Church--is one needed?

[_kairos]

The RCs and Mormons put primary emphasis on belonging to a "physical" church e.g. "the one true church" plus all of its rules, regs, doctrine etc. to obtain eternal life. Protestants - not so much! Most believe that eternal life means sincere turning from sin and to Jesus as Savior and Lord. So all who do that belong to Christ's true church which is a spiritual not a physical organization.

Growing up RC and a nevermo, i once believed the RC church was the one true church founded by Christ who designated Peter to carry on and build it till Christ comes again. Now and for many previous decades i believe Christ's church has no physical organization but is sort of a spiritual tent with all john 3:16 believers. My TBM my wife and adult TBM children believe in the one true church of Mormonism. I also believe there is room in the spiritual church tent for those who have never heard of Jesus!

Would do you think or come to believe or disbelieve about a one true Christ church?

just askin

k

[_Fence Sitter]

Are you asking if Christ intentionally created a religious organization which is somewhere/how represented on earth today, or if current religious organizations serve a purpose, because I believe the answer to the former is no and to the latter is yes. I don't believe Christ himself formed an organization at all inhis life that today we would consider a church.

I don't believe the Mormon church fills the purpose they claim, in that they represent the only true church of Christ and hold His magical power the priesthood, but I do think they serve a purpose which for the most part is admirable. I do think that current leadership has made or continued some very unchurch worthy practices in finance, treatment of LGBT and women, misrepresenting and hiding its past and current practices and so on, but at a local level i think Mormon churches are filled with and led by sincere honest people seeking to find communion within their building and provide help and leadership to the community at large. Now if SLC just just get the hell out of the way.

[_huckelberry]

The RCs and Mormons put primary emphasis on belonging to a "physical" church e.g. "the one true church" plus all of its rules, regs, doctrine etc. to obtain eternal life. Protestants - not so much! Most believe that eternal life means sincere turning from sin and to Jesus as Savior and Lord. So all who do that belong to Christ's true church which is a spiritual not a physical organization.

Growing up RC and a nevermo, i once believed the RC church was the one true church founded by Christ who designated Peter to carry on and build it till Christ comes again. Now and for many previous decades i believe Christ's church has no physical organization but is sort of a spiritual tent with all john 3:16 believers. My TBM my wife and adult TBM children believe in the one true church of Mormonism. I also believe there is room in the spiritual church tent for those who have never heard of Jesus!

Would do you think or come to believe or disbelieve about a one true Christ church?

just askin'

k

Kairos,

I think it is obvious that Jesus started the church that exists polyform now. He brought people together with shared hope and belief. He asked people to share that and live with that which is the foundation of church. I do not see that as Jesus laying out an organizational chart and instructions on weekly order of meetings. There is however an active group of people creating those things which goes back to Jesus. The evidence of that is clear in the New Testament and related early Christian writing even if one takes a critical reading of those writings. I think church organization developed over time with variation in different places and times till we find the variety in the world today.

I do not think any organization has a pure version of Christian truth. I do believe some people and groups can get so distorted as to not qualify as actual Christian. I think the Christian ideals are hope worth saving and connect people to their creator, even for people not familiar with Jesus and his followers. People who actually connect with Christian ideals are leaven for the whole human loaf. People waving Christian flags and corrupting the ideal not so much.

[_huckelberry]

Are you asking if Christ intentionally created a religious organization which is somewhere/how represented on earth today, or if current religious organizations serve a purpose, because I believe the answer to the former is no and to the latter is yes. I don't believe Christ himself formed an organization at all inhis life that today we would consider a church.

I don't believe the Mormon church fills the purpose they claim, in that they represent the only true church of Christ and hold His magical power the priesthood, but I do think they serve a purpose which for the most part is admirable. I do think that current leadership has made or continued some very unchurch worthy practices in finance, treatment of LGBT and women, misrepresenting and hiding its past and current practices and so on, but at a local level i think Mormon churches are filled with and led by sincere honest people seeking to find communion within their building and provide help and leadership to the community at large. Now if Salt Lake City just just get the hell out of the way.

Fence Sitter,

I think you have drawn a good map locating where the value in Mormon participation lies.

I think your comment about Jesus not forming a church depends a lot on what you may mean by the phrase," which we would recognize as church today."

[_Fence Sitter]

I think your comment about Jesus not forming a church depends a lot on what you may mean by the phrase," which we would recognize as church today."

I believe that if the historical Jesus existed he believed the apocalypse was imminent and had no intention of setting up an organization which in any way represents any Church today.

The Biblical Jesus is a different matter but then I think that figure is largely mythical, created long after Jesus died and the apocalypse didn't materialize. That Jesus is still being invented and reinvented today by people like Joseph Smith.

[Guest]

I think your comment about Jesus not forming a church depends a lot on what you may mean by the phrase," which we would recognize as church today."

I believe that if the historical Jesus existed he believed the apocalypse was imminent and had no intention of setting up an organization which in any way represents any Church today.

The Biblical Jesus is a different matter but then I think that figure is largely mythical, created long after Jesus died and the apocalypse didn't materialize. That Jesus is still being invented and reinvented today by people like Joseph Smith.

I am puzzled, why in the world was Jesus running around talking to people and teaching them?

Fence Sitter, you present some questions that I find myself with some curiosity about even if I do not know all the answers. How would one have some or any information about the historical Jesus other than from the material about him created by the church? Why or how could you know more about that historical figure than the gospel writers?

Historical Jesus studies use inner conflicts or puzzling elements in those records to infer things about the historical Jesus not emphasized by the church tradition. The sayings suggesting the world is about to end are some of those. There is a difficulty. Not everybody will interpret those phrases the same way. Some scholars like N.T. Wright reject that interpretation and see Jesus using assumed cultural tropes in a questioning and exploratory way. Perhaps that is not convincing to you but you do not have any source (except Paul) that goes back earlier than the gospel presentation. I do not think you can escape some uncertainty.

My original point was more along the observation that with or with out thinking the end of the world was arriving Jesus collected followers and gave them ideas to share. This collecting of people together is the real historical foundation of the church, or churches. I am sure Jesus was not holding pictures in his mind of all the forms that people would create. I feel sure had had a strong hope that people would be changed by what he said and did.

....

idiot auto correct, Mr Wright is not New Testament Wright

[_kairos]

Fence and Huck -thanx, very thoughtful comments.

could Jesus believe that those who did and would follow his teachings etc. could actually do that without some sort of organizational structure? paul tells Timothy to set up "offices" like elder and deacon, made room for travelling evangelists etc. - so was a organization inevitable?

k

[_huckelberry]

Fence and Huck-thanx, very thoughtful comments.

could Jesus believe that those who did and would follow his teachings etc. could actually do that without some sort of organizational structure? paul tells Timothy to set up "offices" like elder and deacon, made room for travelling evangelists etc. - so was a organization inevitable?

k

If there was no organization nobody after the end of the first century would have heard of Jesus and his difficulties with the Jewish and Roman authorities.

I think Jesus is asking people to change the way they think and live and that has some implications about how societies are organized therefore I think an organization is clearly implied by Jesus words and actions.

[_Fence Sitter]

I am puzzled, why in the world was Jesus running around talking to people and teaching them?

In my opinion. he was trying to convince them that the apocalypse was imminent and to prepare for it, in their own lifetime.

Fence Sitter, you present some questions that I find myself with some curiosity about even if I do not know all the answers. How would one have some or any information about the historical Jesus other than from the material about him created by the church? Why or how could you know more about that historical figure than the gospel writers?

Historical Jesus studies use inner conflicts or puzzling elements in those records to infer things about the historical Jesus not emphasized by the church tradition. The sayings suggesting the world is about to end are some of those. There is a difficulty. Not everybody will interpret those phrases the same way. Some scholars like N.T. Wright reject that interpretation and see Jesus using assumed cultural tropes in a questioning and exploratory way. Perhaps that is not convincing to you but you do not have any source (except Paul) that goes back earlier than the gospel presentation. I do not think you can escape some uncertainty.

My original point was more along the observation that with or with out thinking the end of the world was arriving Jesus collected followers and gave them ideas to share. This collecting of people together is the real historical foundation of the church, or churches. I am sure Jesus was not holding pictures in his mind of all the forms that people would create. I feel sure had had a strong hope that people would be changed by what he said and did.

....

idiot auto correct, Mr Wright is not New Testament Wright

There is no certainty in historical critical Biblical studies, there are only probabilities and possibilities. I like what Schweitzer had to say about it regarding Jesus:

There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb.

What little we know about Jesus was written by mostly anonymous people who never met him and whose beliefs and agendas influenced their writings. Today we have millions of contemporary documents covering the life time of Joseph Smith, many of which were written by those who knew him personally and witnessed the events they were recording and yet there is extensive disputes going on as to what happened at that time just two hundred years ago. To believe that few people writing 50 years of more after the death of Christ would be able to accurately portray him or even be interested in doing so is not realistic.

I find the historical critical views of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of some sort much more likely than relying on the accuracy of Paul and others. I am sure you have read it but I find Ehrman's Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium to be the best explanation for who Jesus actually was. And he certainly does not just rely on Paul for his thesis.

[_huckelberry]

There is no certainty in historical critical Biblical studies, there are only probabilities and possibilities. I like what Schweitzer had to say about it regarding Jesus:

There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb.

......
I find the historical critical views of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of some sort much more likely than relying on the accuracy of Paul and others. I am sure you have read it but I find Ehrman's Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium to be the best explanation for who Jesus actually was. And he certainly does not just rely on Paul for his thesis.

Fence Sitter, I have read several books of Ehrmans but not the one you mention. I will take your recommendation sometime however. My understanding of Jesus is solidly in the camp of Apocalyptic prophet but more influenced by Schweitzer and N.T. Wright. Schweitzer's Quest is a book I read number of years ago and I think it has had a strong ongoing influence on my understanding.

here is a bit from the next page from your quote which fills out Schweitzer's view a bit.

"The work which historical theology thought itself to be bound to carry out and which fell apart just before completion was only the brink facing of the real immovable historical foundation which is independent of any historical confirmation or justification. Jesus means something to our world because a might spiritual force streams forth from him and flows through our time also this fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by and historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity."

a page further on,

" Jesus as a concrete historical personality remains a stranger to our time hut his spirit which lies hidden in His words is known in simplicity and its influence is direct . Every saying contains in its own way the whole Jesus. The very strangeness and unconditionalness in which He stands before us makes it easier for individuals to find their own personal standpoint in regard to Him. "

continues referring to that search he sees as failing to find the historical:

Men feared that to admit the claims of eschatology would abolish the significance of His worlds for our time; and hence there was a feverish eagerness to discover in them any element that might be considered not eschatologically conditioned. When any saying were found of which the wording did not absolutely imply an escatological connexion there was a great jubilation, these at least had been saved uninjured from the coming debacle.

But in reality that which is eternal in the words of Jesus is due to the very fact that they are based on an eschatological worldview , and contain the expreression of a mind for which the contemporary world with its historical and social circumstances no longer had any existence. They are appropriate ,therefore to any world for in every world the raise the man who dares to meet their challenge and does not turn and twist them into meaninglessness, above his world and his e, making him inwardly free, so that he is fitted to be , in his own world and in this time a simple channel of the power of Jesus."
..........

what I understand here is that the pictures of historical Jesus which Schweitzer sees as failed are the second half of 19th century liberal theology which sought to match the then current social order which the aimed at kingdom of God ignoring how disruptive of the normal system of privilege Jesus message is. Those words may also l be disruptive of other utopian 19th century political theories as well.