Where did the Church first go wrong?

[DrBubbaLove]

No, I said if you have the Holy Spirit, even without it could be possible, for anything is possible with God.

Apparently this is not the belief that started this thread however, Peter their appointed by God leader "stood up" and made a case that they should replace the missing seat. Discussion followed, no doubt about who among the group of the faithful disciples of Jesus might qualify for consideration. They considered all the people, starting from the first called to the end of His mission and apparently arrived at only two names. They prayed that God would lead them in picking between those two with a faith God would help them do so, moving them to act just as He had when He asked them to follow. The election that followed would be His response to moving each of them. So am interested in knowing why such a process seems so wrong. Was it that should have not listened to the pleadings of the man God made their leader? Was it that should not have prayed about it?
You implied they should have waited for Saint Paul's calling which you suggest occurs weeks later. Tradition is that Saint Stephen is one of the first and oldest of the first deacons of the Church, men elected and appointed to address the need to look after the widows in the Church. So the idea Saint Paul's conversion occurs only a few weeks after the election of Mathias is hardly supported by Scripture itself. In fact many would support a death of the first martyr closer to 36AD.

All the growth in both numbers and maturity of those 12 men's leadership roles that would need to occur from Chapter 1 to even having a Church body big enough to start appointing Saint Stephen an administrative roles within as specific as including looking after Greek speaking widows within the Church would not have been possible in just a few weeks. So the premise they would only need to have waited on the Lord a few weeks to fill what Saint Peter saw as an important position within the Church is simply not valid.

 

[Albion]

That's your novel interpretation. You may find your novel interpretation compelling, but I see it as without any warrant. Peter called for a successor to Judas and his place was filled. They waited in Jerusalem and while waiting brought the number of apostles back up to twelve.

...and all this happened in a council chaired by James, not Peter, and in Jerusalem (as you noted) where James was the host and bishop ordinary, not Peter.

 

[Thursday]

Thanks for your post. However, Peter was not considered to be any "earthly head" during the first several centuries of Christian history. No bishop of Rome even claimed such a thing until about four centuries later. That Peter was influential...or a leader...or the spokesman...or highly regarded by Christ is true. But this does not constitute being the "earthly leader" of the church, and that is the claim that I specifically responded to in my post.

You stated the following and I proved you wrong:

There isn't any indication from scripture that Peter was the "earthly head" of the church, though.

There is ample indication, and I provided more than enough to prove you wrong already. You are tied to your man made dogma, however, and aren't really interested.

In case some are interested in the indications from scripture for Peter's leadership role:

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), except Galatians 2. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).

2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).

3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2).

4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

9. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-26), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.

—Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

 

[Light of the East]

One and it is His, not the popes. Not any of the popes. Not even Peter.

Then why don't you belong to it instead of running off Lone Ranger style to do your own thing?

The congregation of God (eklessia or "church") of the first century had one set of teachings, not thousands, one set of heads, not everyone being his own little pope, and one place of worship with similarities in worship, not hundreds of styles from the Jimmy Swaggart Traveling Dog and Pony Show to the Dour Reformation Hour.

In other words, there was unity, and as the Church grew from a mustard seed to the full grown tree of the apostolic succession, that unity became more and more clear as councils answered the challenges of heretics and the tough questions about theology. But even by the early second century, that one Church came to be called "katholicos," which is understood to mean "of the fullness" or "universal."

No other Church existed until the Protestant Rebellion in the 16th century. Therefore, I ask you again, why are you not part of the Church which goes all the way back to the beginning?

 

[Dave-W]

What I am saying is that the casting of lots is OT and is not for the Church. If they had of just 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.

Your logic is based on the same thing our catholic brother is saying which pre-supposes a hard break between OT Judaism and New Covenant reality. That is replacement theology and needs to be rooted out of the church in every sector. Off the rails.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What I am saying is that the casting of lots is OT and is not for the Church. If they had of just 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. We are actually more on the same page actually: "I think it is far more relevant to consider how we all can be more like Matthias and pick up the commission Judas failed at."

Casting of lots though would have been what these Jewish men knew to be a valid process for such important matters in which the Lord had also participated in the past. It is hardly even imaginable that a very short time after the Lord had left them one could declare they had abandoned their Jewish traditions or their belief that the Lord would answer their prayer in following those traditions. Again another declaration that has no merit at all.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Q: Where did the "Church" first go wrong?

A: The "CHURCH" NEVER goes wrong!

The "CHURCH" has never gone wrong and it never will!! The Church is led and protected by its Head: Jesus the Divine Christ. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it. God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, guides all believers toward the will of the TRI-UNE GOD until the end of the world, when the Church, the Bride of Christ, will be eternally united with Him.

The "CHURCH" ("The Living Church?") is the collective "Body" of BELIEVERS, the members of the "Body of Christ" who are permanently indwelt by God the Holy Spirit at the time of their Salvation. The "Head" and the "Corner Stone" of the CHURCH is God the Son, the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, The Divine Messiah, The God-Man.

He is the "Bridegroom".

Revelations 22: 17 The (God the Holy) Spirit and the "bride" (CHURCH) say, "Come "

Its "building blocks" are the "Grace through Faith" good news which guides the estranged to become a saved BODY + SOUL + SPIRIT. Gospel of the CHURCH: Jesus the Divine Messaiah has COME to save Man from the prison of his sins.

Ephesians 4: 2-6; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 22:16; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 21:42-45

Matthew 16...Peter’s Confession of Christ = "this rock"
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah;
but still others, Jeremiah, or
one of the prophets."
15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (God the Son, the Divine Messaiah)
17 And Jesus said to him,
"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona,
because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you (your spirit), but My Father who is in heaven.
18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon "this ROCK" I will build My "church"; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; (Jesus has them!)and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. (The Divine Messaiah, Son of God)

Peter,...Greek 4074...Petros...Peter = "a rock or a stone" = masculine (Rocky?)

rock...Greek 4073...petra...= feminine = metaphor: a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

"this ROCK" = the stated spiritual revelation to Simon Barjona that Jesus the Christ was Divine (Son of God)

church;...Greek 1577...ekklesia...
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly the whole BODY of Christians scattered throughout the earth...The BODY of Christ

 

[chevyontheriver]

Apparently this is not the belief that started this thread however, Peter their appointed by God leader "stood up" and made a case that they should replace the missing seat. Discussion followed, no doubt about who among the group of the faithful disciples of Jesus might qualify for consideration. They considered all the people, starting from the first called to the end of His mission and apparently arrived at only two names. They prayed that God would lead them in picking between those two with a faith God would help them do so, moving them to act just as He had when He asked them to follow. The election that followed would be His response to moving each of them. So am interested in knowing why such a process seems so wrong. Was it that should have not listened to the pleadings of the man God made their leader? Was it that should not have prayed about it?
You implied they should have waited for Saint Paul's calling which you suggest occurs weeks later. Tradition is that Saint Stephen is one of the first and oldest of the first deacons of the Church, men elected and appointed to address the need to look after the widows in the Church. So the idea Saint Paul's conversion occurs only a few weeks after the election of Mathias is hardly supported by Scripture itself. In fact many would support a death of the first martyr closer to 36AD.

All the growth in both numbers and maturity of those 12 men's leadership roles that would need to occur from Chapter 1 to even having a Church body big enough to start appointing Saint Stephen an administrative roles within as specific as including looking after Greek speaking widows within the Church would not have been possible in just a few weeks. So the premise they would only need to have waited on the Lord a few weeks to fill what Saint Peter saw as an important position within the Church is simply not valid.

I think the original poster thinks that the seat should have gone unfilled until Saul of Tarsus came along to claim it, that Saul of Tarsus was the God intended 12th apostle. Very neat and tidy. Except it is subversive of Luke's canonical narrative.

 

[Dave-W]

2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).

But you realize that in Aramaic "Kefa" was an insult. When someone was called that it meant "rock" as in "dumb as a rock."

 

[Aelialicinia]

The Church -Ekklisia - those who are "called out" - has never gone wrong or astray. The Orthodox Church of the East and now all over the world has remained true to its genesis with Christ the Lord at Pentecost.

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.

 

[Danbha]

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:

I don't think that your quote backs up what you are asserting. If you look at it, it says, "Do not leave...but wait" the "but" is directly related to "don't leave" not to the choosing of another apostle. Don't blame the Apostles for how their actions, and the scripture that records them, were twisted by later frauds to justify their own nefarious use.

I believe that the biggest mistake the "church" made was when it was subsumed by the Roman government under Eusebius and Constantine, blended with the Mithra cult (including the role of Pontificus Maximus, priests, nuns, monks, Madonna worship, etc), adopted Mass (from Masa, the sun disc wafers representing Ba'al, the sun-god, whose body it was supposed to represent [hence the word canniba'al]), and the mystery cult ceremonial structure. Then, once the government proclaimed "Christianity" the official state religion, they promptly outlawed all other forms of it that weren't "orthodox" and drove the true church underground. What's amazing is that despite all of this, true believers still emerged from this new, Christianized Mithra cult. They would pop up now and then, be labeled heretics and killed (see Foxes Book of the Martyrs), until Martin Luther. True believers STILL emerge from the RC church despite all of this. but that just shows you the power of God, not the rightness of the organization.

 

[Aelialicinia]

The Church -Ekklisia - those who are "called out" - has never gone wrong or astray. The Orthodox Church of the East and now all over the world has remained true to its genesis with Christ the Lord at Pentecost.

 

[Dave-W]

I think the original poster thinks that the seat should have gone unfilled until Saul of Tarsus came along to claim it,

Yeah - I got that. So it would have been vacant for almost a decade.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What I am saying is that the casting of lots is OT and is not for the Church. If they had of just 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. We are actually more on the same page actually: "I think it is far more relevant to consider how we all can be more like Matthias and pick up the commission Judas failed at."

Again, Saint Paul's conversion is probably at least a year or more after the events depicted in Acts 1. Many place the first martyr's death around the year 36AD. Whether that is valid or not, the role Saint Stephen was elected to and operating in when he was condemned to die would not have been something occuring within weeks of Matthias's election. The Church could not even be said to have really formed such an administrative role, much less function, weeks after that event.

 

[Albion]

But you realize that in Aramaic "Kefa" was an insult. When someone was called that it meant "rock" as in "dumb as a rock."

What's more, if we read a few verses after that one, we see Jesus calling Peter "Satan" in response to his lack of faith. It is obvious that the name (Rock) doesn't confer any permanent status (Pope) upon Peter, nor does it even refer to a leadership position.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Yes Luke seems to think it was okay and as a consequence the reader does too but it was not the right thing to do by God or Jesus.

I think we are all done here, as the OP has clearly stated here that he believes that the Bible is wrong.

 

[Wolf_Says]

What's more, if we read a few verses after that one, we see Jesus calling Peter "Satan" in response to his lack of faith. It is obvious that the name (Rock) doesn't confer any permanent status (Pope) upon Peter, nor does it even refer to a leadership position.

Well look who it is, what's up Albion! Long time no see, hope things are well?

Yes Jesus did, because as the head of the apostles, Peter carried the most amount of responsibility and therefore needed to be rebuked in kind.

Very simple.

 

[Dave-W]

Cornelius was the first gentile Christian,

Yes and no. Cornelius was a "God Fearer." That was someone who was a convert to Judaism in everything except the final step which was circumcision. Jarius and the Roman Centurion with the ill servant were also God Fearers.

 

[Albion]

Well look who it is, what's up Albion! Long time no see, hope things are well?

Thank you, Wolf. No, there was nothing special in my absence of several months.

Yes Jesus did, because as the head of the apostles, Peter carried the most amount of responsibility and therefore needed to be rebuked in kind.

Very simple.

Very fanciful, I'd say. There is nothing to substantiate that theory from Scripture. It sounds logical, all right, but it's just a supposition and assumes that "responsibility" must mean "earthly head," which of course does not follow.

 

[Light of the East]

Q: Where did the "Church" first go wrong?

A: The "CHURCH" NEVER goes wrong!

The "CHURCH" has never gone wrong and it never will!! The Church is led and protected by its Head: Jesus the Divine Christ. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it. God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, guides all believers toward the will of the TRI-UNE GOD until the end of the world, when the Church, the Bride of Christ, will be eternally united with Him.

The "CHURCH" ("The Living Church?") is the collective "Body" of BELIEVERS, the members of the "Body of Christ" who are permanently indwelt by God the Holy Spirit at the time of their Salvation. The "Head" and the "Corner Stone" of the CHURCH is God the Son, the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, The Divine Messiah, The God-Man.

Utterly wrong. Totally unbiblical. When the congregation (edah in Hebrew, or eklessia in Greek, meaning the Church or congregation of God) is spoken of in the Bible, there is no idea of some fantastic "invisible body of believers." That is a Protestant fantasy made up to deny the authority of the Church to the massa damnata so that those poor, ignorant souls in Europe would follow the smooth-talking leaders of the rebellion against the Church.

Whenever the congregation of God is spoken of in Scripture, it means a visible congregation with a visible structure of worship which has been given by God and is not to be tampered with by man, as the Reformers did. Look at how God warns Moses against such tampering with His worship:

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

That word "admonished" is no small warning. It is strict and stern, and is a dire warning not to have man's ideas put into God's worship as the Reformers did, which led to the theological Dog and Pony Show we have today.

Furthermore, the Church has hierarchical leadership over it, again something which is not found in non-Catholic, non-Orthodox congregations. Where are the bishops and priests in Protestant Fundamentalist Baptist assemblies and why do they not have them if they are spoken of in the Bible.

Protestant groups reject the worship of the Early Church, weaves their own song and dance out of thin air, dispute with every other Protestant body over doctrine and morals, and then pretends they is the "Church." This is a bad joke.