The Role Of Apostasy

[BOMG]

I would surmise that Jesus Christ and His followers were viewed by the church leadership of the time as apostate, and Jesus was down right blasphemous, thus, the end result of His crucifixion.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the questions you are asking. The role of apostasy, it seems, is the same as it always has been. Look to the scriptures and see what role aspostasy has played.

What role did apostasy play after Moses led the Israelited from Egypt? What role did apostasy play all throughout the wanderings in the wilderness? What role did it play after Israel came into the promised land and set up their nation? What role did it play once kings were established in Israel? What role did it play during the time of Nathan, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, and all the other prophets?

Apostasy has always followed God's true teachings, and God has always sent prophets to lead the way back. So is there a role that apostasy plays? Maybe it plays the role of a sifter, or thresher to sift the chaf from the wheat...or maybe it plays the role of refiner's fire.

If prophets were always considered "apostates" by their people, can "apostates" be of God and an apostasy God sanctioned?

[Flyonthewall]

If prophets were always considered "apostates" by their people, can "apostates" be of God and an apostasy God sanctioned?

Jesus and the apostles were most definately "of God", and since the current state of the Jewish people at the time was in apostasy, in that particular instance, true men of God were apostates of an apostate religion.

So in fact, the "apostasy" of Jesus Christ was sanctioned by God...

Prophets were not always considered "apostates" by their people, and the position of "apostasy" is relative to the person that is making the claim.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Flyonthewall

[BOMG]

Jesus and the apostles were most definately "of God", and since the current state of the Jewish people at the time was in apostasy, in that particular instance, true men of God were apostates of an apostate religion.

So in fact, the "apostasy" of Jesus Christ was sanctioned by God...

Prophets were not always considered "apostates" by their people, and the position of "apostasy" is relative to the person that is making the claim.

The call of a prophet has in all cases been to send a corrective message from God. In many cases, that corrective message was to God's people and to His church, which message has always been received with reluctance and chastisement, and in some cases death. Other times to cities and towns over their wicked ways.

On rare occasions corrective measures have come from within church leadership as when Paul chastised Peter in public and when Hinckley, Monson and Packer attempted a "course correction" for in 1990.

The point is, while some would define the word "apostate" and "apostasy" only in a negative light, history has shown that at times it is a time honored tradition and has played significant roles in correcting, reforming or replacing unsavored salt.

[Flyonthewall]

The call of a prophet has in all cases been to send a corrective message from God. In many cases, that corrective message was to God's people and to His church, which message has always been received with reluctance and chastisement, and in some cases death. Other times to cities and towns over their wicked ways.

On rare occasions corrective measures have come from within church leadership as when Paul chastised Peter in public and when Hinckley, Monson and Packer attempted a "course correction" for in 1990.

The point is, while some would define the word "apostate" and "apostasy" only in a negative light, history has shown that at times it is a time honored tradition and has played significant roles in correcting, reforming or replacing unsavored salt.

I still define "apostasy" in a negative light. Falling away from the truth is not a good thing. Falling away from error to the truth is not apostasy.

Though apostate people considered Jesus in apostasy, that didn't make it so. Being aligned with the truth, in my mind anyways, will never be apostasy.

I think I understand what you were trying to say, but not sure I would agree with the concept of Jesus apostasizing to the truth.

[BOMG]

I still define "apostasy" in a negative light. Falling away from the truth is not a good thing. Falling away from error to the truth is not apostasy.

Though apostate people considered Jesus in apostasy, that didn't make it so. Being aligned with the truth, in my mind anyways, will never be apostasy.

I think I understand what you were trying to say, but not sure I would agree with the concept of Jesus apostasizing to the truth.

Here's the definition of apostasy:

"The abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief."

Thus, if a religion changed, those refusing to change with it would be called "apostates" and the adherents of that religion will believe that the seceders are apostatizing from truth or turning against God. Prophets were sent because a person or people had fallen away from the truth. Church members at the time would have viewed those critics as apostates. In fact, the apostates were the ones clinging to truth, not the church.

[Magyar]

a-postasy:

To go away from a position.

If "the position" is wrongful in the eyes of God, then to go away from it is a good thing. If "the position" is the truth, then to go away from it -- as did the many who "walked no more with Jesus" when he taught "hard things" -- is to go into error.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Magyar

[BOMG]

a-postasy:

To go away from a position.

If "the position" is wrongful in the eyes of God, then to go away from it is a good thing. If "the position" is the truth, then to go away from it -- as did the many who "walked no more with Jesus" when he taught "hard things" -- is to go into error.

Well defined!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lets just cut to the case here. Experience has taught me there is a gotcha coming.

[Craig Paxton]

What role did apostasy play in the primitive church?

There is no evidence to suggest that there ever was an organized primitive church à la "The Church of Jesus Christ". The books of the Bible referred to as the Gospels describes an itinerate preacher (Jesus) who did have follows. In fact Jesus never used the term “church” to describe his organization of followers. He never used other church priesthood offices such as bishop, elder (never used to denote an office of the priesthood), deacon or priest (unless referring to Jewish priests). In fact the only title that can be attributed to Jesus is the term apostle…and even then…but that term didn’t even come into existence until the writing of the Gospels some 35 to 50 years AFTER the death of Jesus.

It is also widely believed by biblical scholars that many of the books attributed to Paul that do describe such priesthood offices were forgeries written in the name of Paul and not the writings of Paul at all.

You will note that in the confirmed writings of Paul…his letters are NOT written to any ward bishop or church organizations…but to the followers in their respective region. It is a modern day construct that has been retro planted on the followers of Jesus to conform to modern views that here was a formal organization such as “The Primitive Church of Jesus Christ” It just never existed until decades AFTER the death of both Jesus and this apostles.

So perhaps the first form of apostasy from what Jesus taught was the formation of an organization that consisted of bishops, elders, priests, deacons etc.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[thesometimesaint]

Ephesians 4:11-14

[BOMG]

...So perhaps the first form of apostasy from what Jesus taught was the formation of an organization that consisted of bishops, elders, priests, deacons etc.

The undefined use of the word "church" in the op was not meant to perform the proverbial "gotcha" but rather to elicit a genre of responses that may develop the aspects of the topic. Indeed, a request was given regarding which church it applied, but it was not fully explored. If it can be allowed I'll profer this loosely defined definition of: "a group of believers" which could be applied to both Jew and Christian.

Having established one meaning let us continue with the response by Paxton in light of the op.

The group of Jewish believers during the time of John, Jesus and Paul could be called "The Church" by the definition. Even though the ecclesiastical offices setup by Paul did mirror those of the synagogue, the teaching that Jesus was the Messiah was considered heretical and his adherents considered apostates. Who then birthed the primitive Christian church? Apostates.

Having established the role of apostates in the primitive Christian church, we need not assume (from time to time) that if a church called a seceder an "apostate" they were not in fact repeating a well known pattern and in a way, condoning subconsciously what they could not perform consciously. Just a thought.

[Flyonthewall]

Here's the definition of apostasy:

"The abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief."

Thus, if a religion changed, those refusing to change with it would be called "apostates" and the adherents of that religion will believe that the seceders are apostatizing from truth or turning against God. Prophets were sent because a person or people had fallen away from the truth. Church members at the time would have viewed those critics as apostates. In fact, the apostates were the ones clinging to truth, not the church.

As I said, I think I understand what you are trying to convey, and like a double negative equalling a positive, apostasy from an apostate position(back to the truth) is a good thing. In that way "apostasy" can be good...but it's a qualified apostasy.

I see Jesus as the origin of religous truth, so apostasy from religious truth is true apostasy. A move back to that religious truth, is not true apostasy.