Jesus didn't institute a church

[Uphill Battle]

the word Church, when interpolated into the text, is in error.

Ekklesia, is NOT church. Ekklesia is an assembly.

When you look at the scriptures in this light, you can see much more clearly the truth of the matter.

Matt.16
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my (assembly of believers), and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

so, the powerr of death will not prevail against Gods children. A wonderful promise! And it completely does away with the notion that He ever promised an error free institution.

Matt.18
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the (assembly of believers); and if he refuses to listen even to the (assembly of believers) let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


another instance that flies in the face of authority of one orginization! We are to take them to the assembly of believers. NOT a church.

it really chages the claim that Jesus instituted the EO or RCC church, doesn't it!

 

[OldStudent]

As God sat me down to look at things one of the first projects was the investigation of "church." Up to the Exodus God's people were generally found in the "patriarchy" - the family line through Seth and Shem. In Egypt God incubated a nation - Israel. The coming of the Son to them worked out to be a last ditch effort to bring them back to their commission. Since they couldn't be brought back to their mission God's "embassy" (non-Biblical like trinity and millenium but descriptive) had to walk past the national identity and, years after the ascension, the church took form. You are right, as long as you and I are in it it isn't perfect but we and the church are His. It is a key crucible in which we are grown for return to the society of the universe we, the human race, seceded from. It is unfortunate that it is so fractured by denominationalism and personal stubbornness. God works around and through even that.

 

[Uphill Battle]

the key point is that denominationalism has nothing to do with whom Jesus calls his own.

 

[IamAdopted]

the key point is that denominationalism has nothing to do with whom Jesus calls his own.

Jesus came to establish Truth. and Reconciliation and to draw people to Himself through His truth.. These are whom make up the body of Christ.. His Church,His bride. Yahoo..

 

[Uphill Battle]

bump. I notice the "Jesus instituted our church" camp has had nothing to say on the matter....

 

[Rightglory]

uphill Battle,

it really chages the claim that Jesus instituted the EO or RCC church, doesn't it!

Not speaking for the RCC, but the EO does not make that claim.

 

[Uphill Battle]

uphill Battle,
Not speaking for the RCC, but the EO does not make that claim.

I've seen it claimed that EO is the one true church, the only one existing since the first century.

 

[Rightglory]

uphill battle,

I've seen it claimed that EO is the one true church, the only one existing since the first century

Yes, but that was not your statement. You are referencing a church, an organizational church.
Christ established HIS CHURCH upon this earth. A Church of which HE and HE alone is Head. He is Head over the Body, which is made up of believers.
Believers, who are real, physically present in this world have entered into His Chruch and worship as one in each congregation. Each congregation is the True, complete, full, Body of Christ. We are many but ONE. It is Trinitarian and Incarnational. It is Ontological and organic.
However, many of those "catholic" churches have organized, especially within national borders, thus establishing concrete organizational bodies. It is these organizations that are of ONE FAITH, ONE LORD, ONE BAPTISM, and thus are joined with Christ in faith and practice.
That Church, today, historically is embodied in the Orthodox Church. Other than Christ, it has no other Head, no organization here on earth. It has met in Ecumemical Assemblies, but these are only representative of His Church. It is the Body of which He is Head that constitutes His Church.

Is this not what Scripture states?

 

[Uphill Battle]

uphill battle,
Yes, but that was not your statement. You are referencing a church, an organizational church.
Christ established HIS CHURCH upon this earth. A Church of which HE and HE alone is Head. He is Head over the Body, which is made up of believers.
Believers, who are real, physically present in this world have entered into His Chruch and worship as one in each congregation. Each congregation is the True, complete, full, Body of Christ. We are many but ONE. It is Trinitarian and Incarnational. It is Ontological and organic.
However, many of those "catholic" churches have organized, especially within national borders, thus establishing concrete organizational bodies. It is these organizations that are of ONE FAITH, ONE LORD, ONE BAPTISM, and thus are joined with Christ in faith and practice.
That Church, today, historically is embodied in the Orthodox Church. Other than Christ, it has no other Head, no organization here on earth. It has met in Ecumemical Assemblies, but these are only representative of His Church. It is the Body of which He is Head that constitutes His Church.

Is this not what Scripture states?

no.

Scripture does not state that any ecumenical body was instituted.

Ekklesia is assembly. All those gathered in the name of Christ.

NOT the orthodox church. NOT the catholic church. NOT any protestant denomination. NOT any non denominational congegration.

ALL believers, ALL gathered in his name.

THIS is what scripture, and the words of Christ state.

 

[IamAdopted]

no.

Scripture does not state that any ecumenical body was instituted.

Ekklesia is assembly. All those gathered in the name of Christ.

NOT the orthodox church. NOT the catholic church. NOT any protestant denomination. NOT any non denominational congegration.

ALL believers, ALL gathered in his name.

THIS is what scripture, and the words of Christ state.

Amen.. And this is what the church is.. The body all joined together in the Spirit of Christ and all washed in His blood..

 

[ArnautDaniel]

the word Church, when interpolated into the text, is in error.

Ekklesia, is NOT church. Ekklesia is an assembly.

When you look at the scriptures in this light, you can see much more clearly the truth of the matter.

Matt.16
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my (assembly of believers), and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

so, the powerr of death will not prevail against Gods children. A wonderful promise! And it completely does away with the notion that He ever promised an error free institution.

Matt.18
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the (assembly of believers); and if he refuses to listen even to the (assembly of believers) let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


another instance that flies in the face of authority of one orginization! We are to take them to the assembly of believers. NOT a church.

it really chages the claim that Jesus instituted the EO or RCC church, doesn't it!

Of course not, he instituted a social movement.

Churches are what you get when leaders of the movement start buddying up to the powers-that-be.

But to the relief of elites everywhere, they'll always sell out for cheap.

 

[NewToLife]

The Orthodox church is in fact not primarily an organisation, actually even now it is actually a grouping of autocephalous Churches and has no single hierarchy. What organisation there is simply serves to maintain the faith in it's original form and our unity in that faith. It is simply a communion of believers united by a single faith in all times and in all places. The attempt to represent it primarily as an institution is mischaracterisation, either deliberate or due to ignorance.

Whether Ekklessia translates directly as Church or not I cannot help but think that Christ intends unity of belief, both through the ages and in all places. I can only find a single communion in which that is the case.

If your problem is actually with apostolic succession and authority then I can only really point to the unity of our faith as evidence that succession and authority does play a part in God's plan. Judge the tree by it's fruit seems to me a sound way of examining the situation. I could really care less about the number of denominations in protestantism, the problem is actually the sheer disunity of belief. I'm sorry but I cannot accept God as the author of confusion when scripture makes it quite clear that he is not.

Technically you are correct that denominalisation plays no role in whom Jesus calls his own, what you must now consider is whether being united to Christ by acceptance of the faith once given for all plays a role. Perhaps we really can make of it what we think scripture says, personally I doubt it.

 

[Rightglory]

Uphillbattle,

Scripture does not state that any ecumenical body was instituted.

I know, I think, I was quite clear, that He established His Church, His Body, of which each believer is a member.

Ekklesia is assembly. All those gathered in the name of Christ.

I think, at least I thought it was quite clear, that each local congregation is a complete, whole Body of Christ. The Church established first in Jerusalem, an assembly of believers is the Body of Christ. Then the Church established at Antioch, an assembly, the Body of Christ. These two are two catholic assemblies, wholly, completely the Body of Christ. They are united in ONE faith, ONE Lord, ONE baptism. It has continually grown and that Body is now spread over most of the earth. But it is still the Body of Christ, all assemblies, each one, but many. Same as believers, many, yet one Body. It is Trinitarian - Many are ONE. It is also Incarnational. It exists physically upon this earth. It is a beacon to the world. It is not invisible, a myth of some theologian's fantasy, a justification for his personal definition.

NOT the orthodox church. NOT the catholic church. NOT any protestant denomination. NOT any non denominational congegration.

Of course, Mormans can lay claim to your definition and they can be a member of that same body, as per your definition. Yet, Christ, in scripture would soundly claim it is just not anyone who personally wished to claim a position, but one who completely submitted to HIM. Followed the precepts He laid down as Head of that Church. He is still ONE LORD, and it is His baptism, not just any, not just a symbol, a passing, long ago event that has no reality today.
Can you show either from scripture or history that the Orthodox Church does not embody, historically that first Church, and has not faithfully followed that Gospel once given, Jude 3.

ALL believers, ALL gathered in his name.

Ah, but who is a believer. I have seen some dozens explanations of what constitutes a believer. Again, do the Mormons quality? What about the Jehovah Witnesses, or even the Church of Scientology? You would say that they have defined a different Christ, so...........

THIS is what scripture, and the words of Christ state.

so, it does, but by whose definitions? Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, Methodists, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Anglican, etc, etc, etc, to those who believe in no baptism, do not believe in the Resurrection, do believe in Universalism, believe in one of many forms of dispensationalism, millenialism. These are all extent today and living well under the banner of protestantism. All make the very same claim as you are, so what makes you right and they wrong, using the same definition?

 

[Rick Otto]

Right On O.P., bro.
Overwhelming circumstantial evidence alone is a strong indicator, if not "hands-on infallable" exhibit one:
46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. 47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. 49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

In fact, Up, He didn't re-invent the Levitical priesthood at all. He gave us the order of Melchizadek. We are a peculiar people, a nation of kings & priests, not to lord over each other as the 'Gentiles do',not meaning simply with attitude, but meaning with Hellenistic style hierarchies and finely gradated offices. I think we as Westerners, have some negative influences from them, not only in our 'monumentalism', where we are led into 'personality cult' temptations, but also when we finaly aspire to institutionalize it, and make it all legal, before God & Country.
That's usualy when things begin to "go South".

 

[Benedicta00]

no.

Scripture does not state that any ecumenical body was instituted.

Ekklesia is assembly. All those gathered in the name of Christ.

NOT the orthodox church. NOT the catholic church. NOT any protestant denomination. NOT any non denominational congegration.

ALL believers, ALL gathered in his name.

THIS is what scripture, and the words of Christ state.

I hate to be the one to burst you bubble but Catholic do agree with that interpretation too, but to an extent.

That is indeed what the "c"hurch is but no dichotomy here where it is a loose body of believers or it is a visible Church as well.

What it is, is both.

It is also (and, not or) a visible divine institution that has a magisterium that teaches us the faith that Christ gave to the 12 apostles ie 'his Church" to teach us.

So in essence one can rightfully interpret Matthew 16 as Christ establishing an invisible body of believers but he also established his "C" hurch (visible) on Peter. The city built on a hill that can not be hid.

 

[Benedicta00]

d/p

 

[Benedicta00]

I think, at least I thought it was quite clear, that each local congregation is a complete, whole Body of Christ. The Church established first in Jerusalem, an assembly of believers is the Body of Christ. Then the Church established at Antioch, an assembly, the Body of Christ. These two are two catholic assemblies, wholly, completely the Body of Christ. They are united in ONE faith, ONE Lord, ONE baptism. It has continually grown and that Body is now spread over most of the earth. But it is still the Body of Christ, all assemblies, each one, but many. Same as believers, many, yet one Body. It is Trinitarian - Many are ONE. It is also Incarnational. It exists physically upon this earth. It is a beacon to the world. It is not invisible, a myth of some theologian's fantasy, a justification for his personal definition.

One Bread, One Body


One bread, one body,
one Lord of all,
one cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many,
throughout the earth,
we are one body in this one Lord.

We are an assembly everywhere and what unites us as one in the Lord is the Eucharist.

 

[Rightglory]

Legend,

It is also (and, not or) a visible divine institution that has a magisterium that teaches us the faith that Christ gave to the 12 apostles ie 'his Church" to teach us.
So in essence one can rightfully interpret Matthew 16 as Christ establishing an invisible body of believers but he also established his "C" hurch (visible) on Peter. The city built on a hill that can not be hid.

The Church has no magisterium. That is a RCC construct after their split with the Church. The Apostles, 12 were given authority, that authority was given to succeeding Church leaders, the bishops. There is no higher authority than the bishop as described in Scripture. It is still that understanding and practice in the Church, but not in the RCC. The Church is not built upon Peter, but on faith.

 

[Benedicta00]

Legend,
The Church has no magisterium. That is a RCC construct after their split with the Church. The Apostles, 12 were given authority, that authority was given to succeeding Church leaders, the bishops. There is no higher authority than the bishop as described in Scripture. It is still that understanding and practice in the Church, but not in the RCC. The Church is not built upon Peter, but on faith.

I disagree for many reasons but mainly because Jesus spoke to Peter singular in Matthew 16, not plural and in John told him to "Feed his sheep."

But I do not want to debate this with you because I don't feel it is right for Catholics to debate Orthodox in Theology for obvious reasons.

But anyway, I liked the way you explained what the assembly of believers is.

We can both agree whole heartily that it is not only and just a lose body of believers everywhere and anywhere believing what they want as long as it is not "outside of Christ" (what ever that even means) and that Jesus was not establishing on Peter and the 12 a lose body of believers who are joined together through sola scripture.

 

[Rightglory]

Legend,

I disagree for many reasons but mainly because Jesus spoke to Peter singular in Matthew 16, not plural and in John told him to "Feed his sheep."
But I do not want to debate this with you because I don't feel it is right for Catholics to debate Orthodox in Theology for obvious reasons.

Whether He spoke to Peter or any is not the issue. He did not build His Church upon Peter. It is Christ and the Apostles, all of them that are the originators. That authority, via scriptural recording was given to the bishops who became the singular leaders of each assembly.
Furthermore, the Church has never operated under the assumption that Peter is the Head of the Church, or any one succeeding him. If that were true, then Jeruselem would be the seat of the Church today. That the primacy, a totally different issue, landed in Rome is pure geography and has nothing to do with scripture.
I do not understand what the obvious reasons would be not to debate any issue between any believer. What makes Orthodox vs Catholic any different than Catholic and Protestant?