Where did the Church first go wrong?

Albion · Feb 10, 2017

Wolf_Says said:
So setting the historical record straight, which btw they have not, is "don't choke on your spit"?

I didn't write that.

I will have to keep that in mind. I guess my question is, Albion, do you think Rick Otto was justified in his remarks towards me, or not? Other than that I fail to see why you ever care to respond to the matter, as it did not concern you.

I've been trying to reconstruct the sequence of posts in this matter, and although I haven't put all the pieces together, I think Rick Otto entered on the heels of the comments posted about Henry VIII and partisan claims that had been made by another person, not you, who however was also a Catholic. You seem to have joined in with that. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that your posts afterwards seem to have taken everything personally.

Guide To The Bible · Feb 10, 2017

~Cassia~ said:
The wordage of being present with Jesus is what is being used as the disqualifier to that and according to OT scripture...

I find it hard to understand the way you talk, sorry, can you explain a bit more please?

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
You've missed the point. Paul was the replacement chosen by Jesus our Lord and Saviour. Matthias was chosen by men. Which one do you think was Judas' replacement?

I shall ask, did Jesus specifically call Paul the replacement of Judas? Did Paul himself ever say I am the replacement for Judas?

Let's take a look, shall we? (insert Mike from Monsters Inc.)

Acts 9

"
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani′as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani′as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen a man named Anani′as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Anani′as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” 17 So Anani′as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, 19 and took food and was strengthened."

Nowhere does it say that he is a replacement for Judas.

Does Paul ever say he is a replacement for Judas? Well searching and googling has lead me to a big no, there is no point in the Bible in which this is stated, or anything like it.

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Albion said:
I didn't write that.

I've been trying to reconstruct the sequence of posts in this matter, and although I haven't put all the pieces together, I think Rick Otto entered on the heels of the comments posted about Henry VIII and partisan claims that had been made by another person, not you, who however was also a Catholic. You seem to have joined in with that. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that your posts afterwards seem to have taken everything personally.

I didn't take his first post seriously, I simple (without beating around the bush) asked what did that statement have to do with the topic at hand? Or was it a chance to attack Catholicism?

He replied in kind "don't choke on your spit."

That, I will take personally (though trust me I am not offended, I am having a blast), because he specifically said "your" in quoting me.

I never said you wrote that, Albion, that was the kind comment given to me by Rick Otto.

Rick Otto · Feb 10, 2017

Wolf_Says said:
When did I play the victim card.....? I am having a blast! When did I play the victim card? All I did was call you out on a post that had no purpose in this thread and I had not even quoted or responded to you prior.

Don't get defensive now. Please explain where did that seemingly random jab at me come from?

Very smooth. First the victim card and now "no speaky English" lol, classic combo.

"He thought it was a chance to make a jab at Catholicism, and I pointed that out"

As if.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Feb 10, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
I find it hard to understand the way you talk, sorry, can you explain a bit more please?

Wolf_Says said:
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.

The second half of the verse quoted on the OP does disqualify Paul according to OT scriptures because of Paul not being there as a companion of Christ. That has to be factored in or no one will be convinced. I'm not sure myself that the developer of the church set-up would be a good progression in the debate either. Prolly their selection should have included Stephen and the 7 who Paul is more likely to have replaced but I digress...

Guide To The Bible · Feb 10, 2017

Wolf_Says said:
I shall ask, did Jesus specifically call Paul the replacement of Judas? Did Paul himself ever say I am the replacement for Judas?

Let's take a look, shall we? (insert Mike from Monsters Inc.)

Acts 9

"
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani′as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani′as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen a man named Anani′as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Anani′as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” 17 So Anani′as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, 19 and took food and was strengthened."

Nowhere does it say that he is a replacement for Judas.

Does Paul ever say he is a replacement for Judas? Well searching and googling has lead me to a big no, there is no point in the Bible in which this is stated, or anything like it.

You never answered the question because you know the answer. I suppose Paul's conversion for you is a regular occurrence from where you come from. No big deal happens all the time.

No, it only happened once because Paul is the 12th Apostle as he says:

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

Can't find any verses like that about Matthias? Because there isn't any. But there's more if you need convincing, look them up. Why Kick against the Goads. You are a stubborn man and have a hard heart.

Guide To The Bible · Feb 10, 2017

~Cassia~ said:
The second half of the verse quoted on the OP does disqualify Paul according to OT scriptures because of Paul not being there as a companion of Christ. That has to be factored in or no one will be convinced. I'm not sure myself that the developer of the church set-up would be a good progression in the debate either. Prolly their selection should have included Stephen and the 7 who Paul is more likely to have replaced but I digress...

You're misinterpreting that OT verse as well. That's all.

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Rick Otto said:
Very smooth. First the victim card and now "no speaky English" lol, classic combo.

"He thought it was a chance to make a jab at Catholicism, and I pointed that out"

As if.

Wow, yeah I think you really woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Please show me where I said I dont speak english, or played the victim card.

Really? Then please explain why you specifically quoted me, and then stated "dont choke on your spit" when I have not once replied to you this entire thread?

Rick Otto · Feb 10, 2017

Wolf_Says said: ↑
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.
Click to expand...

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

John.21

[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.

Perhaps disingenuous was a poorly chosen word.
"Spurious" is more appropriate.

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
You never answered the question because you know the answer. I suppose Paul's conversion for you is a regular occurrence from where you come from. No big deal happens all the time.

No, it only happened once because Paul is the 12th Apostle as he says:

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

Can't find any verses like that about Matthias? Because there isn't any. But there's more if you need convincing, look them up. Why Kick against the Goads. You are a stubborn man and have a hard heart.

Yes, Paul was an aposlte, however it does not say 12th apostle like you claim now does it?

Once again I never said it was a regular occurrence, and we would not have half of the NT if it was not for Paul.

But, we also never hear again from the other apostles in the Bible now do we? Their works are not in there, but they were still significant.

Matthias was elected by the 11, after they prayed to God about it. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that this was wrong.

You give me stawman arguments to try and back up your claim, but you still did not quote the entire verse that you are using to state that they disobeyed Jesus in "waiting", because you know that the verse is talking about being baptized by the Holy Spirit, and not selecting a new apostle.

Rick Otto · Feb 10, 2017

Wolf_Says said:
Wow, yeah I think you really woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Please show me where I said I dont speak english, or played the victim card.

Really? Then please explain why you specifically quoted me, and then stated "dont choke on your spit" when I have not once replied to you this entire thread?

Chase your own tail.

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
You're misinterpreting that OT verse as well. That's all.

I shall be honest here, I believe it is you who is misinterpreting both Acts 1 and the OT verse that she quoted.

It is very clear what Jesus meant in Acts 1, to wait to be baptized by the Holy Spirit.

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Rick Otto said:
Chase your own tail.

Naw, I think I am all set, but thank you.

Wow haven't seen that video in a long time. Way to dodge my question though, don't think I didn't notice.

Might I suggest getting some sleep? That might help why you are seem so angry right now.

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Rick Otto said:
Perhaps disingenuous was a poorly chosen word.
"Spurious" is more appropriate.

Keep on attacking man, it really only makes me laugh. Thank you for making this such a fun day

Guide To The Bible · Feb 10, 2017

Wolf_Says said:
Yes, Paul was an aposlte, however it does not say 12th apostle like you claim now does it?

Once again I never said it was a regular occurrence, and we would not have half of the NT if it was not for Paul.

But, we also never hear again from the other apostles in the Bible now do we? Their works are not in there, but they were still significant.

Matthias was elected by the 11, after they prayed to God about it. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that this was wrong.

You give me stawman arguments to try and back up your claim, but you still did not quote the entire verse that you are using to state that they disobeyed Jesus in "waiting", because you know that the verse is talking about being baptized by the Holy Spirit, and not selecting a new apostle.

They were told to wait which is passive but instead they took action. But again you're trying to move away from the fact that Paul was chosen by Jesus. This seems to be totally by-the-by for you. As you (incorrectly) point out Paul wrote approximately 32% of the NT, Matthias wrote nothing. Paul was Jesus' chosen. Matthias wasn't. Or do you think Jesus made a mistake and the Apostles got it right? Can't you see how ludicrous you are in suggesting that Matthias was a correct choice for the Apostleship of Judas. Obviously not. May be you just like arguing for the sake of it?

Guide To The Bible · Feb 10, 2017

Wolf_Says said:
I shall be honest here, I believe it is you who is misinterpreting both Acts 1 and the OT verse that she quoted.

It is very clear what Jesus meant in Acts 1, to wait to be baptized by the Holy Spirit.

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

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
They were told to wait which is passive but instead they took action. But again you're trying to move away from the fact that Paul was chosen by Jesus. This seems to be totally by-the-by for you. As you (incorrectly) point out Paul wrote approximately 32% of the NT, Matthias wrote nothing. Paul was Jesus' chosen. Matthias wasn't. Or do you think Jesus made a mistake and the Apostles got it right? Can't you see how ludicrous you are in suggesting that Matthias was a correct choice for the Apostleship of Judas. Obviously not. May be you just like arguing for the sake of it?

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.

JESUS=G.O.A.T · Feb 10, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
Peter and all of them never understood it was problem either but it is because the man made lottery system is open to corruption. With each successive election of pope there is gradual creeping towards selecting from a group that can become increasingly worldly rather than godly. It gradually pushes out God from the selection process and increasingly so over the years that it carry's on for. That is why the Catholic Church is so corrupt. With all there wealth that should be given to help the poor. All the sex scandles. All the inquisitions etc etc..

I won the HS female debate and I'll win this one too because they are true and it is fun to do

Personally I don't believe in the pope being led by God (everyone has their take on this though) but I see now how he could have stemmed from an interpretation (wrong I would say) of what they did in acts. It's hard to say the catholic church wasn't corrupted from the start either though... I mean since middle school we have learned what even some popes of the past did. Of course you look more into the history as you grow but still it's something you learn about since you're little.

Wolf_Says · Feb 10, 2017

Guide To The Bible said:
i'm not disputing that bit. It the other stuff.

You are disputing Acts 1:4 though, as you are using that verse to claim that the rest of Acts 1 is wrong. But the full verse of Acts 1:4 is "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,"

As this verse ends with an incomplete sentence, we must keep reading to verse 5, which reads " for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

This is why they had to wait in Jerusalem, and not to depart. Which the apostles followed. They waited in Jerusalem and did not depart until after they had been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Nowhere does it state that they could not do anything during this time.

Why can't both Matthias and Paul be Apostles?

Where did the Church first go wrong?

Facilitator

Guide To The Bible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Guide To The Bible

Guide To The Bible

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Guide To The Bible

Guide To The Bible

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency