, Acts 1:20-22 "
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,


‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

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

That part of Psalms that Peter is two-fold. The first portion is Psalms 69:24-25. This is in reference to enemies of David, and it is written that after Judas was payed, he bought a farm with that money and "burst open in the middle and his bowls gushed out. And nobody lived there since". The second portion is from Psalms 109:8 which is also about those against the faith, which Judas fulfills, so in fulfillment of the OT, they appointed another to take the place of Judas, another man who had been with them from the baptism to Jesus returning to heaven.

You are arguing that it was Paul that was ment to fulfill this spot, but Paul had not seen or known Jesus during that same time as Judas, and he had not been there from the baptism to Jesus' ascension into Heaven.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

They seemed to have gotten their stride on by the second election. Rather than drawing lots for those who had been with Jesus as Judas had, they now focused on Holy Spirit leading. (which is the biblical qualification for an approved preacher is to reproduce life)

Acts 1:3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

Can you explain a little bit more what you mean?

 

[Albion]

Wow. I didn't know I had so much in common with a king of England!

You mean that the Church hasn't bothered to declare you (or me) to be a heretic? That's true, but Henry also continued to hold to all the teachings of the Catholic faith, unlike you and I--and he most certainly WAS under the Vatican's scrutiny, again unlike ourselves.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Yes, that has been pointed out to me now thank you. If memory serves me right, the verse was not in the OP originally so I was unaware that you updated it.

Now that I have the verse, I can go back to the originally question and purpose of this thread and give my answer (again).

No, the Church did not go wrong. The reason being all you have to do is read the rest of the verse. I shall quote it below.

Acts 1:4-5 " 4 And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

It is clear that Jesus was not referring to a replacement for Judas in anyway, but to wait in Jerusalem for their baptism of the Holy Spirit; the tongues of fire.

This is delivered in the next chapter, Acts 2:1-4 "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

The apostles clearly obeyed and listened to Jesus, and waited, as it is not shown in chapter 1 that they ever left Jerusalem.

The Church was not in error in electing Matthias to replace Judas, as it is shown that Matthias was also with them the entire time, as a disciple, Acts 1:20-22 "
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,


‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

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

That part of Psalms that Peter is two-fold. The first portion is Psalms 69:24-25. This is in reference to enemies of David, and it is written that after Judas was payed, he bought a farm with that money and "burst open in the middle and his bowls gushed out. And nobody lived there since". The second portion is from Psalms 109:8 which is also about those against the faith, which Judas fulfills, so in fulfillment of the OT, they appointed another to take the place of Judas, another man who had been with them from the baptism to Jesus returning to heaven.

You are arguing that it was Paul that was ment to fulfill this spot, but Paul had not seen or known Jesus during that same time as Judas, and he had not been there from the baptism to Jesus' ascension into Heaven.

Those verses can be applied equally to Paul. Peter applied them to the wrong person, that's all.

 

[Rick Otto]

I can see how that might be what happened. It doesn't seem to have been the most recent edit made to the OP came to this thread later than you, and the way it stands now is the only version I've seen.

You mean that the Church hasn't bothered to declare you (or me) to be a heretic? That's true, but Henry also continued to hold to all the teachings of the Catholic faith, unlike you and I.

Not formally declared. We haven't started churches either, and the RCC argues it still has a claim on us...
but I wonder closely and how tightly he held the encyclopedia of beliefs, or deposit of faith if you will.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Well the Apostles wrote the Bible and they weren't catholic last time I looked. [Down for the count; 1...2...3...]

The apostles and their disciples wrote the Bible, and the these men were members of the Early Church, the Catholic Church.

There were plenty of false books out there as well, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of James, ect.

The NT and the Bible as we know of it today was not declared sacred scripture and divinely inspired until the late 4th century through a series of councils (most notably the Council of Carthage in 397AD).

Without these councils, there would be no Bible as we know of it today.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Those verses can be applied equally to Paul. Peter applied them to the wrong person, that's all.

Who are you to say it was the wrong person? Are you saying that the man elected by Jesus, and is the only man that Jesus prayed for BY NAME, Luke 22:31-34, was wrong after praying to God to lead the lots cast?

Once again it sounds like that you believe the writers of Acts, to be wrong, and therefore, the Bible is wrong.

 

[Albion]

Not formally declared. We haven't started churches either, and the RCC argues it still has a claim on us...
but I wonder closely and how tightly he held the encyclopedia of beliefs, or deposit of faith if you will.

According to its theology, the Vatican continued to claim Henry, too. He did hold to the traditional doctrines, though, right up until his death. He even went so far as to issue the "Six Articles" late in his career that asserted that even those issues that Continental Reformers most often and easily had denounced, were to be retained--Transubstantiation, confession to a priest, and so on.

By the way, the first paragraph in the post of mine that you quoted was mistakenly added by me to the rest of the post. It has nothing to do with our discussion and was meant to be posted elsewhere.

 

[Rick Otto]

Who are you to say it was the wrong person? Are you saying that the man elected by Jesus, and is the only man that Jesus prayed for BY NAME, Luke 22:31-34, was wrong after praying to God to lead the lots cast?

Once again it sounds like that you believe the writers of Acts, to be wrong, and therefore, the Bible is wrong.

Sounds a bit disingenuous in that Catholics are generally as quick to defend a belief or practice of theirs based on:

John.21

1. [25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

The apostles and their disciples wrote the Bible, and the these men were members of the Early Church, the Catholic Church.

There were plenty of false books out there as well, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of James, ect.

The NT and the Bible as we know of it today was not declared sacred scripture and divinely inspired until the late 4th century through a series of councils (most notably the Council of Carthage in 397AD).

Without these councils, there would be no Bible as we know of it today.

Well lets not start wondering too far away from the OP and at least stick the 66 for now, of which the NT was entirely written by Jews. The word Catholic never popped up (no pun intended) till about 107 AD by which time the Church was mainly Gentile and so by the time the Catholic got to any transcribing and collating of the 27 books, the bulk of the work had been done. They just needed to argue over which ones were in or out and God let them do this job because the Catholic's were and so good at arguing.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Sounds a bit disingenuous in that Catholics are generally as quick to defend a belief or practice of theirs based on:

John.21

1. [25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Exactly what does this have to do with the current topic?

There are plenty of verses in the Bible to back up Catholic beliefs, and John 21 is merely 1 of them.

But once again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Or is just a chance for you to try and take a cheap shot at Catholicism?

 

[Albion]

Well lets not start wondering too far away from the OP and at least stick the 66 for now, of which the NT was entirely written by Jews. The word Catholic never popped up (no pun intended) till about 107 AD by which time the Church was mainly Gentile and so by the time the Catholic got to any transcribing and collating of the 27 books, the bulk of the work had been done. They just needed to argue over which ones were in or out and God let them do this job because the Catholic's were and so good at arguing.

and we might need to clarify also that this first use of the word "catholic" didn't indicate some denomination, but meant to say that the churches which are the forerunners of all of our churches today held the "authentic" and original faith to the exclusion of the Gnostics and other cults and mystery religions that were competing with the Apostolic church in the early days.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Who are you to say it was the wrong person? Are you saying that the man elected by Jesus, and is the only man that Jesus prayed for BY NAME, Luke 22:31-34, was wrong after praying to God to lead the lots cast?

Once again it sounds like that you believe the writers of Acts, to be wrong, and therefore, the Bible is wrong.

We've done this one over and over.

Luke. Peter and everyone else didn't realise the 'lots cast' was a problem. Otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Paul Was chosen by Jesus in Spectacular fashion while the others not so much. Or may be you don't think much of how Jesus chose Paul(?)

 

[Wolf_Says]

Well lets not start wondering too far away from the OP and at least stick the 66 for now, of which the NT was entirely written by Jews. The word Catholic never popped up (no pun intended) till about 107 AD by which time the Church was mainly Gentile and so by the time the Catholic got to any transcribing and collating of the 27 books, the bulk of the work had been done. They just needed to argue over which ones were in or out and God let them do this job because the Catholic's were and so good at arguing.

I think you are confusing the two meanings of the word Jew. It is both a religion and an ethnicity. So yes, they were Jewish, as that was their ethnicity, but they were Christians, as they were followers of Christ.

Catholics were, and still are, the first Christians.

But, as you want, going back to the OP, no those verses CANNOT and DO-NOT apply to Paul, because as I already showed and I shall quote again, Acts 1:21-22 "21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Paul does not meet this in any shape or form. Paul had not known Christ until his trip in which Christ appeared to him, after He had already gone back up to Heaven.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

and we might need to clarify also that this first use of the word "catholic" didn't indicate some denomination, but meant to say that the churches which are the forerunners of all of our churches today held the "authentic" and original faith to the exclusion of the Gnostics and other cults and mystery religions that were competing with the Apostolic church in the early days.

I'd let God be the Judge of which Individuals held the "authentic" and original faith in Jesus.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, that has been pointed out to me now thank you. If memory serves me right, the verse was not in the OP originally so I was unaware that you updated it.

Now that I have the verse, I can go back to the originally question and purpose of this thread and give my answer (again).

No, the Church did not go wrong. The reason being all you have to do is read the rest of the verse. I shall quote it below.

Acts 1:4-5 " 4 And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

It is clear that Jesus was not referring to a replacement for Judas in anyway, but to wait in Jerusalem for their baptism of the Holy Spirit; the tongues of fire.

This is delivered in the next chapter, Acts 2:1-4 "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

The apostles clearly obeyed and listened to Jesus, and waited, as it is not shown in chapter 1 that they ever left Jerusalem.

The Church was not in error in electing Matthias to replace Judas, as it is shown that Matthias was also with them the entire time, as a disciple, Acts 1:20-22 "
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,


‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

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

That part of Psalms that Peter is two-fold. The first portion is Psalms 69:24-25. This is in reference to enemies of David, and it is written that after Judas was payed, he bought a farm with that money and "burst open in the middle and his bowls gushed out. And nobody lived there since". The second portion is from Psalms 109:8 which is also about those against the faith, which Judas fulfills, so in fulfillment of the OT, they appointed another to take the place of Judas, another man who had been with them from the baptism to Jesus returning to heaven.

You are arguing that it was Paul that was ment to fulfill this spot, but Paul had not seen or known Jesus during that same time as Judas, and he had not been there from the baptism to Jesus' ascension into Heaven.

Also note that the money payed for the betrayal given to the Pharisees was used to buy the potters field szo that all foreignors to Jerusalem would have a place to be buried. That seems to update the field that Abraham bought from the foriegnors that was used to bury elites up till Abner.

 

[Albion]

Exactly what does this have to do with the current topic?

There are plenty of verses in the Bible to back up Catholic beliefs, and John 21 is merely 1 of them.

But once again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Or is just a chance for you to try and take a cheap shot at Catholicism?

If a discussion of where it was that the church of Christ first went wrong brings forth posts from people insisting that that church was the same as the denomination that they belong to today, these posters are virtually daring members of other Christian denominations to correct the record.

 

[Wolf_Says]

We've done this one over and over.

Luke. Peter and everyone else didn't realise the 'lots cast' was a problem. Otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Paul Was chosen by Jesus in Spectacular fashion while the others not so much. Or may be you don't think much of how Jesus chose Paul(?)

Good try in your attempt you accuse me of something I never said.

I do think highly of how Jesus chose Paul, but please provide the verse that shows that casting lots was a problem. Please.

And please explain to me how the apostles OF ALL PEOPLE would not know that, if it was wrong. They had been with Jesus since the begining; hearing all of His teachings and witnessing all of His miracles.

How on earth would they, the apostles, not know that? They knew the OT well as it was custom for Jews in that time, and they also were present at every miracle and teaching. How could they not have known?

That makes absolutely no sense!

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I think you are confusing the two meanings of the word Jew. It is both a religion and an ethnicity. So yes, they were Jewish, as that was their ethnicity, but they were Christians, as they were followers of Christ.

Catholics were, and still are, the first Christians.

But, as you want, going back to the OP, no those verses CANNOT and DO-NOT apply to Paul, because as I already showed and I shall quote again, Acts 1:21-22 "21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Paul does not meet this in any shape or form. Paul had not known Christ until his trip in which Christ appeared to him, after He had already gone back up to Heaven.

That was the specifications of who they thought would make a good Apostle, not Jesus'. Unless you think the Apostles have authority over Jesus?

But with reasoning like this: "Catholics were, and still are, the first Christians." Then I bet you probably do.