Did Jesus actually start a church to himself?

by TTWSYF 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mephis

  Personal opinion on the Peter/church thing, I'd suggest that Matthew is a gospel written for a Greek speaking Jewish community. It seems like an appeal to a more Jewish form of Christianity, and, if it was written late in the first century, then one has the obvious resistance in some branches of Christianity towards moving away from that. So an appeal to Peter as the authority on church matters may have been more in line with a unifying (on this issue) branch of christianity which still retained essential elements of Judaism. eg. see The Diadache of a little later for how Christian beliefs were superimposed on Jewish rites in a way to allow for Gentiles.

  On the Mithras ideas, I'll defer to Clauss (The Roman Cult of Mithras). So much isn't known and so much of what was once 'known' seems to merely be clumsy nineteenth and early twentieth century supposition based on not a lot. I do know that Praetextatus was clearly not a christian - Jerome makes that point inescapably obvious in letter XXIII by contrasting his hopes for an afterlife with those of a good christian woman who'd died.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Here is some information offered by Phd in ancient history Richard Carrier

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXou9IcH2BE

  Part 2

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPrKHsRpJ8
  
  
• 

  TTWSYF

  So Jesus is a literary character who DIDN"T start a church to himself, but 2000 years later a church in his honor has stood the test of time and claims it can trace it's existence back to the apostles. Plenty of countries and cultures tried to quell, but couldn't....interesting
• 

  opusdei1972

  I believe that Jesus was a Jewish leader of apocalyptic ideas, who was actually killed. However, 90% of what was written about him, is fiction, so we can admit that most of his personality is an invention to satisfy theological agendas.
  
• 

  Mephis

  So Jesus is a literary character who DIDN"T start a church to himself, but 2000 years later a church in his honor has stood the test of time and claims it can trace it's existence back to the apostles. Plenty of countries and cultures tried to quell, but couldn't....interesting.

  There's no evidence even from our earliest writings about him which suggests he established a church in his own lifetime. The first reference to an organised event for believers is after his death, and that's in celebration of a Jewish festival (Pentecost = Shavuot). Even Acts 1 has the apostles asking him whether now's the time he's going to do the Jewish Messiah thing rather than establish a church. It's all about the oral tradition and a personal salvation initially, whilst expecting his imminent re-return to do the smiting, not a church. What later happened is what later happened, but right from its beginnings there is huge variations in beliefs. Even who/what Jesus was is up for debate for centuries. You'd think that would be one of the first things to be resolved by any organised church. There's a vague common theme to it all, but there's lots of riffing on that.
  How could it be otherwise when someone could stand up and claim a divine revelation which changes things? Or a new supposed saying from Jesus is passed around some communities but not others? One does get the impression that one could always corral four christians in a room and end up getting five different versions of what Christianity is meant to be.
  One of my favorite quotes on the historicity/mythicist debate is "if there were a historical Jesus, there certainly isn't now". Seems to be where I'm at with things. A kernel of truth in there, but what is built upon that is something most different to what it was when it began,
• 

  TTWSYF

  There's no evidence even from our earliest writings about him which suggests he established a church in his own lifetime.

  Except in the bible, and in the writings of the church fathers which were written after HIS church was orally established
• 

  Mephis

  Except in the bible, and in the writings of the church fathers which were written after HIS church was orally established.

  That's not replying to the point you quoted? There are precisely two claimed references by Jesus to ekklesia in one gospel written some half a century after he's meant to have died. Both references are to future events ("if your brother sins" and "I will build"). If there was one church, why is there no evidence for it in doctrine? Why the debate over Jews and Gentiles if Jesus has already established a church? Later on, sure, a church develops and ultimately you get a formal creed established. But it takes centuries and there's debate every step of the way there - debate on who Jesus was, on who God was, who one should listen to when teachings are changed, who one shouldn't listen to, even over the basics of what Jesus was meant to have said. If you're looking for the one true version of Christianity in that, good luck! Try Judaism!
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  I saw a documentary a while back concerning suspected followers/believers of the Nazarene's teachings who escaped into some mountains or some such assumption. They had unearthed some sort of large dwelling and not far away a cave with scrolls in it which somehow suggested they were written by a sect dedicated to the Nazarene long before the concept of "Christianity". Unfortunately it didn't interest me enough that I payed much attention to it.

  If I recall correctly it was on the History channel. I'll try to locate it and post a link here when I have the time.
• 

  TTWSYF

  There's no evidence even from our earliest writings about him which suggests he established a church in his own lifetime.

  
  Mathew 16;18

  New International Version
  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

  
  

  How could his church survive [and flourish] for 2000 years?
  
  
• 

  Mephis

  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

  Again, that is the future tense. Even according to Matthew, written half a century later, the 'church' (ekklesia) doesn't exist when he says that to Peter. It is not "and on this rock I am building my church" or "on this rock I have built my church". And that's assuming Matthew has it right. There's no mention of it in any of the other gospels. That's pretty incredible an oversight - you'd think that would have been a major event in Jesus' ministry. Paul doesn't mention that Peter's the rock of the church. He waits three years to even visit Peter after his conversion via a personal divine revelation.

  
  I'm not sure on your question there? Which church survived? The Eastern Orthodox? The Roman Catholic? The Coptic? Arianism? Nestorianism? Gnosticism?

  
  

  ---

  
  

  @Secret Slave Class - the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls?