Did Jesus start a Church?

[po18guy]

Since when is Kepha a bad translation of Aramaic? It means large massive boulder - any way you slice it.

As I pointed out earlier - that’s why Paul refers to Peter as "Cephas" in his letters.

Sorry! I was referring to our separated brothers who will accept a translation of a translation of a translation as long as it differs with the Catholic Church.

 

[po18guy]

The word used there is “εκκλησιαν” or transliterated “eclesia”, which comes from “καλέω”, which is a calling out. εκκλησιαν refers to people, not an institution. An assembly, or a congregation. “Church” as a translation works, only when it is considered to be the people, and not the institution.

jonathon

It is an assembly. A ‘calling out’ is to holiness. Holiness means to be “set apart”. Jesus founded His Church and set it apart by endowing it with four indelible and irreplaceable marks: It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. You can twist translations and transliterations until you choke, but what you end up with will not look, believe or act like the Church that Jesus founded on the apostles.

You use a Greek word to define your invisible institution. Jesus did not speak Greek and did not use that word. How do you justify, from the bible, using different words to define your assembly? By whose authority do you do such a thing? And please don’t be insulted or fly off the hook, just provide the source for your authority.

 

[jblake]

po18guy;:

Jesus did not speak Greek and did not use that word.

The big question here is why the pun exists in the Greek, but not the Aramaic. (I don’t have a copy of the Hebrew text, so I don’t know if it is present there, or not.)

Given how Jewish society at that point in time lived, He probably could fluently speak:

• Hebrew in the synagogue;
• Aramaic to his family;
• Greek to the crowds;
• And maybe even Latin.

The major issue with Him speaking Latin, is that it wasn’t an international language of that era. Granted, you had Roman soldiers in Judea who spoke it as their first language. However, you could trade with them speaking Greek.

What language did Pontius Pilate use, when he interrogated Jesus? Pontius was not born in Judea, nor did he die there. He was the son of a Roman official, who traversed the breadth of the Roman Empire to perform his duty to the emperor.

Remember the surprise when Paul was interrogated, that he could speak the language. Yet neither a translator is mentioned as being present for Jesus’ trial, nor is any surprise about His being able to speak the language, mentioned.

jonathon

 

[po18guy]

Given how Jewish society at that point in time lived, He probably could fluently speak:

The big question for me is why we would consider ourselves somehow superior to the early Church, which formed itself according to the command of Christ. How on earth can we, today, using only the bible, in its multitude of translations - some with clearly man-made agendas - accurately reverse engineer the intent of our Lord from a book, when the early Church is all we need examine? The answer, of course, is that when so examined, that early Church looks far too Catholic for man’s modern tastes.

 

[elvisman]

The word used there is “εκκλησιαν” or transliterated “eclesia”, which comes from “καλέω”, which is a calling out. εκκλησιαν refers to people, not an institution. An assembly, or a congregation. “Church” as a translation works, only when it is considered to be the people, and not the institution.

jonathon

You use the word, “institution” like it is a 4-letter word. I hear this from Protestants all the time: “The Catholic Church is an institution”.

Please explain what you mean by “institution” vs “Church”.

 

[elvisman]

Sorry! I was referring to our separated brothers who will accept a translation of a translation of a translation as long as it differs with the Catholic Church.

No apology necesary!
I was referring to Kevin’s words - not yours. I should have worded it differently.
MY Apologies . . .

 

[elvisman]

We don’t know what languages — note the plural — that Jesus communicated in. Its pretty obvious He could speak Hebrew, and Aramaic. Greek isn’t quite so obvious, but can’t be ruled out, because it was the language of commerce and trade.

That’s where you’re wrong. It is generally accepted among linguistic scholars that the lingua franca among the masses in Palestine in the 1st century was Aramaic.

**You are right in saying that Greek was the language of ****commerce **and trade because it was the universal worldwide language of the day – similar to how Latin became just that a few centuries later.

Michigan-Clairmont Transliteration of the Aramaic

(Mat 16:18 Peshitta-T)
)P )N) )MR )N) LK D)NT HW K)P) W(L HD) K)P) )BNYH L(DTY WTR() D$YWL L) NXSNWNH

And the Aramaic from the Peshitta.
Mat 16:18 ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ ܀

If Aramaic were the original, why would the pun be in the Greek, but not the Aramaic? It isn’t like there aren’t other passages where the Aramaic pun is also found in the Greek.

What** pun****? It was a comparison – not a pun.**

The Petros/Petra argument is silly at its very foundation. If this were the case, the conversation would have been something like this (which is totally absurd) - as Karl Keating so eloquently puts it:
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matt. 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say:
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context.

The more usual hypothesis is that it was written in Hebrew, and translated into Greek. Regardless, the language(s) that the audience used don’t tell us much, if anything about the language(s) He used.

OTOH, if you are trying to push Aramaic Primacy…

**Nope – my mistake. I meant Hebrew. Matthew’s Gospel was written to the Jews. in a way that was uniquely understandable to them.

What the Bible does not mention, is what the word that he wrote in the sand was.
jonathon

Write** again! Now THAT’s a pun . . .**

 

[jmcrae]

He did not create it. Man created it. Its creation was a side-effect of the corruption of His message by His followers.

So, before even writing one word of the New Testament, the Apostles were already corrupting the message of the Gospel, by ordaining Deacons and Bishops who were under their authority, and themselves under the authority of Peter?

How can you trust anything, then?

If you are willing to recognise the first post-Acts council that was held, and hold to what it declared to be canonical, I’ll concede that point. However, if you do accept that council, you will be accepting a council that the Catholic Church rejected in tota.

I said nothing about any Council. I am speaking of Pope Innocent I, who by the power of the Key of Peter infallibly declared the canon of the New Testament in 405 AD. The rest is irrelevant.

 

[jmcrae]

The big question here is why the pun exists in the Greek, but not the Aramaic. (I don’t have a copy of the Hebrew text, so I don’t know if it is present there, or not.)

Given how Jewish society at that point in time lived, He probably could fluently speak:

• Hebrew in the synagogue;
• Aramaic to his family;
• Greek to the crowds;
• And maybe even Latin.

He probably could. That’s not the issue.

The issue is, Jesus would not have been speaking Greek to His own Apostles, during a private conversation.

 

[Rence]

So, before even writing one word of the New Testament, the Apostles were already corrupting the message of the Gospel, by ordaining Deacons and Bishops who were under their authority, and themselves under the authority of Peter?

How can you trust anything, then?

But they don’t trust anything then. That’s the point. Non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has evolved from a community and way of life set in motion by Jesus, into “a side-effect of the corruption of His message by His followers”.

 

[jmcrae]

But they don’t trust anything then. That’s the point. Non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has evolved from a community and way of life set in motion by Jesus, into “a side-effect of the corruption of His message by His followers”.

That part, I get.

What I don’t get is, on what does one base any non-Catholic form of Christianity, if the New Testament was written by corrupted officials?

The structures of the Catholic Church were already in place by 50 AD with a Papacy and Bishops and authority, including regulations governing the Sacraments, married life, and the clergy throughout the whole world - the first word of the New Testament was written in 63 AD. So, the Church had been “corrupted” for more than a decade before any part of the New Testament came into existence. Which blows “Bible alone” straight to nowhere.

 

[Rence]

That part, I get.

What I don’t get is, on what does one base any non-Catholic form of Christianity, if the New Testament was written by corrupted officials?

The structures of the Catholic Church were already in place by 50 AD with a Papacy and Bishops and authority, including regulations governing the Sacraments, married life, and the clergy throughout the whole world - the first word of the New Testament was written in 63 AD. So, the Church had been “corrupted” for more than a decade before any part of the New Testament came into existence. Which blows “Bible alone” straight to nowhere.

The Vatican was the only entity with access to the material, freedom of religion didn’t exist then, and the sects we have today didn’t exist to ask for access to the material. The NT wasn’t written by those who were perceived to be corrupted officials. The writings of the NT came from the Apostles and Disciples. It was compiled into a collection of writings by those who were perceived to be corrupted officials. Therefore, there is no reason for the non-Catholic Christians to not go by “Bible alone” because it’s the only access they have to the many writings in the Vatican library.

 

[jmcrae]

The Vatican was the only entity with access to the material, freedom of religion didn’t exist then, and the sects we have today didn’t exist to ask for access to the material. The NT wasn’t written by those who were perceived to be corrupted officials.

IF we say that the structure of Pope and Bishops is “corrupted” then at the time that the Apostles were writing the New Testament (that is to say, when they were acting as the Pope and Bishops of an organized Church) they were already “corrupted” by that definition.

 

[po18guy]

You use the word, "institution" like it is a 4-letter word. I hear this from Protestants all the time: “The Catholic Church is an institution”.

Please explain what you mean by “institution” vs “Church”.

And, while he is at it, he might also give he scripture verses in which Jesus either authorizes or commands that the Church be invisible. Since our Lord knows us by our fruits, are those fruits also to be invisible? It would appear to me that some consider the Church to be no more than a mental state. The fabrication of OSAS and the “sinner’s prayer” seem to back this concept up.

 

[po18guy]

**No **apology necesary!

I have a lot of experience apologizing for lots of things…

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Watch me plagiarize myself here since this thread still has some life in it…This was my answer to the original thread from whence this one sprung to life…

I believe Jesus started the Catholic Church because the bible and the first 1500 years of church history tell me so.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16:16-19[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus founds Church on Peter…

[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 22:20-25[/BIBLEDRB]

…Referencing this passage in Isaiah…

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:15-19[/BIBLEDRB]

…Tells Peter…"Yo, Rock I gotta go, take care of my sheep…

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 1:15-21[/BIBLEDRB]
…Peter assumes control and appoints the first of 2000 years of folks into a line of apostolic succession…

1800 years later Jesus’ Mama appears to a young woman in France and tells her “I am the Immaculate Conception…” confirming one of only two Dogmas ever issued Ex Cathedra in Church history…

 

[Rence]

IF we say that the structure of Pope and Bishops is “corrupted” then at the time that the Apostles were writing the New Testament (that is to say, when they were acting as the Pope and Bishops of an organized Church) they were already “corrupted” by that definition.

But they still aren’t the ones who wrote the collection of writings in the Bible. These are still words of the Apostles and disciples of Christ. So it makes perfect sense to me that the non-Catholic Christians trust its contents.

 

[jmcrae]

But they still aren’t the ones who wrote the collection of writings in the Bible.

Yes, they are.

These are still words of the Apostles and disciples of Christ.

The Apostles and the disciples of Christ were the original Pope and College of Bishops - the same people who wrote the books of the New Testament.

There weren’t some different people who came along and suddenly took over to become the Pope and the College of Bishops - it was the Apostles and the disciples of Christ who were the Pope and the College of Bishops, during the first century, right from Pentecost.

 

[Rence]

Yes, they are.

No they’re not The Apostles and Disciples that wrote the contents of the Bible, were NOT the same ones that assembled those contents into the Bible. That came years and years and years later. So…no they’re not. One generation wrote the contents, a later generation compiled them into a collection (Bible).

The Apostles and the disciples of Christ were the original Pope and College of Bishops - the same people who wrote the books of the New Testament.

Yes, that’s correct. It’s those that came after that the non-Catholic Christians have issue with They don’t have issue with Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, St. Paul, etc. They have issue with the hierarchy of the Church that came afterwards.

There weren’t some different people who came along and suddenly took over to become the Pope and the College of Bishops - it was the Apostles and the disciples of Christ who were the Pope and the College of Bishops, during the first century, right from Pentecost.

Right, but the Apostles and disciples of Christ who wrote the contents that were collected in the Bible were, in fact, NOT those that assembled the Bible. Sorry.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No they’re not The Apostles and Disciples that wrote the contents of the Bible, were NOT the same ones that assembled those contents into the Bible. That came years and years and years later. So…no they’re not. One generation wrote the contents, a later generation compiled them into a collection (Bible).

Yes, that’s correct. It’s those that came after that the non-Catholic Christians have issue with They don’t have issue with Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, St. Paul, etc. They have issue with the hierarchy of the Church that came afterwards.

Right, but the Apostles and disciples of Christ who wrote the contents that were collected in the Bible were, in fact, NOT those that assembled the Bible. Sorry.

But the people who made the authoritative declaration that those scripture, and no other, were inspired, God-breathed Scripture were. . .the Pope and bishops. . .the direct successors OF the apostles. Correct?