The Church As Anachronistic

[thesometimesaint]

I wanted to discuss this topic because there is a sore epidemic of thought that Jesus went about establishing a church. That is the anachronistic part. What evidence, within the Gospels, do we have that Jesus is starting a church? Can you even point to a specific verse where the word church is even mentioned by Jesus or his disciples within the Gospels?

1 Corinthians 12:28. Ephesians 4:11

[Ahab]

I'm speaking specifically of the body of believers as the Church.

Then I understand you to be questioning whether or not it was Jesus intent to establish a body of believers.

The answer is kinda obvious, don't cha think? If you don't think it's obvious, why don't cha? What part of the question are you having trouble with? Intent? Body? Believers? He obviously wanted people (some body) to believe in him and what he told them (believers).

Sheesh. Using the little gray cells is becoming antiquated these days. Why I remember back when I was younger...

The thinkers, and the think-notters. I suppose it's always been this way, hasn't it.

Ahab: Knock it off.

[rongo]

I've read the back and forth on this thread, with the obvious passages that could be mentioned. My question for those who think that Jesus didn't intend on founding any church (or organization with formal structure and roles), is:

How do you explain what He did then?

You can go through the gospels, and look at everything He taught and did through a lense of "no-intent-to-found-a-church," and it doesn't make sense. Not as a collection of loosey-goosey axioms and stories with no intent of ordinances under priesthood, or structure and organization under authorized guidance.

How do we explain the fact that immediately after the 40 day ministry (where teaching and instruction took place) and the Ascension, they functioned as an organized church, meeting together and filling positions?

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) . . ."

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I wanted to discuss this topic because there is a sore epidemic of thought that Jesus went about establishing a church. That is the anachronistic part. What evidence, within the Gospels, do we have that Jesus is starting a church? Can you even point to a specific verse where the word church is even mentioned by Jesus or his disciples within the Gospels?

Foundation of Apostles...they could serve no other purpose.

[bluebell]

And this is exactly why I disagree with the sentiment (expressed in another thread) that "the Saints have nothing to fear from higher criticism." Much mainline OT and NT scholarship fundamentally undermines LDS truth claims—as can be seen from this example. A believer must either dismiss it as erroneous and/or irrelevant or else undergo a fairly drastic paradigm shift.

I don't believe that in the least.

Scholarly works are wrong sometimes, and interpretations of historical events are just that-interpretations. The one thing that my intense study of history has taught me above all else is that scholars disagree precisely because no one really knows! There are good guesses and bad guesses, based on good evidence and bad evidence, but in the end, it's all just someone's opinion on how everything fit together.

And those opinions can be valid from a scholarly point of view, even while believers know (in the way that believers view knowledge) that their opinions have merit but don't take into account the full picture.

[Nevo]

Hi bluebell,

I wrote: "Much mainline OT and NT scholarship fundamentally undermines LDS truth claims—as can be seen from this example. A believer must either dismiss it as erroneous and/or irrelevant or else undergo a fairly drastic paradigm shift."

You responded, "I don't believe that in the least," and then proceeded to dismiss biblical scholarship as erroneous and/or irrelevant ("wrong sometimes," "just...interpretations," "guesses," "just someone's opinion") and of no real consequence to those who have the truth (believers know that scholars' opinions "don't take into account the full picture").

For all your strong disagreement with my post, you didn't actually contradict anything I said. Perhaps you object to my statement that "much mainline OT and NT scholarship fundamentally undermines LDS truth claims." But do you really dispute this? You yourself implied that a Jesus who believed in an imminent apocalyptic kingdom is incompatible with LDS claims about Jesus.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Nevo

[Ron Beron]

Regarding the question of whether Jesus intended to found a church, John P. Meier writes:

In a similar vein, N.T. Wright cites approvingly Gerhard Lohfink's argument that "Jesus did not intend to found a church because there already was one, namely the people of Israel itself. Jesus' intention was therefore to reform Israel, not to found a different community altogether." Wright suggests that Jesus rather intended to establish "what we might call cells of followers, mostly continuing to live in their towns and villages, who by their adoption of his praxis, his way of being Israel, would be distinctive within their local communities" (N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], 275-76).

The Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that "Jesus did not begin as a founder of a new religion, but rather as a reforming preacher within the apocalyptic environment of 1st-century Palestine. . . . The group that originated around Jesus, likewise, appears as one among many reforming sects, or splinter religious groups, within the diverse spectrum of Palestinian Jewish society. The earliest forms of the Jesus movement must have looked much like other Jewish groups known from the time. . . . Initially, at least, the missionary impulse of the Jesus movement was directed toward proclaiming the imminent apocalyptic kingdom exclusively to other Jews (Matt 10:5–6; 22). There was no need for a more firmly established institution apart from the framework of Judaism, it would seem, since the kingdom was expected soon (Mark 9:1 = Matt 16:28). Thus, it was possible for the earliest Christian groups to remain within the bounds of Jewish piety and practice" (s.v. "Christianity," ABD 1:927).

That's what scholars are saying anyway.

Agreed. More so there is ample evidence to show that there wasn't a church per se because of the closeness of Jesus' return. What was the need for a earthly structure? After a while it was evident that Jesus return was that which was distant and not forthcoming. At that time and in the absence of the Jewish leadership and the ascension of Roman hierarchy did the church as an entity begin.

[Damien the Leper]

Then I understand you to be questioning whether or not it was Jesus intent to establish a body of believers.

The answer is kinda obvious, don't cha think? If you don't think it's obvious, why don't cha? What part of the question are you having trouble with? Intent? Body? Believers? He obviously wanted people (some body) to believe in him and what he told them (believers).

Sheesh. Using the little gray cells is becoming antiquated these days. Why I remember back when I was younger...

The thinkers, and the think-notters. I suppose it's always been this way, hasn't it.

I don't think it is obvious. The Gospels don't appear to unanimously demonstrate a church being organized. I see a theological shift that Jesus makes to intensify the Law in the Antithesis of Matthew's Gospel.

I'm not sure if, based on your recent responses to me, that you have some kind of axe to grind. But your tone has gone from very civil to antagonistic. Did I do something to warrant the tone of your responses or is it just because I don't agree with the hardline you embrace? I mean no disrespect. I'm just curious.

[Damien the Leper]

Foundation of Apostles...they could serve no other purpose.

I understand that as an LDS response. But do the LDS apostles go out and speak to different communities of people to proclaim the Gospel? The Apostles in the first century were essentially missionaries. Also, I'm not sure that calling twelve disciples is an establishment of a church.

[Damien the Leper]

1 Corinthians 12:28. Ephesians 4:11

I do believe I was specifically talking about the Gospels which are explicitly spoken of in the post which you have quoted. Also, I did concede a Matthian citation that stems from Peter's Declaration on Christ.

[mfbukowski]

I'm still a Communist but I believe the Episcopal Coat of Arms best describes the journey and mission I am seeking.

Hey, I used to be one of those too, but I got better.

I think you need to work for the post office for a while to see what big government is like.

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

[bluebell]

Hi bluebell,

I wrote: "Much mainline OT and NT scholarship fundamentally undermines LDS truth claims—as can be seen from this example. A believer must either dismiss it as erroneous and/or irrelevant or else undergo a fairly drastic paradigm shift."

You responded, "I don't believe that in the least," and then proceeded to dismiss biblical scholarship as erroneous and/or irrelevant ("wrong sometimes," "just...interpretations," "guesses," "just someone's opinion") and of no real consequence to those who have the truth (believers know that scholars' opinions "don't take into account the full picture").

For all your strong disagreement with my post, you didn't actually contradict anything I said. Perhaps you object to my statement that "much mainline OT and NT scholarship fundamentally undermines LDS truth claims." But do you really dispute this? You yourself implied that a Jesus who believed in an imminent apocalyptic kingdom is incompatible with LDS claims about Jesus.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me.

I'm saying there is room to benefit from scholarly information and to accept it and use it, without having to agree with everything every scholar says. In my short career as a historian, i spent a lot of time reading the works of scholars who were disagreed with by many other scholars. Even with that disagreement though, such scholars were never dismissed as simply erroneous. They were studied, valued, and often their evidences were used as sources in the papers of scholars who disagreed with them.

Conclusions can be disagreed with while the information in the body iof the work is still valued and accepted as accurate.

In the same way, LDS do not have to dismiss bible scholarship just because it sometimes contradicts with theological beliefs.

[thesometimesaint]

I do believe I was specifically talking about the Gospels which are explicitly spoken of in the post which you have quoted. Also, I did concede a Matthian citation that stems from Peter's Declaration on Christ.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I do believe those two Scriptures directly address your questions. I find no support in the Bible for the belief that Christ did not set up a formal Church with officers and official representatives. While the Saints, the Roman Catholics, and the Greek Orthodox may disagree on whom those officers and official representatives are. We are agreed that Christ did set up a formal Church.

Edited February 1, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[rpn]

The Church is just the structure designed to help families in our world. It is not eternal. Authority is what matters. And that He gave to the apostles. If not to form the church or an organized structure of support, why?

[Damien the Leper]

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I do believe those two Scriptures directly address your questions. I find no support in the Bible for the belief that Christ did not set up a formal Church with officers and official representatives. While the Saints, the Roman Catholics, and the Greek Orthodox may disagree on whom those officers and official representatives are. We are agreed that Christ did set up a formal Church.

I apologize. I didn't mean for my reply to sound snarky.

Can you provide supportive evidence within the Gospels for your position?