Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 11  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Did Jesus Build His Church?
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2015 - 8:51PM #1
Cathapol
Posts: 918
CA:  In Matthew 16:18 we have a promise from Jesus to build His Church, so did He fulfill this promise?


Matthew 16:18 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


CA:  Some argue that the word used is "ekklesia" and in Jesus' time that did not mean "church," but was reference to an "assembly" or a "congregation" or a Greek/Roman political assembly.  In reality, is that not the same thing we're talking about in the religious environment?  Face it, Jesus was not talking about building His own political assembly - He was speaking in religious terms.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2015 - 9:29PM #2
AristotlesChild
Posts: 1,947

Jul 2, 2015 -- 8:51PM, Cathapol wrote:

CA:  In Matthew 16:18 we have a promise from Jesus to build His Church, so did He fulfill this promise?



Matthew 16:18 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


CA:  Some argue that the word used is "ekklesia" and in Jesus' time that did not mean "church," but was reference to an "assembly" or a "congregation" or a Greek/Roman political assembly.  In reality, is that not the same thing we're talking about in the religious environment?  Face it, Jesus was not talking about building His own political assembly - He was speaking in religious terms.





RESPONSE: The distinction should be obvious. A "church" would be ongoing. Assemblies or congregations would no necessarily be so, in fact, probably would convene from time to time.


And, of course, you'd have to explain why Jesus' immediate followers did not form any new church but remained rather orthodox Jews, a "sect' with in conventual Judism. A split didn't come until about 85 AD when the Christians were banned as apostates.


And  how do you define "church"?  An actual organization with its own theology, or something else?




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 8:59AM #3
AristotlesChild
Posts: 1,947

 It is recognized that the author of Matthew, who was not the Apostle Matthew, wrote his gospel in about 80 AD. He copied sometimes (almost verbatim) from Mark’s gospel which had been written about 70 AD. Luke, writing about 80 AD, also copied from Mark. But Mark doesn’t have the addition.


Matthew’s gospel has an addition (or interpolation) added to what Mark wrote. This is not found in Luke’s version. It forms the scriptural basis that is now used for the claim that Jesus founded a church and authority was give what ultimately became the papacy. But was it a fraud? 


Mark 8:27-30 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Written about 70 AD.


27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”[a] 30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.


 


Matthew 16:13-20New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Written about 80 AD


13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[b] and on this rock[c] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[d] the Messiah.[e] 



Luke 9:18-21New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Written about 80 AD


18 Once when Jesus[a] was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” 19 They answered, “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.” 20 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah[b] of God.”21 He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone,

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 1:44PM #4
Cathapol
Posts: 918

Jul 2, 2015 -- 9:29PM, AristotlesChild wrote:


Jul 2, 2015 -- 8:51PM, Cathapol wrote:

CA:  In Matthew 16:18 we have a promise from Jesus to build His Church, so did He fulfill this promise?



Matthew 16:18 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


CA:  Some argue that the word used is "ekklesia" and in Jesus' time that did not mean "church," but was reference to an "assembly" or a "congregation" or a Greek/Roman political assembly.  In reality, is that not the same thing we're talking about in the religious environment?  Face it, Jesus was not talking about building His own political assembly - He was speaking in religious terms.





AC: The distinction should be obvious. A "church" would be ongoing. Assemblies or congregations would no necessarily be so, in fact, probably would convene from time to time.


CA:  Your distinction fails you on the point that Jesus promised to "build" His Church.  When you "build" something, you expect it to be ongoing.


AC: And, of course, you'd have to explain why Jesus' immediate followers did not form any new church but remained rather orthodox Jews, a "sect' with in conventual Judism. A split didn't come until about 85 AD when the Christians were banned as apostates.


CA:  They were already gathering on the Lord's Day or the First Day of the week for eucharist (the breaking of bread) as recorded in Acts 20:7.  Yes, for a time they remained faithful to the Jewish customs, but it is worthy to note that the Gentiles (uncircumcized) were not expected to uphold the Jewish customs or laws.


AC: And  how do you define "church"?  An actual organization with its own theology, or something else?


CA:  In this context I would define it as the gathering/assembly of those who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ.  The Church is the Body of Christ.  That Body was given order and structure by Jesus Christ Himself in His selecting of our first bishops.  Those first bishops were "sent out" (as in the definition of "apostle") to do as He did - and they did, in selecting more bishops for the various regions/cities in the Early Church and that succession lasts until this day and will last until He returns again.



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 1:46PM #5
Cathapol
Posts: 918

CA:  This thread is not about who wrote Matthew, that argument is being ignored.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 2:09PM #6
AristotlesChild
Posts: 1,947

Jul 3, 2015 -- 1:46PM, Cathapol wrote:


CA:  This thread is not about who wrote Matthew, that argument is being ignored.




RESPONSE:


It not an argument. It's a given. Read the introduction to Matthew in the (Catholic) New American Bible

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 2:17PM #7
AristotlesChild
Posts: 1,947

RESPONSE: How would Matthew have known what was said? If he was not there and copied his gospel from Mark's who said nothing about founding a church, what was his source of information? Luke also said nothing about founding a church. Do you think Mark and Luke didn't think it important enough to mention?

And why would Jesus found a new church if his second coming was to be during the lifetime of those then alive?

And, of course, the word "church" didn't even exist in Jesus' day. Matthew used the Greek "ecclesia" meaning gathering.

And finally, why did Jesus' immediate followers not found any church of their own but remain a sect within regular Judaism until expelled about 85 AD?

…….CA:  They were already gathering on the Lord's Day or the First Day of the week for eucharist (the breaking of bread) as recorded in Acts 20:7.  Yes, for a time they remained faithful to the Jewish customs, but it is worthy to note that the Gentiles (uncircumcized) were not expected to uphold the Jewish customs or laws.


RESPONSE: No. They were performing the breaking of the bread whenever they had a meal. The First day of the week had nothing to do with it.


See Acts 2 "Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people."


The breaking of the bread was a Jewish custom (see the Jewish Encyclopedia).If you want to insist that “the breaking of the bread was a eucharist, who were the ordained celebrants? Or if they weren’t ordained, why do they have to be now?



All non-Jews could be recognized as “God-fearers” if they kept the Noahide commandments. They didn’t have to become Christians.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 2:20PM #8
AristotlesChild
Posts: 1,947

Jul 3, 2015 -- 2:14PM, Cathapol wrote:


Jul 3, 2015 -- 2:09PM, AristotlesChild wrote:


Jul 3, 2015 -- 1:46PM, Cathapol wrote:


CA:  This thread is not about who wrote Matthew, that argument is being ignored.




AC:  It not an argument. It's a given. Read the introduction to Matthew in the (Catholic) New American Bible




CA:  If it's not an argument, all the more reason it can be ignored.  The "introduction" to the NAB is not Scripture and is not authoritative - it is a liberal commentary - but again, that is NOT the subject here - so stop bringing it up!  WHO WROTE MATTHEW is a different topic.  Moderator?




RESPONSE:


Not if it is clearly evidential to the argument at hand. Which it obviouly is. Do you recall that you began your argument by quoting Matthew 16?? 


It is the basis of your argument.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 2:31PM #9
Cathapol
Posts: 918

Jul 3, 2015 -- 2:20PM, AristotlesChild wrote:


AC:  Not if it is clearly evidential to the argument at hand. Which it obviouly is. Do you recall that you began your argument by quoting Matthew 16??




CA:  It doesn't matter if Mark, Peter, or George wrote it for this topic.  You're attempting to hijack this thread into a discussion of WHO WROTE MATTHEW - the quote was made from Scripture, debate who wrote it elsewhere.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2015 - 2:37PM #10
Cathapol
Posts: 918

Jul 3, 2015 -- 2:17PM, AristotlesChild wrote:


AC: And, of course, the word "church" didn't even exist in Jesus' day. Matthew used the Greek "ecclesia" meaning gathering.



CA:  No, the English word "church" did not exist, English did not exist - we agree, but it's a silly anachronism you're trying to make here.  You appear to miss the point that if you "build" something, there is a permanence to that statement - you want it to be ongoing.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 11  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook