Did Jesus start a Church?

[rredeemerlives]

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.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

redeemer, you can’t write inside the quote block in the same font. Either make your text bold, or use multiple quote blocks.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Rence, nobody is arguing that those who authoritatively defined the canon of Scripture (350 years after Christ’s death and resurrection) were NOT ‘different people’ from the apostles. Of course they were different people.

But they were the successors of the apostles with the same authority.

The apostles were the first Pope (Peter) and bishops.

The people who authoritatively defined the canon of Scripture were the Pope and bishops of some 350 years later. Same ROLE, different PEOPLE.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were two different men living in two different centuries, but both of them were U.S. Presidents .

And even some weaker presidents (hello, William Henry Harrison) still had the status of being a president. The OFFICE ITSELF has an authority which can transcend the individual who HOLDS the office. That is why even less than stellar Popes do not invalidate the OFFICE of the Papacy.

 

[jmcrae]

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).

Both generations were a Pope and his Bishops.

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.

The heirarchy of the Church came first. It came into being at Pentecost. They were a Pope and his Bishops, by the time they started baptizing the crowds in June of 33 AD, and certainly, by the time they started writing anything down, in 63 AD.

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.

Both were the leadership of the Catholic Church (Pope and Bishops) being inspired (as they continue to be inspired even today) by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rence]

Both generations were a Pope and his Bishops.

Yes, Peter was a Bishop and so is JPII…but they are different people.

The heirarchy of the Church came first. It came into being at Pentecost. They were a Pope and his Bishops, by the time they started baptizing the crowds in June of 33 AD, and certainly, by the time they started writing anything down, in 63 AD.

Both were the leadership of the Catholic Church (Pope and Bishops) being inspired (as they continue to be inspired even today) by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, these are teachings of the Church for all Catholics. Yep.

Ok, let me try this one more time. YOU asked this:

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?

And I am trying to answer you, but it seems you don’t like the answer so we are going around and around in circles. You are completely right in that the Catholic Church and it’s devout followers regard the people who wrote the writings in the Bible, and the people who compiled the writings into the collection that is the Bible, to be the exact same by virtue of papal succession. I get that. What you’re not understanding is that this means NOTHING to someone who is not Catholic and who doesn’t accept the authority of the Church.

Soooo, from that perspective, the reason why a non-Catholic form of Christianity trusts the NT and bases their religion on the NT, despite that it was written by corrupt officials is because it was written by different people (Peter, Matthew, John, Luke, etc) than the people who compiled and put together the Bible years later. They trust the former but not the latter. Yes, they were a different set of people. They were not the same people. They were different individuals. Paul didn’t take his letters and slap them between the pages of the Bible, someone else chose the texts to collect into the Bible. It doesn’t matter if Catholics believe in the line of sucession of authority that lead from Peter and disciples to JPII and today’s bishops. You weren’t asking that. You didn’t ask about Catholics, you asked about non-Catholics. That’s a Catholic teaching that isn’t shared by other denominations…I hope that explains what I was trying to say to you.

 

[Ignatius]

.
Did Jesus start a Church?

Jesus said that he would found His Church and I believe He did everything that He said He would do.

So, since Jesus walked the Earth in the flesh and died almost 2000 years ago, His Church must have been in existance for almost 2000 years. Further, he commissioned His 12 Apostles as the leaders of the Church.
So it is the Church that has existed for almost 2000 years and can trace it’s chief pastors in succession back to the Apostles.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, Peter was a Bishop and so is JPII…but they are different people.

Yes, these are teachings of the Church for all Catholics. Yep.

Ok, let me try this one more time. YOU asked this:

And I am trying to answer you, but it seems you don’t like the answer so we are going around and around in circles. You are completely right in that the Catholic Church and it’s devout followers regard the people who wrote the writings in the Bible, and the people who compiled the writings into the collection that is the Bible, to be the exact same by virtue of papal succession. I get that. What you’re not understanding is that this means NOTHING to someone who is not Catholic and who doesn’t accept the authority of the Church.

Soooo, from that perspective, the reason why a non-Catholic form of Christianity trusts the NT and bases their religion on the NT, despite that it was written by corrupt officials is because it was written by different people (Peter, Matthew, John, Luke, etc) than the people who compiled and put together the Bible years later. They trust the former but not the latter. Yes, they were a different set of people. They were not the same people. They were different individuals. Paul didn’t take his letters and slap them between the pages of the Bible, someone else chose the texts to collect into the Bible. It doesn’t matter if Catholics believe in the line of sucession of authority that lead from Peter and disciples to JPII and today’s bishops. You weren’t asking that. You didn’t ask about Catholics, you asked about non-Catholics. That’s a Catholic teaching that isn’t shared by other denominations…I hope that explains what I was trying to say to you.

But. . .but. . .but. . .

How do the nonCatholics know what Peter, Matthew, John, Luke etc. wrote?

We do not possess ANY ORIGINALS. Most of the copies of the originals date up to CENTURIES LATER.

Peter, Matthew, John, Luke, etc. were not the people who stood and said, "OK, THIS Scripture of the gospel of Matthew is inspired. The Shepherd of Hermes is not inspired. This letter of Peter is inspired. This gospel of Thomas is NOT inspired. This letter of James is inspired. The Didache is not inspired."

IOW, The writers of the NT were NOT the people who ‘put together’ the NT, so why do nonCatholics accept the judgment of the Pope and bishops 350 years AFTER THOSE WRITERS as to which writers were INSPIRED?

**Why do they accept the Church’s decision in AD 380 that this ‘copy’ is authentically the gospel of John AND inerrant Scripture? It wasn’t St. JOHN who said it was!!! **

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, Peter was a Bishop and so is JPII…but they are different people.

Yes, these are teachings of the Church for all Catholics. Yep.

Ok, let me try this one more time. YOU asked this:

And I am trying to answer you, but it seems you don’t like the answer so we are going around and around in circles.

I am trying to point out that if the fact that we have a Pope and Bishops is evidence of corruption, then the Church has been “corrupt” from the moment of Pentecost. If “the Pope” (regardless of who he is, but because of the fact that he has authority, is therefore “corrupt” then Peter became “corrupt” at the moment that Jesus said to him “Shepherd my Church. Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs,” and gave him supreme authority over the whole Church, to open whatever doors he wants to open, and to close whatever doors he wants to close.

You are completely right in that the Catholic Church and it’s devout followers regard the people who wrote the writings in the Bible, and the people who compiled the writings into the collection that is the Bible, to be the exact same by virtue of papal succession. I get that. What you’re not understanding is that this means NOTHING to someone who is not Catholic and who doesn’t accept the authority of the Church.

It is, nevertheless, a fact of history that that authority which they reject began when Peter was appointed Pope, by Jesus, and that Peter began to exercise that authority on Pentecost Sunday of that same year, just a few weeks later.

This is not something that is believed devoutly - it is a fact of history that can be discerned by people of any or no religion. These historical facts were taught to me by a Hindu comparative religions teacher - you don’t have to be Catholic to believe them - you just can’t be Protestant.

 

[jblake]

jmcrae;:

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

Maybe. Maybe not.

I’ve been in enough poly-lingual environments to see people use puns in languages that they barely know, to enhance the meaning of what they are saying, even when everybody shared the same first language.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

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

I wasn’t differentiating between the two.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

That’s where you’re wrong.

In as much as everything you wrote in either that, or the succeeding paragraph confirmed what I wrote, I don’t see what you claiming that I wrote is wrong.

Beyond the grammatical evidence,

The grammatical evidence reinforces the puns, not precludes them — except for those who are don’t grok puns even when they are hit over the head with them.

jonathon

 

[elvisman]

I wasn’t differentiating between the two.

jonathon

You sure did:**
"Church" as a translation works, only when it is considered to be the people, and not the institution."

This charge doesn’t really make any sense anyway, since the Church IS the people. Nobody is saying that it is not.

 

[elvisman]

In as much as everything you wrote in either that, or the succeeding paragraph confirmed what I wrote, I don’t see what you claiming that I wrote is wrong.

***??? ***

The grammatical evidence reinforces the puns, not precludes them — except for those who are don’t grok puns even when they are hit over the head with them.

jonathon

Jonathan - do you even know what a pun is?
You keep using this word but I don’t see a pun in Matt. 16.

 

[jmcrae]

***??? ***

Jonathan - do you even know what a pun is?
You keep using this word but I don’t see a pun in Matt. 16.

Neither do I. Jesus said, You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. It is the same word; it is not a pun.

 

[po18guy]

Maybe. Maybe not.

I’ve been in enough poly-lingual environments to see people use puns in languages that they barely know, to enhance the meaning of what they are saying, even when everybody shared the same first language.

jonathon

Whoa! The Apostles spoke foreign languages only after receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus’ exact words, as He spoke them, are in Aramaic “Ephphatha” (Mark 7:34) and “Talitha, Koum” (Mark 5:41). Why would the Greek writers take something that you claim Jesus could have spoken in Greek, then translate it into Aramaic and place it amidst the rest of the Greek text? This would make zero sense. To me, this line of thought appears to be an attempt to justify only the much later produced and several-times translated Greek manuscripts as legitimate. This requires a willing suspension of disbelief to accept.

Do you completely miss that fact that the Church perpetuated the Gospel, using the oral paradosis, for decades before a single jot of NT scripture was written? And, not only the words, but the meaning of those words? How were those words, and their meaning kept true? The oral paradosis. This is extremely important. Please look the term up. A book cannot do this, as it is dead. A living, breathing Church with Spirit-lead authority is the only method of transmitting this. It is exactly how God chose to accomplish the feat.

Need an example of the paradosis? There are OT incidents written about only in the NT! They appear nowhere in the OT. They occurred 1,250 years before the NT, yet they are recorded only in the NT. How can this be? How did they survive? They were not written down! Oral paradosis.

Yes, the oral paradosis is that important.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

This is an amazing post Po…

Whoa! The Apostles spoke foreign languages only after receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus’ exact words, as He spoke them, are in Aramaic “Ephphatha” (Mark 7:34) and “Talitha, Koum” (Mark 5:41). Why would the Greek writers take something that you claim Jesus could have spoken in Greek, then translate it into Aramaic and place it amidst the rest of the Greek text? This would make zero sense. To me, this line of thought appears to be an attempt to justify only the much later produced and several-times translated Greek manuscripts as legitimate. This requires a willing suspension of disbelief to accept.

Do you completely miss that fact that the Church perpetuated the Gospel, using the oral paradosis, for decades before a single jot of NT scripture was written? And, not only the words, but the meaning of those words? How were those words, and their meaning kept true? The oral paradosis. This is extremely important. Please look the term up. A book cannot do this, as it is dead. A living, breathing Church with Spirit-lead authority is the only method of transmitting this. It is exactly how God chose to accomplish the feat.

Need an example of the paradosis? There are OT incidents written about only in the NT! They appear nowhere in the OT. They occurred 1,250 years before the NT, yet they are recorded only in the NT. How can this be? How did they survive? They were not written down! Oral paradosis.

Yes, the oral paradosis is that important.

:yup:

 

[adrift]

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.)

That isn’t the big question. What is always ignored is that Jesus changed Simons name to Peter. A name change was always significant. There are only three such name changes in the Bible. Yet that is glossed over. Along with the giving of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. This all occurs at the same time yet the silly statement of little pebble is still put forth as if it is a viable argument.