Did Jesus institute a Church in NT?

[CoachSTL]

How can you say that the Bible was written by Catholics? Even if we disagree whether the writers of the NT were (mostly) Jewish believers or Catholic, the OT writers were, without a doubt, Jewish … and that is a historical fact, not a merely Protestant interpretation. There was no “universal” church in the OT. All of the OT books were written by Jews. None were penned by Gentiles. Gentiles were “grafted in” through Christ.

I do not profess to know everything. But I do know that for the vast majority of Christian history, its Jewish heritage has been eschewed by a Gentile-dominated Church. It is only in recent decades that a surge of interest in Christianity’s Jewish beginnings occurred.

That was the point behind my remark. The meaning of words/phrases should be carefully considered, bearing in mind the cultural/theological context of the individuals who wrote them. For the most part, the people who wrote the OT and NT were Jewish and observed Jewish religious customs. I simply stated that the meaning of the phrase “bind and loose” did not carry the authority to forgive sins within the context of 1st century Judaism. I stand behind my original statement.

Meta,

I can say that the writers were Catholic and catholic because of what they believed. I think your problem with what I am saying has to do with the fact that you do not fully understand what the word Catholic truly means.

There is only one Teaching of Christ that is His, not two or more. Jesus did not teach Peter to proclaim to others one type of Christianity, and then John another. All of the Apostles were taught the same things by Christ, and because they all chose to beleive what Christ taught them, made them catholic and Catholic. They did not pick and choose which parts of Jesus’ teachings they would follow and teach others.

The “versions” of Christianity that exist now are man-instituted only because people have come to believe the man-instituted-teaching that they alone can interpret the NT, establish thier own religion and then call it Christianity because they attained their ideas from the Bible (oh yes, and then proclaim that the Holy Spirit tells them so).

The people who wrote the books and letters of the NT believed in all of the things that Christ passed on to the Apostles to teach. I, like every other Christian who is Catholic, beleives to be true, the same things that the writers of the of the NT believed to be true, and those who decided which books and letters would be the Bible. THIS unified belief is what makes Christianity catholic. THIS unification is a result of Jesus’ teaching passed on through the years. This unified belief is here because Jesus promised he would never leave His Church and the powers of hell could never overcome it.

I am Christian, catholic, and Catholic because I am a decendant of Jewish beleivers who belieived that Jesus was the Messiah, and because I have chosen to believe all of His teachings passed on through centuries!

The Catholic Church does not interpret the Scriptures, it teaches how the Scriptures enrich our lives. The Catholic Church was not founded by someones interpretation of the Bible. It was founded by a Teaching, and this Teaching started with Jesus, to the Apostles, and so on.

Only a Protestant makes the claim that he/she can interpret the Scriptures for the complete truth of Christ. What else can they do?

 

[Lapell]

I believe that, in some instances, the silencing of the Jewish-Christian voice by Gentile Christians resulted in some misinterpretations of Scripture. We cast aside the people who had the theological and cultural background to help us in understanding the words penned by the Bible’s Jewish writers.

“The silencing of the Jewish-Christian voice by Gentile Christians”? In which instances? How? And by whom? Saul-Paul was of Jewish origin and so were all the first Apostles, you know…

 

[Metamorphoo]

“The silencing of the Jewish-Christian voice by Gentile Christians”? In which instances? How? And by whom? Saul-Paul was of Jewish origin and so were all the first Apostles, you know…

So true that Paul and all the first apostles were of Jewish origin. It was in the post-NT era that this silencing happened. It would take me quite some time to review all of the primary source documents I have read over the years that would be relevant, but I will mention an early example in this post.

The history behind the Quartodeciman controversy (the conflict over Easter v. a Passover observance of the Lord’s death/resurrection) is a relatively early example of the silencing. Eusebius has a number of passages in which he outlines the history behind the Church’s decision to observe Christ’s passion/resurrection outside of its historical and biblical context, the Jewish Passover. His writings reveal that by Polycarp’s day–and Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John–there was already disagreement over the issue.

Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, went to the Roman bishop/pope to advocate for an observance that was in the context of the Passover celebration. Why? **Because that was the custom of John and other apostles whom Polycarp had met!!! ** The Roman bishop disagreed with Polycarp, but the two “agreed to disagree” on the matter and parted in peace.

Later, things were not so cordial among the differing factions. If memory serves me correctly, the person Catholics would call Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor (among the oldest churches in Christendom) because they observed Christ’s death/resurrection within the context of the Passover observance. (The excommunication was temporary, as other Church leaders convinced Victor that he went too far.)

Although the Council of Nicea is best known for its decision on the Arian heresy, it also established the official dating of the Church’s celebration of Christ’s resurrection. According to Eusebius (who quoted a letter from Constantine, who convened the council and wrote a letter explaining the council’s decision to bishops not in attendance), the rationale behind the council’s decision can be summed up in a brief phrase: “we can’t have anything in common with the Jews, the murderers of our Lord.” Don’t take my word for it; look it up and read it for yourself.

That’s why the Christian observance of Christ’s resurrection doesn’t normally fall on the Sunday of the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival. Although I don’t think it is necessarily wrong for Christians to observe Easter outside of a Passover context, I do think the motivation of the council in making this decision was not right, in spite of Constantine’s assertion that the council must have been led by the Spirit in making this decision.

Unfortunately, the lasting impact of that separation is that Gentile Christians typically do not understand the spiritual significance of the biblical feasts (in this case, Passover/Unleavened Bread/Firstfruits) that were fulfilled during Jesus’ first coming. I can’t tell you how much I felt that I had missed out on as a Christian because I had been a believer for years and never understood how God was revealing Christ through the Hebrew calendar that He established. Although we are not bound as believers to observe those customs, I do think we have cheated ourselves from understanding how Jesus is hidden in the OT rituals, etc. It takes away from our understanding of the Scriptures, and it also hinders Christians in reaching Jews with the Gospel. Jews believe that key events in history have happened over and over on the biblical feasts. A Christian who can effectively communicate how Jesus died on Passover and rose on Firstfruits–and the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost (the annual Jewish festival called the Feast of Weeks in the OT)–has a powerful tool in reaching the Jewish people.

Although I can’t personally confirm this, I have read some secondary sources which state that no Jewish-Christian bishops were invited to participate in the Council of Nicea. Those sources claim that the failure to include Jewish-Christian bishopes was a deliberate decision. This, I cannot say. In any case, the Jewish voice was certainly not heard–and it would have been a very valuable one in weighing in on the council’s decision on the matter.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

To sort of get this thread back on track…I think it is interesting that the early Jewish Targums of Isaiah 22 say that the key of the kingdom does not refer merely to a “prime-minister”-like office, but to the taking on of the office of High Priest. Since nearly all scholars agree that the passage in Matthew with Peter as the Rock refers to this passage in the Old Testament, I think it brings on an entirely new significance in favor of the Catholic position on this matter.

As for the passage in Matthew itself (even if you disregard the Targum interpretation), it is rife with Davidic imagery. The term translated as “Church” (ekklesia) is used nearly a hundred times in the OT, often involving litugical gathering of the Jews but even more often by far in regards to litrugical gatherings specifically in a Davidic Kingdom context. Taken with other strong kingdom parallels as well as Temple and Davidic kingdom typology that sees Jesus as the new David/Solomon, it is widely thought that the Davidic Kingdoom was a prototype for the New Kingdom under the new David. A kingdom implies hierarchy. Combine this with the passages that seem to invoke images of ordination, as well as the *office *spoken of in the Isaiah passage, and the motif seems to clearly paint a picture of the early Church being established.

As a side note, the foot washing of Jesus prior to the Last Supper may have added significance. Foot washing was also a liturgical act (EX 30:19, Ch 40) that was used to prep candidates for priestly ordination, and Jesus’ words toward Peter’s refusal (you will have no *part *in me) hails directly back to the Levites having a “part” in YHWH. Just to make the link even stronger, Peter’s response of having his hands and head washed is the anointing the Aaron’s sons had done for their anointing.

Mathias also was elected by the drawing of straws to fulfill the office of Judas. So we have themes of offices, succession, ordination, binding and loosing, forgiveness and retaining of sins, implied infallibility (heaven cannot endorse a lie), the list goes on. Sounds like a Church.

 

[RobinHood]

“Binding and loosing” was a Jewish term that referred to the authority which spiritual leaders (typically, the Sanhedrin) had in making legal decisions and similar types of rulings. Among the Jews, it never included the power to forgive sins, as it does in the RCC.

Meta,

So then, where does the Church come up with the transfer of power from Christ to the Apostles for the forgiveness of sins?

When Jesus said: "“Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20:21)

So the apostles are being sent with the same authority as Jesus Himself was sent. And we see that Jesus was sent with the authority to hand over the authority to forgive sins (John 20:23). Not only do they therefore receive the authority to forgive sins but also the authority to hand down this authority to other approved men as Jesus did to His apostles.

God Bless
RobinHood

 

[CoachSTL]

Jesus is the Church. What more institution do you need to know. Amen!