Damian

I got in a discussion with a Christian friend about "who started the church?" I was arguing the whole Paul angle, and she insisted it was Jesus himself. Apparently Matthew 16:18 is the basis for the theory that Jesus started the church. Also, she said if anyone other than Jesus started the church, it was Peter.

Have there been any threads discussing this issue anywhere? I did a quick search, but didn't come up with anything.

Ishmael

In the Bible Jesus organizes the disicples and then, in turn, they organize their own disciples in the Acts. Paul is the main church starter in book of Acts but I get the feeling that there were many "first" churches being started at the same time.

Essentially, the Jesus and disciples group is considered the "first" church even though I am sure that the historical Jesus would not have agreed.

ichabod crane

I think before you even begin to answer your question, you have to define the word "church". The Greek ekklesia just means a gathering or assembly. I would argue that the Pauline concept of the church universal is a purely spiritual, heavenly concept, not an earthly one, and does not refer to any organisation. It is the spiritual assembly in Christ of all those who believe. The church is present on earth for Paul only in the person of individual believers. The word "church" (ekklesia) may also be used of local assemblies of believers, or even of angry mobs (Acts 19:32). The concept of the church universal occurs once in Matthew, in Acts, in the Pauline epistles, and in Hebrews, but nowhere else in the New Testament. In other words, it is primarily a Pauline or Pauline-influenced concept, apart from the one instance in Matthew.

rlogan

We can't retroject what became the state-sanctioned church of the later centuries on to what was happening in the first.

Damian

By "can't," do you mean "historians are have not been able to" or do you mean "we shouldn't/it would not be appropriate to do so?"

ichabod crane

I think he means it would be inappropriate to do so. There is a 300-year gap between them. It would be like taking conditions today to be the same as in 1704.

rlogan

Exactly so, Ichabod.

A decent scholar can speak to the competing sects and socio-religious pressures developing from say the occupation circa 65 BC through the post-temple destruction.

That would not be me. But "the" church as a nascent movement in this period requires more than a discussion of Paul or Jesus.

jbernier

Absolutely. Indeed, "Christianity" does not really start simply with Jesus; one must look at Enochine, Essene, Pharsaic, etc., traditions that both predate and are contemporary with Jesus and Paul in order to get a full understanding of Christian origins. I think that, quite simply, the 1st-century is really too diverse to say "X founded Christianity." One thing I think is clear, though: Christianity is a faith about Jesus, not the faith of Jesus.