Hot_ice72

Did Jesus Christ intend for an institutionalised following? Or did he think he was setting an example, that might merely inspire individuals with their lives?

He spoke in parables frequently seemingly with the intent that people would think for themselves, intend of dogmatically following a preacher (Mark 4:12).

My biblical knowledge is far from comprehensive, which is why I'm posting here to receive feedback from the learned. My understanding is Jesus had an ambivalent relationship with his disciples. Also that He mostly didn't explicitly demand a following. From what i remember he basically deplored the churches and priests he came across.

Matthew 16:18 seems the most direct support that Jesus wanted a church. But my understanding is the Gospel of Matthew (and the other gospels except Mark) are the least credible accounts of Jesus. Also from what i can gather the translation of 'rock' is also contentious.

Also a professor at my university recently published a book, The Existential Jesus, which disputes the possibility that Jesus was a messiah as traditionally perceived. Although I haven't had the opportunity to get through the book, I'm very sympathetic to the interpretation.


Any relevant feedback appreciated, digressions will not be well received

Huon

Alfred Loisy (28 February 1857 - 1 June 1940) was a French Roman Catholic priest, professor and theologian who became the intellectual standard bearer for Biblical Modernism in the Roman Catholic Church. He was a critic of traditional views of the biblical accounts of creation, and argued that biblical criticism could be applied to interpreting scripture. His theological positions brought him into conflict with the leading Catholics of his era, including Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X. In 1893, he was dismissed as a professor from the Catholic Institute of Paris. His books were condemned by the Vatican, and in 1908 he was excommunicated.

Loisy's most famous observation was that ‘Jesus came preaching the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church’ (‘Jésus annonçait le Royaume et c'est l'Église qui est venue’: Loisy 1902).

A quote from wiki.

Hot_ice72

He sounds like a very agreeable scholar. His work also coincides with my social psychology knowledge, that people often miss the point and follow another.
The interpretation that Jesus was just trying to inspire others seems the most likely. Tragically, conformity seems to of befallen his ideas. I am an atheist of the Christian God (i feel an atheist must always clarify the God(s) he doesn't believe in), but i like to believe theres more than literary value in the Synoptic Gospels.

besleybean

Not sure, is the honest answer. Particularly as the 1st century concept of church, appears radically different to the generally held view today. He appeared to want to serve his fellow man, and basically seems a decent sort. The Bible is a very interesting collection of books, but should be given as much credit as any other book- no more or less.

Clouseau

If Jesus intended a well-defined, permanent organisation with a 'front door', able to demonstrate its descent and authority from himself, he failed, because there is no such organisation, and there never has been, as far as we know. That does not mean that he did not intend that people should not follow his teaching, because he repeatedly spoke of future events with relation to his followers, disciples he clearly believed would exist- though not necessarily continuously into the future. These followers must therefore be supposed by believers to exist in a less well defined association, assuming that they associate at all.

'"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher', for you have one Teacher, the Christ."' Mt 23:8-10 NIV

Now if Jesus' followers are 'brothers', it appears that they are expected to associate, and associate closely, like a family. Moreover, their relationship is one of equals. That condition corresponds to this:

'"This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord."' Jer 31:33-34 NIV

So the future model for the association of Jesus' followers, the ekklesia, is one of individuals directly influenced by the deity, later known as the Holy Spirit, in equal partnership. The Holy Spirit being undetectable by normal means, the ekklesia appears to be a democracy, the association of the word in Athens. In Acts 1 we read of the whole church electing a successor to one of 'the twelve', eye-witnesses of Jesus' ministry, an appointment that Jesus himself had made theretofore. However, there are no physical or organisational boundaries to the church, so it exists as and when the gospel is preached and accepted, whenever even two or three meet 'in his name'. There is no 'nailing down' of authentic Christian practice, no established body that can make permanent claim to be the church or any part thereof.

'"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."' Jn 3:8 NIV

We see this ephemeral characteristic even in New Testament times:

"To the angel of the church in Ephesus write.... I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."' Rev 2:1.. 5 NIV

'"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realise that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."' Rev 3:14-17 NIV

These churches in Ephesus and Laodicea were built up by Paul, yet were in danger of apostasy within a few decades.

oldskeptic

This is my first post here and is only my personal opinion.

It seems clear to me that the Jesus of the New Testament was whatever those writing about him wanted him to be.

Every word attributed to Jesus was put in Jesus’ mouth by men with motives and agendas.

These were not historians concerned with accuracy. They were myth makers concerned with supporting a fledgling religion and nourishing a nascent church that would eventually codify their myths into dogma.

More to the point of the original post; There was an organized religion founded on the premise of a Jesus, so one of the myths that grew was that that was his purpose, but it goes against some of the things said by him that were contributed by other authors.

According to some, Jesus did not come to establish a church that would last for centuries or millenniums. He came to prepare the way for the kingdom of “God” which was imminent, and in this scenario only the chosen people mattered. “God” was on his way and the Jews should get their act together before he did.

I think that this “dooms day” attitude was the early myth, and had little organization as far as being a church, but when “God” was a no show then the myth had to be modified for the believers. Jesus had to become more than just the harbinger, the bearer of the message. He became the message itself.

xrey

The problem with Jesus is that he never had children (the Da Vinci code notwithstanding). Therefore, he never set a true example for his followers for the long term.

While the moral lessons of Christianity were relatively benign on paper, I think that Christians have justified all sorts of non-Biblical behavior for the sake of their children. In other words, children are the root of all evil.:devil1:

Hot_ice72

I should probably of stated more explicitly, does the Jesus of the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John and especially Mark desire for an institutional following? My understanding is that the 4 gospels vary greatly. Which as an aside makes me wonder why there had to be 4 books on Jesus' life.
But I think I'm also asking, did Jesus want us to believe in him, or to live lives like his? Jesus in the gospel of Mark doesn't seem to want us to think he is 'the truth', or Logos, while he also belittles priests and churches. Yet the gospel of John seems exactly to demand we see Jesus as logos, which i believe would mean Jesus wanted a church following.
There is also the presumption that there was a historical Jesus that was recorded primarily in the gospel of Mark. This would give weight to Mark's interpretation of Jesus over John's interpretation.

Amaleq13

I think the Synoptics depict Jesus primarily trying to reform his fellow Jews.

Clouseau

He didn't write that explicitly, but one cannot conclude therefore that he did not believe that Jesus was both of those. Mark emphasised Jesus' teaching of 'the kingdom of God', meaning kingdom in this life as well as the next, which implies both belief in Jesus as divine and obedience to him.

There were no churches, and priests were rarely mentioned, except as persons who should be referred to as the law required. Jesus strongly defended the honour of the Temple, it being the contemporary symbol of the deity. Pharisees, totally unofficial, self-appointed arbiters of the truth, were exposed as false teachers and hypocrites. So Jesus strongly supported what was properly established in the days of Moses and David. The Israelites were intended as a type of church, witnesses to surrounding nations of the value of following their deity.

Jesus described his disciples as 'the salt of the earth'. He warned them of false teachers, 'wolves in sheeps' clothing', and that his followers would be picked out and treated badly. These concepts imply an ekklesia, successor to that of the Israelites.