What is the church Christ founded?

[marco]

From Matthew 16 we have:

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 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.



Discussion has taken place over what Christ meant here. It seems clear enough he was using a pun on Peter's name, a rock, when he was founding his earthly church on Peter's shoulders.


That would give authority to the RC Church which takes Peter as the first Pope.


However it is argued that Jesus meant that HE was the rock and he was founding his Church on himself, as rock. As the words stand, that seems a spurious interpretation.

So what do the words mean?

[PinSeeker]

Peace to you,

Genesis 1:26 would be God (JAH) speaking to His Son. God and His Son are the 'us' and the 'our' in 'let us make man in our image'.


This verse does not show a 'trinity'.

Respectfully disagree. The Holy Spirit is surely in view here, too, as he was introduced in Genesis 1:2 and acknowledged as present.

[brianbbs67]

26 God Speaks to the heavenly host. (YhVH is not talking to himself.)

You are aware this cannot be anything but figurative, given no human observer heard these words. To discuss them as if they were verbatim is rather pointless.

John 1;1c has been willfully misconstrued from 2 milliania.

An amazing thing to say - that billions have wilfully twisted John's meaning for two millennia. There's a case for taking the word was God and the wprd was god-like. If John had been interested in clarity he would not have started his gospel so mysteriously. Analysing Greek grammar hardly gets us into heaven and certainly doesn't give us a perfect interpretation of John's provocative opening. I've read the gospel in a few languages and they all prefer "and the word was God." I suspect other interpretations are sought to make John comply with some modern theology.

1. They are the words we are given. There was a host in heavens. God must be addressing them as no humans existed. Same with the tower of Babel.

2. Can the majority be wrong? Yes, this has happened over and over throughout our history. (man) Not to often does anyone actually research what they are told to believe. They take the leader at his word, especially with religion. Especially when any dissent caused torture and death. Which is what happened to all who opposed Rome. Long held beliefs are not defeated over night even if you know they are wrong. This is exactly what has happened with followers of Jesus. Jesus did not make a single "christian". He called Hebrews back to true Torah, not traditions of men.

[marco]

Can the majority be wrong? Yes, this has happened over and over throughout our history. (man) Not to often does anyone actually research what they are told to believe. They take the leader at his word, especially with religion. Especially when any dissent caused torture and death. Which is what happened to all who opposed Rome.

Of course the majority view has sometimes been disproved, as with Einstein. But "disproved" is the operative term. It is insufficient to found some new system and assert this new system is better than another one. Eistein did not assert:he proved.

It seems curious that God sat quietly for centuries until some religious Einstein formed his own relativity theory and declared existing ideas bad. Yes, there were bad popes and bad apostles: but Jesus said he would not allow the gates of hell to prevail against his church. Under your view, Jesus did just that for hundreds of years.

Was Jesus wrong or are you in error?

[tam]

Peace to you!

Can the majority be wrong? Yes, this has happened over and over throughout our history. (man) Not to often does anyone actually research what they are told to believe. They take the leader at his word, especially with religion. Especially when any dissent caused torture and death. Which is what happened to all who opposed Rome.

Of course the majority view has sometimes been disproved, as with Einstein. But "disproved" is the operative term. It is insufficient to found some new system and assert this new system is better than another one. Eistein did not assert:he proved.

It seems curious that God sat quietly for centuries until some religious Einstein formed his own relativity theory and declared existing ideas bad. Yes, there were bad popes and bad apostles: but Jesus said he would not allow the gates of hell to prevail against his church. Under your view, Jesus did just that for hundreds of years.

Was Jesus wrong or are you in error?

OR... are you in error, assuming that those men (and/or the RCC) are the church?



Peace again to you.

[brianbbs67]

Can the majority be wrong? Yes, this has happened over and over throughout our history. (man) Not to often does anyone actually research what they are told to believe. They take the leader at his word, especially with religion. Especially when any dissent caused torture and death. Which is what happened to all who opposed Rome.

Of course the majority view has sometimes been disproved, as with Einstein. But "disproved" is the operative term. It is insufficient to found some new system and assert this new system is better than another one. Eistein did not assert:he proved.

It seems curious that God sat quietly for centuries until some religious Einstein formed his own relativity theory and declared existing ideas bad. Yes, there were bad popes and bad apostles: but Jesus said he would not allow the gates of hell to prevail against his church. Under your view, Jesus did just that for hundreds of years.

Was Jesus wrong or are you in error?

Jesus did not start the RCC. There was a minority of the true church that survives today. Ebionites and Bereans were early examples. There is no evidence of Peter being an early leader or actually being in Rome. The rumors of Peter being killed in Rome started around 195 ad. James the just headed the Jerusalem assembly. Simeon was the next. And finally Jude. All Jesus' brothers. Waters got murky after Jerusalem was sacked and the temple burned. Eventually Rome did take over and what followed did not follow what Christ taught. But, it was enforced and mixed with paganism and today that is what we have.

[polonius]

Pinseeker posted:

THE CHURCH?
The ancient Greek word 'ekklesia' was not primarily a religious word at all; it just meant, “group� or “called-out group.� In describing the later group of His followers and disciples, Jesus deliberately chose a word without a distinctly religious meaning.

RESPONSE:

It should be noted that Matthew's addition about Jesus founding a church does not occur in either Luke's gospel or in Mark's gospel(written first). It doesn't occur in Mark's gospel either from which both Mathew and Luke were copied.

Maybe it was a later edition when it was conceded that Jesus as wrong about his imminent second coming?