Ok, the end of the world would probably have been reported in the newspapers, so I agree that didn’t happen. In that verse, Jesus is referring to his authority. In 16:19, he says to Peter:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
So its the same book, but in the later chapter he doesn’t mention Peter. Not much to draw from that, the ‘keys’ aren’t necessarily the same thing as the authority to baptize, discipline, and teach the nations (discipline is probably the wrong word, but there might be some who think that’s what was meant). It doesn’t strengthen the case for Peter (and his descendants) being the one and only rock though.
Well, I based a lot of it on Paul’s letters, which indicate that even after James, Peter, and John declared that the Gentile Church was legitimate, there were still people advocating that one of its teachings was incorrect: Paul taught that a Gentile Christian did not need to be circumcised or follow most of the rest of the Jewish laws. That’s the textbook definition of a Judaizer.
The only extrapolation was that this remained a fairly large group in the Church of Jerusalem–as evidenced by Paul’s condemnation of the superapostles,which I would assume would be one of the originals. Heck, they even followed Jesus’s instructions to require others to pay for them.
It’s really easy to make the story fit. The only part that had to have been altered was the idea that the Jerusalem Church actually accepted the Gentile Church–and that’s the direction I thought you were going–that the JC only accepted the GC after the fall of Jerusalem. My disclaimer was just to point out that I disagreed with that, but found it interesting.
This is entirely speculation, but personally I think that it’s most likely that the gentile church wasn’t so much “accepted” as that a truce was struck. In exchange for financial support from Paul’s church, they wouldn’t call him a false profit, con artist, nor otherwise denounce him. After all, notice that the restrictions on circumcision, etc. were only lifted for gentile followers. Jews (who would be following the Jerusalem church) were still required to follow all the rules (assuming my memory isn’t failing me). If the decision had been based on doctrine – i.e. an idea that Jesus didn’t care about hard rules, just whether people were kind and loving – then it should have applied to everyone. Even if Jesus had never told them about such doctrine as “it’s okay to be loose on the fiddly rules”, if they bought that St. Paul had been imbued with the direct revelation of all of Jesus’ teachings, then they’d have to accept the doctrine when he told them about it and (again) applied it to everyone.
It seems reasonable to say that the decision was based more on real world realities. Ultimately, they had their church for and by Jews. If a gentile wanted to sign up to the real deal, he still could by getting circumcised. So ultimately, Paul might just serve as free advertising, they can always dump him once their church is self-supporting, and in the meantime he’s bringing sacks of gold once a year so all’s well in the world.
It should probably be a whole new thread, but I meant that many of us belong to a denomination, or a church, or a “Faith Community” that believes some … well, some Crazy Ass Shit™.
It just hit me as I read this thread: otherwise-rational people believe that, after he died, Jesus teleported across the Atlantic Ocean to North America to appear to some Native Americans who were actually Jewish.
(The same Jesus whose entire ministry consisted of walking a few miles. Or did I miss the part where he levitated up to Norway to preach to the Vikings?)
And my faith (generic mainstream Christian) has equally weird stuff: why would anyone take a faith seriously that has Cannibalism in it? A lot of Christians believe that a wafer magically becomes human tissue just before you… eww… eat it (the whole “Communion”-- or let’s be all hoity-toity and call it “The Eucharist”). Jesus has GOT to be shaking his head, rolling his eyes, thinking “Hey, guys, ever hear of a metaphor?”
And the belief in excessive power and pagentry: I worship in a frickin’ cathedral with gold-leaf decorations! Has there ever been a leader LESS gold-leafy than Jesus? Well, maybe Buddha, and he’s been gold-leafed too.
Whew. I feel better now. But I have no idea where I’d start a “weirdest beliefs of your faith” thread. The Pit would be great, but they’d just rake everyone who posted over the coals. And I’m not sure it’s a GQ.
Mormons also believe–get this–that a guy who was killed came back from the dead and turned out actually to be the Son of God who died for your sins. I’m not sure anything qualifies as weirder than that.
To be a little more serious, Joseph Smith started the LDS Church based on visions and visitations. His claim was that first, the Father and Jesus Christ visited him in answer to a prayer about which denomination was correct. The answer was that the true church (and priesthood) had been lost from the earth and that it was his job to restore it. After that, over a period of years, Joseph was visited fairly regularly by various heavenly messengers. Moroni taught him things and showed him where the Book of Mormon was hidden away (because Moroni had been the last keeper of it). John the Baptist ordained him and a companion to the Aaronic priesthood, so that they could baptize. Peter, James, and John did the same with a higher form of priesthood and ordained them apostles. Here’s a timeline.
No one alive on earth could do those things, therefore they were done by heavenly messengers, who had those jobs in their stewardships. Hope that helps.
I’m too busy these days to start a thread, sorry–I just started a new job.
I think that since the word ekklesia refers to a gathering of people (or a calling of people to gather), that there is no ncessary reason to interpret it as referring toa specific, institutionalized denomination or church. In my opinion, it would probably be better to interpret it as something like “movement.”
“I’m going to call you ‘Rocky,’ and on this rock I will found my movement.”
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” John 21:25
So I fail to see any contradiction inherent in his alledged statement in Matthew 16:18
and the possibility that he might have founded OTHER “churches” upon OTHER “rocks”. (before or AFTER his death and resurrection, since the passage does not clarify one or the other).
There has long been speculation about the “missing years” of Jesus…where was he and what was he doing between his youth and when his story was again picked up in his 30’s? Some think he journeyed to Egypt and/or India and took intruction from spiritual teachers there. Others assume he just farted around his own region and such was hardly interesting enough to write down.
Very true. The only difference between the weirdness of your beliefs and the weirdness of mine is that yours have more of a patina of time, which confers respectability–but has nothing to do with truth. Your miracles are all in the distant past, where they are safely distant. I have extra ones that are more immediate and therefore harder for most people to accept. No difference otherwise.
Off-topic, but dangermom: Congrats on the new job!
Feel free to take time off from any and all messageboards while you get adjusted.
I’ve got a friend who went from suddenly unemployed to numerous rejections to getting fired from the sucky temp job he took (!) … to just as suddenly totally employed by a great biotech startup!
And now he’s bitching about how much time his dream job is taking!
Yes, and Kefas/Cephas is used later in the NT witout translating. However I was thinking that Jesus was speaking Aramaic when he said it and that good ol’ Matt is giving us the tranlsation.
It is of course entirely possible that Jesus could’ve spoken more than a smattering of Koiné since it was the lingua franca in that area of the Mediterranean.
This right here is where I think the idea came from that Matthew 16:18 precludes Mormonism. The idea of the Church having vanished from the Earth implies it was defeated, and thus the gates of Hell did prevail against it.
Back in my younger days, I used the same type of logic against the Pentecostal denominations that say that only people who speak in tongues are saved (and thus part of the real Church)–seeing as there was a lack of that practice for at least 1500 years.
Also, as a response to Sage Rat’s theory: I don’t know if Mark 9:38-40 helps or hurts. Jesus himself seems to be okay with other groups teaching about him, even though it bothered the disciples.
LDS thought does actually address this, but I’m not sure I’ll have time to give you a proper answer. (It’s late, I work tomorrow, etc.) The bits I’m remembering best came from a CD collection of lectures I have, which doesn’t exactly give me an easy citation. LDS theology says that the early Christian leaders expected an apostasy (Paul says “There must needs be a falling away…”, some other things) and that the gates of hell reference doesn’t mean that the Church can’t be lost from the earth. It will, however, prevail in eternity.
Sorry I can’t be more thorough at this time. Here’s a list of articles for you, though, should you feel like reading up on LDS thought about the apostasy.
- Jack