Did Jesus actually start a church to himself?

by TTWSYF 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mephis

  That's a different question again TTWSYF. I've some sympathy for the idea of Paul (with his claim of divine epiphany) presenting a challenge to what was previously run by those who claimed direct personal knowledge of Jesus. But that's not a church established in Jesus' lifetime. Other than Matthew, which is clearly not saying what you want it to, you haven't presented anything to show a church established in Jesus' lifetime. Your personal belief on how it started is one thing, proving it another. You've not made it past first hurdle on proving it even from the canon, and with someone who is letting you assume it is divinely inspired word relaying accurately historical events and not debating the translation of 'ekklesia' to 'church' as we both seem to understand it.

  Just curious, but other than the canon bible, have you read anything at all written by early christians? Or even commentary which covers them? Honest questions. You referenced the church fathers, but must surely be aware that they don't agree amongst themselves over basic doctrine?

  I'm an evidence driven man TTWYSF. Show me the evidence. Show me the explicit texts which say "Jesus began the church and then when he died Peter took over". Even the catholic church only claims its origins from after Jesus' death, and use the Peter/rock thing as proof of primacy amongst churches (plural) for Rome.
• 

  Mephis

  The canon Luke (edited until well into the 100s AD) seems a response to Marcion and the gnostics. Arguable that the first attempts to define a specific set of beliefs within christianity as heresy are a result of the first clear division? How far things divided between Jewish Christians and non-Jewish ones is something I wish there were more evidence about, other than arguments from what is left unsaid in early christian writings. There were clearly very distinctive 'schools' of christianity from very early though, each claiming to have received their version from someone who knew Jesus. How far one wishes to push those as being distinct from each other...

  The Roman Catholic Church considers itself the one and only true church back to the Apostle Peter. But that is an offshoot of the church in Constantinople. First split?

  edit: just a general link which covers a pretty uncontroversial interpretation of early christianity and its various shades for anyone interested or wanting me to support my argument:

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/losthiddenchristianity_article_01.shtml
• 

  TTWSYF

  Mephis- The question or op is 'Did Jesus actually start a church to himself?'

  Scripture is pretty explicit in it's proof texts. He commissioned the apostles to go baptizing in his name [or, also the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost]. He laid out instructions on what the apostles should do, what they should teach and how to live. Of course he started a church to himself.

  Ask yourself this. If you read that Mohamed said he started a church to himself, would you state something like ' the koran was written 100 years after he died and he was speaking in future tense...so...'

  Of course not. The reason is because the argument is not reasonable. Don;t take that as a dig, it's just that you would never read that and think 'he didn;t start a church to himself' even though the test says that he did.

  Your argument that HE DIDN"T start his church is not within reason.

  Make sense?

  Just asking
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  With some 30,000 different Christian denominations, how would one know which one was for real? Some folks think Jesus did start a church, others think no.

  I would say that the scripture supports that the church was inaugurated at Pentecost.Matt. 16:18, Acts 2:1-4: and I Cor. 12:13

  The church is not a building or a denomination; it is made up of all who have believed the gospel of Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit - no matter what imperfect church organization they are affiliated with. God knows those who are His. When Christ returns He will not ask which imperfect church we belonged to. He will only ask, did you love me? Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was hungry, did you give me to drink? Matthew 25:35-40
• 

  Phizzy

  I think that the preacher we call Jesus of Nazareth had a profound effect on a good number of people, and that there were several groups who associated themselves with parts of his teaching.

  Several groups, right from the death of the preacher.

  These groups did not agree theologically or on christology in all likelihood, so went there different ways, most never to be heard of in any way again.

  Some of his teaching no doubt comes down to us through the gospels etc, but how much is his, and how much invented, we shall never know.

  The search for the Historical Jesus is as difficult as the search for Rocking Horse Poo.
• 

  Mephis

  the question or op is 'Did Jesus actually start a church to himself?'
  Scripture is pretty explicit in it's proof texts. He commissioned the apostles to go baptizing in his name [or, also the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost]. He laid out instructions on what the apostles should do, what they should teach and how to live. Of course he started a church to himself.
  Ask yourself this. If you read that Mohamed said he started a church to himself, would you state something like ' the koran was written 100 years after he died and he was speaking in future tense...so...'
  Of course not. The reason is because the argument is not reasonable. Don;t take that as a dig, it's just that you would never read that and think 'he didn;t start a church to himself' even though the test says that he did.
  Your argument that HE DIDN"T start his church is not within reason.
  Make sense?
  Just asking

  I'm going to build a house here. Therefore the house already exists.

  That's your argument TTWYSF. Can you not see why it doesn't even work in itself, and without the surrounding context of the other writings accepted as canon which paint a different picture?

  A Jewish man does Jewish things, says a few nice things, constantly references Jewish scripture, but also claims to be divine. His followers are Jews who do Jewish things, constantly reference Jewish scripture, and think the Jewish man is the Jewish messiah who'll return after death to smite Jewish foes. A reasonable interpretation of events during the life of the Jewish man may just well be that this is a bit Jewish.

  Vanderhoven gives an interpretation which fits with the evidence, such as it is from the canon texts. Early believers were into personal salvation, not a church. There's a lot of support for that view of very early christianity where there is little in the way of a central authority to establish doctrine. Where doctrine can be changed by personal divine revelation.

  It's not that I don't understand what you're attempting to argue, it's that it's an argument unsupported by even the most selective use of the evidence available.
• 

  TTWSYF

  To deny that Jesus started a church to him self is a learned response. It is an attempt to deny what is clearly and explicitly written and historically traceable. Trying to use reason to explain why it doesn't mean what it actually says is an argument devoid of reason.

  His church gave the world the bible centuries after his death and resurrection. He promised that his church would last all ages. He instructed his apostles HOW to set up HIS church. {Who would have a church to himself?} The church fathers all confirmed the deity of Christ and the sacraments [including the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist].

  His church gave the world schools, colleges, laws of evidence, the scientific method, hospitals, shelters for battered women, homeless, mentally ill, the old and the poor. His church gave the world food banks and promoted human rights world wide. These fruits are also proof of HIS church as no other group or organization can lay claim to such a rich and full history.

  Check the history and scriptures [without theocratic warfare]
• 

  Mephis

  It's certainly a learned response. One reads, one examines the evidence, one learns. Or not, as the case may be. :)

  We must agree to differ on whether saying something will happen is the same as saying it has happened. You say it clearly means the same thing, I disagree. Your view is supported by your opinion, mine by reading comprehension.

  The rest of your post isn't really something I'm even interested in discussing, as you obviously have your faith and beliefs and opinions and my general view is that I'm glad I don't live in an era where the church gets to burn anyone who asks questions.
• 

  TTWSYF

  Yes, I have faith, but only after reading and comparing what history really says. Both for and against as opposed to only against. If it passes the smell test, then it is what it is.

  Real fruits that have helps billions and billions of people is real and historically traceable.

  Of course you wouldn't want to comment on these things other proofs. You want to support your position. YOU cannot deny what is truth, you can only ignore it.
• 

  punkofnice

  Yes, I have faith, but only after reading and comparing what history really says. Both for and against as opposed to only against. If it passes the smell test, then it is what it is.

  Is there any particular reading you recommend?