Did Jesus start a Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrift
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adrift

Guest
The thread on Did Jesus start a Catholic Church is over a 1000 post and probablly will shut down soon.
I would like to change the question slightly. Did Jesus start a Church?
How would you describe that Church.

My answer is based on the same scripture of the previous thread. No surprise there.

My answer is yes based on Matthew 16:18, John 21 and Acts.

Jesus intended a heiarchy. This did not begin in the New Testament but the old which Jesus came to fulfill. All the sacraments have there roots in the Jewish Scripture. That Jesus intended that the Apostles be the foundation of His Church is found throughout the Gospels and Acts.

I guess this is enough to get started.
 
Jesus started a way of life.

Men started a church.

Jesus died so we could be free…

Men choose to do what they wanted with it.

Jesus started salvation, and through his resurrection confirmed it for all.

<3
 
No matter which “rock” Jesus was speaking of, he said “on this rock I found My Church”

He also said “If he still fails to listen to two or three, take it to the** Church**…”

Seems clear enough. But, just watch…
 
adrift said:
The thread on Did Jesus start a Catholic Church is over a 1000 post and probablly will shut down soon.
I would like to change the question slightly. Did Jesus start a Church?
How would you describe that Church.
Click to expand...
Yes He did. I’d describe it as…well…Catholic + Orthodox. 😃
 
I wonder often, not about whether or not he started a Church as that is pretty obvious, but rather, if he really intended it to be as it is today. Sound harsh or doubting? It’s not really meant to be. I love the Church, her history, the Mass, and everything about it.

What I wonder sometimes is if it was ever really meant to be a government, or heck, country all it’s own. I mean, from a simpletons point of view, mine, the hierarchy is HUGE, canon law, laws, paperwork, so very, very much structure.

I’m not sure what I think he really intended it to be, but at times, again, still loving her, I do wonder if the sheer enormity of the structure of things is what was intended. 😊
 
adrift;:
Did Jesus start a Church?
Click to expand...
Intentionally? Probably not.
Unintentionally? Yes.

His call was a reform of the existing religious institution. One that would abolish the power (political, social, theological) of that religious hierarchy. One that demanded each person to know what they believed, why they believed it, to practice what they believed, and, that if they were to be followers of Him, that their beliefs and practices had to be congruent with what He taught.

jonathon
 
rotlex said:
I wonder often, not about whether or not he started a Church as that is pretty obvious, but rather, if he really intended it to be as it is today. Sound harsh or doubting? It’s not really meant to be. I love the Church, her history, the Mass, and everything about it.

What I wonder sometimes is if it was ever really meant to be a government, or heck, country all it’s own. I mean, from a simpletons point of view, mine, the hierarchy is HUGE, canon law, laws, paperwork, so very, very much structure.

I’m not sure what I think he really intended it to be, but at times, again, still loving her, I do wonder if the sheer enormity of the structure of things is what was intended. 😊
Click to expand...
Jesus said His Church was like a mustard seed that would grow into the largest of plants and that is exaclty what happened to the Church He founded upon Peter.
 
I don’t believe Jesus came to establishe an institutional “church”…but call humanity to a new way of life in the Kingdom of God…no more than did Judaism have an “instituitional” organization that operated as “true Judaism”.
 
rotlex said:
I wonder often, not about whether or not he started a Church as that is pretty obvious, but rather, if he really intended it to be as it is today. Sound harsh or doubting? It’s not really meant to be. I love the Church, her history, the Mass, and everything about it.

What I wonder sometimes is if it was ever really meant to be a government, or heck, country all it’s own. I mean, from a simpletons point of view, mine, the hierarchy is HUGE, canon law, laws, paperwork, so very, very much structure.

I’m not sure what I think he really intended it to be, but at times, again, still loving her, I do wonder if the sheer enormity of the structure of things is what was intended. 😊
Click to expand...
Consider the first US tax code, which consisted mostly of simple tariffs on imported goods. In only 235 years, it has grown into 16,840 pages, covering only the US. And, this is only involving taxation. If you add all other US governmental functions into the picture, the bureaucracy and regulations are nearly immeasurable. Imagine trying to condense God’s revealed truth into words, maintain and teach it to all nations, plus organize and run a worldwide organization of 1.18 billion members, in all known languages and cultures, over almost 2,000 years.

Due to man’s disobedient and disorganized nature, the destructive force of the ego, and the corrosive effects of external political influence, and it is amazing that the Church still exists. Never mind the gates of hell, not even the Internal Revenue Service has prevailed against it.
 
Publisher said:
I don’t believe Jesus came to establishe an institutional “church”…but call humanity to a new way of life in the Kingdom of God…no more than did Judaism have an “instituitional” organization that operated as “true Judaism”.
Click to expand...
What did Jesus do then, in educating and authorizing a select few, granting them unheard of powers and then sending them forth? What is said about those select few in the book of Acts? They conducted a council, which exists only within institutions.

In Acts 5:34-39, we hear of Theudas and also of Judas the Galilean, who had many followers. They were dispersed and their teachings and actions are today otherwise unknown. Why? They were not institutionalized, but rather were only informally organized. Institution is perpetuation. Jesus founded a Church and instituted the Sacraments. They still exist today.

If there is no “Church”, why are you a Quaker instead of merely Christian? The Quaker Church is an institution. For it to continue to exist, it must be.
 
jblake said:
Intentionally? Probably not.
Unintentionally? Yes.

His call was a reform of the existing religious institution. One that would abolish the power (political, social, theological) of that religious hierarchy. One that demanded each person to know what they believed, why they believed it, to practice what they believed, and, that if they were to be followers of Him, that their beliefs and practices had to be congruent with what He taught.

jonathon
Click to expand...
Again, in Matthew 16:18, (and call the “rock” anyone or anything you personally want), Jesus said “I found my Church.” It is the first use of the word in Sacred Scripture. Sounds rather intentional to me.
 
rotlex said:
I wonder often, not about whether or not he started a Church as that is pretty obvious, but rather, if he really intended it to be as it is today. Sound harsh or doubting? It’s not really meant to be. I love the Church, her history, the Mass, and everything about it.

What I wonder sometimes is if it was ever really meant to be a government, or heck, country all it’s own. I mean, from a simpletons point of view, mine, the hierarchy is HUGE, canon law, laws, paperwork, so very, very much structure.

I’m not sure what I think he really intended it to be, but at times, again, still loving her, I do wonder if the sheer enormity of the structure of things is what was intended. 😊
Click to expand...
I agree with the above, but I’d like to add, from my perspective:

I don’t think that the sterile institution is what Jesus had in mind. I think that Jesus lived his life exactly the way he wanted his followers to live. He lived a very modest lifestyle. He lived among the people, caring for the sick, preaching, teaching and advising along the way. There was a fellowship that resulted that is lost today. And he didn’t just care for his followers exclusively, he took care of all who sought him without judgment or condemnation. That’s how he lived. That’s his example to his followers. I believe those are His expectations. He wanted his followers to love each other as He loved us, and to treat each other as He treated us, and He said so. Literally. He told us how He wanted his followers to live, and told us that the way we lived would be representative of Him.

I just can’t see Jesus or Peter, or the Apostles living at the Vatican, flipping through rules, regulations and laws, and threatening condemnation to anyone who didn’t blindly accept those rules, regulations and laws. I just can’t see it. It’s not the Jesus in the Bible.

So, I know that I’m in the minority here, but to me the Church as become a huge entity that places enormous value on Church Laws, and following rules and regulations – and loving God has taken a back seat. It’s all about, “if you don’t do this, you don’t love God”, or “if you do this, then you can’t love God”, or one of my personal favorites, “if you don’t believe this, then you doubt Jesus or the Holy Spirit, Himself”.

Notice, there was no where in the Bible where he said, “I will heal you, but only if you follow me”. Yes, he said, “go and sin no more”, but he didn’t add a post script of hellfire and damnation, or even separation, if they didn’t. He let his followers chew on his words and work it out for themselves.

In fact, throughout the Church’s history, I see a direct contradiction to what I believe Jesus expected of his followers. So, I can’t see Jesus sitting on a throne in the Vatican, telling the king or queen of a country that they can’t belong to the Catholic clique anymore if they don’t obey all his rules and laws, threatening political isolation for that king or queen. And that’s exactly what many of the previous Pope’s (Jesus’ earthly representative) did.

Actually, the previous Pope was probably the most representative of Jesus when he met with worldly leaders because he met with them, and advised him, but there was no formal condemnation or threat of isolation and we know this because many conservatives complain about how the Pope should have excommunicated so-and-so as a result of their meeting.

So I don’t understand how a quote taken from Jesus, Peter or the Apostles is translated and understood to be pages and pages of rules. For example, “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven”. It would be interesting to see the journey of how the original text of those words of Jesus wound up in English, and how the many rules and laws stemmed from it. From my perspective, it looks like that quote has no limitations on how the human element of the Church’s leaders can interpret it and apply it. I don’t think Jesus meant a 1500+ rule book to be written.

So, of course, it would be interesting to see how the original text that journeyed its way though it’s original language to English, “and upon this rock I will build my church” actually started and how it came to be. Sometimes I wonder if they really mean “Church”, or did it mean something that represented “A way of life”.

Just my $0.02…which probably won’t be popular.
 
po18guy said:
If there is no “Church”, why are you a Quaker instead of merely Christian? The Quaker Church is an institution. For it to continue to exist, it must be.
Click to expand...
To me, it is quite incidental that I am a Friend. The reason Friends call their worship times “meeting” is because we believe the Church meets together…it needn’t be among Friends…or Methodists…or Catholics…or Episcopalians…or Mormons…or Jehovah’s Witnesses…“Where two or three are gathered together in my name…there am I in their midst”.

The People of God meet together to worship…how you choose to institutionalize yourself…is up to you…God’s People know no “denominational” boundaries…some may stand…some may sit…some may kneel…some may sing…some may remain silent…it is Christ who moves among us and marks us as His own…not the name in front of the respective meetinghouse.
 
The word “church” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word, ekklesia, which means “to call out.”

It’s true that the church did not officially start until the Day of Pentecost, but since the church is based on the person and work of Christ, it really began with Jesus. He is the one who is ***“calling out” ***people who will call upon Him for salvation. All who do so are automatically members of the body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line is the church belongs to Jesus Christ, and if we belong to Jesus, we are part of that invisible church. Of course, the visible church is important as well, because that’s where we worship the Lord, learn about God’s Word, and engage in the church’s mission to the world. It’s also where we exercise our spiritual gifts as given to each believer by the Holy Spirit.
 
If we choose to make our Church invisible before man, Christ will treat it as invisible before His Father.

I find no teaching or justification for an “invisible church” anywhere in the bible.
 
rev_kevin said:
The word “church” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word, ekklesia, which means “to call out.”

It’s true that the church did not officially start until the Day of Pentecost, but since the church is based on the person and work of Christ, it really began with Jesus. He is the one who is ***“calling out” ***people who will call upon Him for salvation. All who do so are automatically members of the body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line is the church belongs to Jesus Christ, and if we belong to Jesus, we are part of that invisible church. Of course, the visible church is important as well, because that’s where we worship the Lord, learn about God’s Word, and engage in the church’s mission to the world. It’s also where we exercise our spiritual gifts as given to each believer by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Ok, so if the word “church” in the NT comes from the Greek word, ekklesia or “to call out”, do you know what the direct translation of “and upon this rock I will build my church” is? I mean, what was the original text, and word for word, how is it translated?
 
Publisher said:
To me, it is quite incidental that I am a Friend. The reason Friends call their worship times “meeting” is because we believe the Church meets together…it needn’t be among Friends…or Methodists…or Catholics…or Episcopalians…or Mormons…or Jehovah’s Witnesses…“Where two or three are gathered together in my name…there am I in their midst”.

The People of God meet together to worship…how you choose to institutionalize yourself…is up to you…God’s People know no “denominational” boundaries…some may stand…some may sit…some may kneel…some may sing…some may remain silent…it is Christ who moves among us and marks us as His own…not the name in front of the respective meetinghouse.
Click to expand...
Without beliefs held in common, any assemblage is merely a crowd. Even if ‘most’ beliefs are in common, those beliefs which differ only serve to divide, not to unite. You understand that, as Catholics, we are called to deny ourselves (our preferences, our comforts), to take up our crosses and to follow Jesus. It is through obedience, through self-denial and not self-indulgence, that we keep Christ’s commands.

Christ prayed that we be of one accord, unified.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.
 
It kind of boggles my mind that people would think that Christ came, suffered and died for us, in order that nearly 1500 years later some people would tear apart a book that itself was only canonized 350 years after Christ, and would spend their time arguing not only that everything had to be ‘in the book and by the book ONLY’ but also that somehow the Church (you know, the one that Christ spoke of IN THE SAME BOOK) wasn’t ‘right’ or ‘real’ or "Christ-established’. Only the BOOK is to be worshipped and glorified.

We know from Scripture that Christ said, “I will build MY CHURCH”.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say, “And I will write my book, and these are the chapters --and these only–and everybody has to follow this book, even if they disagree over what it says, and in fact what they say is contradictory --because this is what I want Christianity to be --divided, not following my True word, and not following the Church I gave them”. . .

Funny, isn’t it?
 
po18guy said:
Without beliefs held in common, any assemblage is merely a crowd. Even if ‘most’ beliefs are in common, those beliefs which differ only serve to divide, not to unite. You understand that, as Catholics, we are called to deny ourselves (our preferences, our comforts), to take up our crosses and to follow Jesus. It is through obedience, through self-denial and not self-indulgence, that we keep Christ’s commands.

Christ prayed that we be of one accord, unified.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.
Click to expand...
When Friends meet…we meet to worship God and recognize His Presence in our midst…it is not necessary that I beleive like my neighbor…only that I answer “that of God” within them as we join in worship of the Eternal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top