Did Christ intend to found a Church?

[LittleLes]

Archangel has brought up a question regarding Matt 16 and the founding of a Christian Church. Since this topic is quite removed from the question of Peterine primacy we were discussing and might be lengthy, I thought it best to give it its own thread.

For openers, my (more or less) thesis would be:

(1) Only Matthew 16 among all the gospels reports that Jesus said he intended to found a church. But is this a reliable passage of scripture?

(2) Jesus and those around him believed that they were living in end times. Hence, there would be neither time nor a purpose in founding a new Church.

(3) Acts of the Apostles, which describes the early Jerusalem community, has the original disciples of Jesus continuing as a sect with conventional Judaism, not a separate movement.

Lets begin with proposition #1 (probably tomorrow).

LittleLes

[thessalonian]

If this passage is not reliable then the whole of scripture is not reliable and we have no basis for discussing anything. If you do not believe in the inerrancy and reliablilty of scripture we can have no fruitful discussions.

By the way perhaps there is something you don't understand about Pauls words about the comming? Or maybe it is that passage that is not reliable. What makew one more reliable than the other if your going to make such arguements to prove Christ didn't start a Church so that you can deny the papacy?

[jasJis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 4 2005, 11:22 AM'] Archangel has brought up a question regarding Matt 16 and the founding of a Christian Church. Since this topic is quite removed from the question of Peterine primacy we were discussing and might be lengthy, I thought it best to give it its own thread.

For openers, my (more or less) thesis would be:

(1) Only Matthew 16 among all the gospels reports that Jesus said he intended to found a church. But is this a reliable passage of scripture?

(2) Jesus and those around him believed that they were living in end times. Hence, there would be neither time nor a purpose in founding a new Church.

(3) Acts of the Apostles, which describes the early Jerusalem community, has the original disciples of Jesus continuing as a sect with conventional Judaism, not a separate movement.

Lets begin with proposition #1 (probably tomorrow).

LittleLes [/quote]
You've got to be kidding me.
[quote](1) Only Matthew 16 among all the gospels reports that Jesus said he intended to found a church. But is this a reliable passage of scripture?[/quote]So individuals can start disregarding passages of Scripture as "[i]unreliable[/i]"? What about the historical evidence in Scripture that God gave us a structured institution? For example, the Jewish faith. Jesus' promise to destroy the Temple and [u]re-build[/u] it in 3 days.

[quote](2) Jesus and those around him believed that they were living in end times. Hence, there would be neither time nor a purpose in founding a new Church.[/quote]um. As if Jesus didn't know that those weren't 'end times'? As if the Apostles didn't find out these weren't 'end-times' during the period that Jesus rose from the dead and was visiting them?

[quote](3) Acts of the Apostles, which describes the early Jerusalem community, has the original disciples of Jesus continuing as a sect with conventional Judaism, not a separate movement.[/quote]The Jews were/are more than the Jerusalem community. This is also a prime example of God participating with humanity with the structure of a Church, which Jesus said he would build.

I see this is going to be pointless.

[Brother Adam]

Thess and Jas,

I think you need to treat this as a case of evangelizing someone who does not know anything about the case rather than someone who is a well-founded Christian.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Brother Adam

[MC Just]

Unbelievable.

[thessalonian]

Bro Adam,

I agree that he is not a well founded Christian and is in need of evangelization. I just don't see how you can have a meaningful conversation where the rules are set such that he determines which verses are to be rejected based on some arbitrary method he has come up with. To that in this thread is dead for me. I will gladly discuss with him whether the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the evidence that every verse is for correction, rebuke, etc. unto righteousness. I do understand your point. I will certainly pray for him.

Blessings

[CorderoDeDios]

[color=red] Inappropriate question [/color]

Edited March 4, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Myles Domini]

Even a cursory reading of the end of each gospel would make it clear that Jesus did intend to found a Church especially in light of the institution of the Eucharist, which was a covenant sealing sacrifice, a 'new covenant'. I mean its plain from every single time Jesus is called 'Son of David' that the gospel writers are referring to the promise of God to David, reiterated through the prophets to create a Kingdom for him that would rule over the nations aka the Church hence Matt 16:13-20 is so similar to Isa 22:13-25. Because both are talking about the prime ministerial power over the House of David. Peter is in the seat of Eliakim and Shebnah only this time, the Davidic King is not a temporal ruler but a spiritual King. There are untold instances throughout the gospels where not only does Peter recieve primacy, I mean Peter appears more times in the Gospels and Acts than anybody except Jesus, but that Jesus expresses clearly that He intends to fulfil the promise God made to David and create some kind of Kingdom. He proclaims a jubilee year, He asks them how David's Son can be his Lord etc.etc. As for the eschatological expectations of the Christian community they were fulfilled because their belief in the real prescence was part of this. The age of the covenant was both then and in the future. Hence, Revelation concludes having seen 'the city our Lord died' Jersualem destroyed as it was in 70AD and then kicking off the wedding feast of the bride and the Lamb: Eucharist. The fact John depicts Jesus in priestly garb as a lamb who was slain standing before the altar (the sacrifice offering himself) and says he saw all this 'on the Lord's day' is a clear indicator of this. About 95% of revelation is an encoded history story. The Christians did believe that they were living in the end times and they were right, we still believe we are living in the end times. God has made 6 covenants with man and 7 in His number of perfection so the next one will be the last, this is the penultimate. However, it is clear that they did not believe the end was neigh. The destruction of the temple was the end of the old covenant and the validation of the new, hence revelation hails the sack of Jerusalem and does not mourn it. All the parables speak of a seed growing slowly, the Kingdom of God being like a garden where the enemy sowed darnel at night. Some might've assumed the end would happen in their time but many of the Olivet discourses specified that Jesus said the gospel must be preached to all nations before the end. Thus they were evidently not all of this school of thought. Its far more sensible to see why people like Pope St Gregory the Great thought it was the end in their time because the known world had been evangelised and then lapsed. However, as history shows the end has not come yet: The Jews have not been converted as Paul says must happen before that time and the gospel has not been preached to all as Jesus demanded. The Christians of the apostolic age were keenly aware of this, which is why they went on preaching in spite of persecution.
If Jesus didnt intend to inagurate some form of Kingdom then you cant just doubt Matt 16. You gotta come out and say the whole Bible going back to God's promise to Abraham and successive covenants thereafter is fake. Indeed, back to the beginning where man gets an indication of his salvation is all fake.

[thessalonian]

Cordeo,

I suggested to management that they boot you sooner rather than later. I will pray for your soul.

[CorderoDeDios]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Mar 4 2005, 01:35 PM'] Cordeo,

I suggested to management that they boot you sooner rather than later. I will pray for your soul. [/quote]
Has anything not Jesus-related ever made you smile?

[desertwoman]

I always thought that the church represented the body.... the people of Christ.

[thessalonian]

Lots of things make me smile. My children, a good clean joke, a good shot on a pheasent or a duck. The 8 point buck I shot with my muzzel loader in 2003. Perversion and stupidity don't however.

Peace

Edited March 4, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

Well if Thessolonian isn't going to get me kicked out of the forum just yet (is censorship a Catholic practice?) and I'm not otherwise going to burned at the stake this afternoon, let me proceed with my thesis. I'll deal with part one of my first point: the nature of Matthew's gospel.

The best summation I can find is in the Introduction to Matthew, New American Bible (available on both the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops and the Vatican web site). This bible with all its imprimaturs was compiled by the Catholic Biblical Association under the auspices of the Confereternity of Christain Doctrine, or some such Cathoic hierarchial group:

"The ancient tradition that the author was a disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark(almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such as association rather than rely on his own memories."

Thus, what we have in Matthew is hearsay copied from another nonwitness (Mark). Under these circumstances, it is wise to compare what is said with other similar accounts. And are there other similar accounts? Stay tuned for part two

[Jaime]

Myles

First of all, wow that's a long paragraph!!

Secondly, albeit I've only given it a cursory glance, I've got some things I'd ask to see clarified.

The six covenants between God and man. There needs to be some distinction. There are covenants between God and man (eg Christ) and there are covenants between [i]man and God[/i] . Are those included in the six? (I'm thinking yes but that's why I'm looking for clarification) There is a huge difference between the two that needs to be recognized (IMO) . I'll reserve further commentary until then.

Oh except to say that CorderodeDios is apparently eight years old.

[thessalonian]

Littleless,

Where have I said that you should be sensored. You seem however to think that I should not have the freedom to engage in the conversation, which is all that I said I was not going to do. I will however say that nothing says that the writers of scripture have to be apostles. In fact the vast majority were not and the vast majority of Apostles did not write scripture. Your basing your arguements on self made requirements for scripture that I do not adhere to and so will not engage in a conversation where the rules are set.