Did Jesus institute a Church in NT?

[CoachSTL]

“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?

 

[Boxie]

God became man to institute the New Covenant.

Jesus did this by establishing a Church.

It is through this Church and its Sacraments that humanity participates in the New Covenant. This is both scriptural and historical. Those who try to refute the notion that Jesus established one single Church tend to ignore the history though.

Jesus did not write a book, he did not come so we could make him our “Lord and personal Savior,” he did not come so we could hold tent-revivals and work on “gettin saved.” He did not come so we could have a “personal relationship” with him. I think you get the idea.

I disagree with everything you just said i don’t know what point you are trying to make but you are dead wrong. Jesus is my personal savior and i do have a personal relationship with him, and if you do not then i highly advise you to do just that.

 

[Boxie]

“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?

God is all powerful and if Jesus is God incarnate then he is All powerful and no power ever gets shifted to any one, Jesus is the way, truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father(GOD) unless by Him!

 

[Boxie]

Here’s the most direct quote from the CCC on the origin of the Church:

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.

The church started before Jesus ever died on the cross, where did you come up with this???

 

[davidv]

The church started before Jesus ever died on the cross, where did you come up with this???

The seed of the Church was planted with the selection of the first disciples.

Mark:

When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."9 For astonishment at the catch of fish they had made seized him and all those with him,10 and likewise James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners of Simon. Jesus said to Simon, "Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men."11 When they brought their boats to the shore, they left everything and followed him. (Luke (NAB) 5)

 

[altabz]

guys help i have problem i countered a baptist and he said that in (mat. 16:18) Christ did not established a Church but only strengthening it…he qouted the original hebrew of those verse how ture is this?pls. help me can anybody recomend to me books that can improve my knowledge about the original language of the scripture like hebrew,aramaic,and greek? pls. email me personaly

 

[altabz]

“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?

nop he didn’t transfer it he just extend it to the apostles and their descendants as physical representative…

 

[CoachSTL]

CoachSTL;6589298:

nop he didn’t transfer it he just extend it to the apostles and their descendants as physical representative…

Meta,
So, you are saying that the Apostles could forgive sins because of Jesus’ “extension” to them,

 

[Boxie]

As a matter of fact, we all have the power to forgive sine of each other, we are told by Jesus to forgive ous our trespassors, as we forgive those who trespass against us.I do believe if you let the sun go down and do not forgive some one they will answer to God some day, forgivness is part of love for thy neighbor and self.

 

[JCMeg56]

,The Church is certainly the the bosom of Christ and the Sacraments are the great conduits of Grace. Especailly the blessed Sacrament. Instead of criticizing our Protestant brothers for what little they have, we should amaze them with the wonder of what they have not.

Amen! and thank you, my friend. I am a new convert (from the Church of God, Anderson Indiana movement) and I, like Scott Hahn, see my new catholic faith as an addition and no subtraction. The liturgy and the sacraments and the communion of saints and the incredible history of the Church are providing me a full and rich experience of Christ and uniting me with His purposes in establishing His Church. I feel like I’ve found a TREASURE which I have only just BEGUN to mine! And, importantly, I feel SAFE in the ark of her truth and the protection of the magesterium (sp?) – a big deal as I witnessed my old church splinter and desinegrate before my eyes over doctrinal and worship style differences with no authority to guide/correct it.

 

[altabz]

altabz;6591808:

Meta,
So, you are saying that the Apostles could forgive sins because of Jesus’ “extension” to them,

will actualy let’s put it like this 4 example u want to get a legal doucment since u can’t take it personaly 4 whatever reason u will hire and atty. to get it u will sign a document granting d lawyer authority to get the document. (power of attorney) the lawyer will get d document not b’coz he had authority to get it but u grant it to him in ur behalf, it is ur power actualy that he brought to get d documents.

and confession is just like that it’s not d apostles personal power Jesus grant power to his apostles and descendants…to 4 give sins in his behalf power of attorney in our human terms.

i hope my comparison example help you…

 

[Boxie]

guys help i have problem i countered a baptist and he said that in (mat. 16:18) Christ did not established a Church but only strengthening it…he qouted the original hebrew of those verse how ture is this?pls. help me can anybody recomend to me books that can improve my knowledge about the original language of the scripture like hebrew,aramaic,and greek? pls. email me personaly

PLease if you are interested in books and learning go to the hebrews because after that the greeks translation, there were things taken out and i was reading this last night because i want to learn the old way the way it was truly written and most of those manuscropts were either destroyed or the vatican has them. Get hold of a realy old library and ask them to find you the original hebrew broken down into english and you might find this to be a better translation for your studies.

 

[Lapell]

I think the clearest sign that I may be wrong would be CCC 874. I see what it says and am not exactly sure that it is “against” what I am saying but it may be a vocabulary issue.

I am having trouble finding any Catechism references that divorce the historical Jewish Church from the new Church of Christ that you are referencing. It may be that I am mis-using the word Church and it is synonymous with covenant such that a new covenant is a new Church. If it is, then that of course would be the root of the problem.

The problem I am having is in seeing your point that the Church of Christ was not the Jewish Church prior to the coming of Christ. I do not believe the current Jewish church is legitimate in any way and the covenant with which they base their religion, while still containing some truth, is not the complete Truth.

Actually, I don’t see anywhere that Covenant would automatically mean Church (which means: assembly)One may come with the other, but it doesn’t make them one and the same thing! Just as the Son always come with the Father and the Holy Spirit together, but that doesn’t make the Son being the Father and the Holy Spirit. They come together, they are really One God, but somehow the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons…

 

[CoachSTL]

CoachSTL;6592321:

will actualy let’s put it like this 4 example u want to get a legal doucment since u can’t take it personaly 4 whatever reason u will hire and atty. to get it u will sign a document granting d lawyer authority to get the document. (power of attorney) the lawyer will get d document not b’coz he had authority to get it but u grant it to him in ur behalf, it is ur power actualy that he brought to get d documents.

and confession is just like that it’s not d apostles personal power Jesus grant power to his apostles and descendants…to 4 give sins in his behalf power of attorney in our human terms.

i hope my comparison example help you…

altbaz,

You are making it too tricky. Simply put, Jesus gave the Apostles His authority to absolve the sins of men and women here on earth and His Authority to pass on His authority to other men. While it is not the human person of the Apostle that forgives the sin, it is actually Jesus or God who does it, the agent that God uses is the human person wiht the authority.

 

[Lapell]

Actually, I don’t see anywhere that Covenant would automatically mean Church (which means: assembly)One may come with the other, but it doesn’t make them one and the same thing! Just as the Son always come with the Father and the Holy Spirit together, but that doesn’t make the Son being the Father and the Holy Spirit. They come together, they are really One God, but somehow the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons…

Now, OchsFam, the coming of the Messiah, and the fact that He happened to be God the Son made man, the rejection of His claim by most Jews who thought Him to actually be an impostor, all that called for a separate assembly for the disciples of this Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. The coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost Day was crucial, and He was sent both by the Father and Jesus the Son. And that’s how the Church really began, though Jesus had chosen and instituted the Apostles and instituted the Eucharist before that.

 

[CoachSTL]

My point: Since the Bible is, for the most part, a book penned by Jews who wrote from a Hebraic cultural and theological frame of reference, I think it is important to consider these things in interpreting the meaning of the scriptures, particularly in reference to NT theology. Gentile Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, haven’t always taken the Hebraic context into consideration.

Meta,

This statement is purely Protestant. Here is why. Because you (or any non-catholic) have not accepted the truth about the Bible and how it was formed, you can only try to interpret its meaning and why it was formed. You were not there to see it formed!

The Bible was formed by Catholic people and written by believers who were Catholic. This is historical fact, not interpretation. What the Catholic Church teaches about the Bible is the truth handed down from generation to generation. Your teaching is only theory. What else can it be?

To “consider these things in interpreting the meaning of scriptures…” is only a Protestant way of trying to sound as if you have done all that you can do in order to understand the meaning of the NT.

One cannot ever know the true meaning behind the words of the NT unless one has the true knowledge about what was written and why. One cannot possibly “interpret” the truth behind the meaning of the words with out the true knowledge of their use.

 

[Lapell]

The NT is not the first instance in which the Greek word for church (ekklesia) is used. It was used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT–which was the translation used by the NT Church in spreading the Gospel. Often, but not always, it referred to the congregation of Israelites.

What Jesus DID inaugurate, through the shedding of His blood, was the New Covenant --a covenant which according to Jeremiah 31:31ff was very specifically made with “the house of Israel” and 'the house of Judah"–i.e., the Israelite (Jewish) people. Thus, it is understandable why NT Jewish Christians struggled to understand how non-Jewish believers in Jesus could be saved outside of becoming converts to Judaism. Cornelius and his household’s receiving of the Holy Spirit (which, if you study the covenants of the Bible, is the seal of the New Covenant) laid the foundation for the Council of Jerusalem’s decision about “the Gentile question” of Acts 15. In Ephesians 2, St. Paul explains how the Gentiles were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,” “strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world”–but through the blood of Christ became “fellow citizens with the [Jewish] saints and of the household of God.” Jesus death not only brought a new covenant for the Jewish people who received Him, but it opened the door for believing Gentiles to become part of the covenant people of Israel.

“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.

My point: Since the Bible is, for the most part, a book penned by Jews who wrote from a Hebraic cultural and theological frame of reference, I think it is important to consider these things in interpreting the meaning of the scriptures, particularly in reference to NT theology. Gentile Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, haven’t always taken the Hebraic context into consideration.

I agree that the NT is indeed in continuity with the OT, and I thought the Protestant view would rather tend to deny it than affirm it. I also agree that the worldview expressed in the NT as well as in the OT is mainly Hebraic, and the Hebraic source is God’s revelation to the Israelites, especially at Mt. Sinai.
But with the Jewish authorities having rejected Jesus as their Messiah on account of what they thought to be outrageous blsphemy, there had to be a separation of assemblies. So yes there was the Jewish k-h-l (assembly, in Greek ekklesia), but the Christian one specifically incorporated the teachings of the Christ which brought the Jewish teachings even further, especially the Eucharist instituted by Jesus Himself.

 

[Metamorphoo]

Meta,

This statement is purely Protestant. Here is why. Because you (or any non-catholic) have not accepted the truth about the Bible and how it was formed, you can only try to interpret its meaning and why it was formed. You were not there to see it formed!

The Bible was formed by Catholic people and written by believers who were Catholic. This is historical fact, not interpretation. What the Catholic Church teaches about the Bible is the truth handed down from generation to generation. Your teaching is only theory. What else can it be?

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.

To “consider these things in interpreting the meaning of scriptures…” is only a Protestant way of trying to sound as if you have done all that you can do in order to understand the meaning of the NT.
One cannot ever know the true meaning behind the words of the NT unless one has the true knowledge about what was written and why. One cannot possibly “interpret” the truth behind the meaning of the words with out the true knowledge of their use.

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.

 

[Metamorphoo]

I agree that the NT is indeed in continuity with the OT, and I thought the Protestant view would rather tend to deny it than affirm it. I also agree that the worldview expressed in the NT as well as in the OT is mainly Hebraic, and the Hebraic source is God’s revelation to the Israelites, especially at Mt. Sinai.
But with the Jewish authorities having rejected Jesus as their Messiah on account of what they thought to be outrageous blsphemy, there had to be a separation of assemblies. So yes there was the Jewish k-h-l (assembly, in Greek ekklesia), but the Christian one specifically incorporated the teachings of the Christ which brought the Jewish teachings even further, especially the Eucharist instituted by Jesus Himself.

I do not know the RCC position, but you are probably accurate in stating that there is a divide in the mind of most Protestants between the OT and NT. I did not see it myself until about 8 years ago. And yes, I agree that there had to be a separation in worship due to the differences in belief about who Jesus was and is. But in that separation, the (Gentile-dominated) Church squeezed out the voice of Jewish believers as well. Jewish Christians essentially had to live like Gentiles in order to be considered authentic followers of Christ. I don’t think that was what Christ would have desired.

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.

 

[Boxie]

I do not know the RCC position, but you are probably accurate in stating that there is a divide in the mind of most Protestants between the OT and NT. I did not see it myself until about 8 years ago. And yes, I agree that there had to be a separation in worship due to the differences in belief about who Jesus was and is. But in that separation, the (Gentile-dominated) Church squeezed out the voice of Jewish believers as well. Jewish Christians essentially had to live like Gentiles in order to be considered authentic followers of Christ. I don’t think that was what Christ would have desired.

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.

:thumbsup:Correct, and I am in the middle of a study about this now and if the bible were left untouched and still in the Hebrew instead of being put into Greek, and lost allot of it’s meanings, and then Latin and again was misinterpreted in allot of the New Testament or (on going old testament) because there is only one true testament and that has been very distorted by being broken down in so many languages that people fight over who is right about this or that when they are both wrong about most of what they learned coming out the gate. The bible belongs to the Jewish-Christian they know the deeper truths.