Did Jesus Know He was Starting a New Movement?

[Moonglow]

According to some biblical historians, such as Bart Ehrman, most scholars believe Jesus did not know that he was launching a new movement, i.e., the church, because that movement started after his death. If that’s the case, did Jesus fail? What was the purpose of his ministry? What was the “good news”?


I say that Jesus did know what he was bringing to the world, and he quite explicitly says so. What do you say?

The whole setup shows that He knew clearly what's going. What humans don't know are what humans don't know is what human witnessing is.

Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
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.”

He asked Peter to found the Church. Today's Catholic Church reckons that it is founded by Peter.
Hades is a place all dead human will go. He thus knows that the salvation offered (by the New Covenant) will reach humans in majority through His Church such that humans will not all wind up in Hades.

The Jewish meaning of "binding and loosing" signifies an authentication shift, literally from the Jews to the Catholics (more precisely, God withdrew His earthly authority from the Jews and reassign the Church as His new representative). NT Canon is thus designed and enforced by the Church, however the Jews are still the one keeping the legitimate OT Canon. The keeper and enforcer of Bible Canons are God's earthly representatives. First came the Jews thus they are the keeper of the OT Canon, followed by the Catholics as the keeper of the NT Canon. Now this authentication has been extended to the Protestants and thus they are the only intangible authority but keeping both an authenticated OT Canon (same as the Jews) and an authenticated NT Canon (same as the Jews).

Acts 1:7-8
He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

To the apostles, they may have taken "ends of the earth" as the whole Roman empire. However literally this becomes a prophecy of today's influence. So it may be in the contrary that the apostles (some of them) may not actually know the final effect of preaching the gospel. However Jesus somehow predicts correctly that the gospel will finally reach the 4 corners of the earth.

Jesus was alive already before being sent to Earth and knew before he went what the deal was...

dang, there is hope for you.

Don't bet on it

 

[SweetSue92]

Before Abraham was, I AM--John 8:57

 

[irosie91]

Before Abraham was, I AM--John 8:57

who is "I am" and in what language was the concept expressed
----and using what word(s)?

 

[SweetSue92]

Before Abraham was, I AM--John 8:57

who is "I am" and in what language was the concept expressed
----and using what word(s)?

Let me guess, you're a Bart Ehrman acolyte. Yes?

 

[irosie91]

Before Abraham was, I AM--John 8:57

who is "I am" and in what language was the concept expressed
----and using what word(s)?

Let me guess, you're a Bart Ehrman acolyte. Yes?

nope---------have barely looked at his stuff------the little I do
know is that he does get into linguistic in a scholarly manner.
INDEPENDENTLY of bart------I noticed how important is
Linguistics when I first learned a bit of Hebrew-----and learned
a bit of how the Talmud and its scholars work. I am not a
bible scholar. Anyone who WANTS to be a bible scholar
of the NT should learn the Judeo/Aramaic of the time of Jesus

 

[SweetSue92]

Before Abraham was, I AM--John 8:57

who is "I am" and in what language was the concept expressed
----and using what word(s)?

Let me guess, you're a Bart Ehrman acolyte. Yes?

nope---------have barely looked at his stuff------the little I do
know is that he does get into linguistic in a scholarly manner.
INDEPENDENTLY of bart------I noticed how important is
Linguistics when I first learned a bit of Hebrew-----and learned
a bit of how the Talmud and its scholars work. I am not a
bible scholar. Anyone who WANTS to be a bible scholar
of the NT should learn the Judeo/Aramaic of the time of Jesus

Then why are you, Ehrman like, demanding that we pick at weeds and ignoring the forest? Why do you assume the Bible--the most sold, most widely read and translated book in all of human history, has been translated so poorly?

You're picking at weeds, you realize, when you demand we answer these minutiae. And that's exactly what it is. Jesus said exactly what He meant, and it's been gone over and gone over. That is why the Jews picked up stones to kill Him. THEY knew exactly what He meant--He was saying He was God.

Did this not occur to you?

 

[irosie91]

Before Abraham was, I AM--John 8:57

who is "I am" and in what language was the concept expressed
----and using what word(s)?

Let me guess, you're a Bart Ehrman acolyte. Yes?

nope---------have barely looked at his stuff------the little I do
know is that he does get into linguistic in a scholarly manner.
INDEPENDENTLY of bart------I noticed how important is
Linguistics when I first learned a bit of Hebrew-----and learned
a bit of how the Talmud and its scholars work. I am not a
bible scholar. Anyone who WANTS to be a bible scholar
of the NT should learn the Judeo/Aramaic of the time of Jesus

Then why are you, Ehrman like, demanding that we pick at weeds and ignoring the forest? Why do you assume the Bible--the most sold, most widely read and translated book in all of human history, has been translated so poorly?

You're picking at weeds, you realize, when you demand we answer these minutiae. And that's exactly what it is. Jesus said exactly what He meant, and it's been gone over and gone over. That is why the Jews picked up stones to kill Him. THEY knew exactly what He meant--He was saying He was God.

Did this not occur to you?

I know that it has been translated inaccurately because I read it.
I know that it is entirely misunderstood in the various churches
of the USA because I was born and grew up in the USA. My
education in religion as a kid was very simple. I knew mostly
Christians----went to their churches sometimes and to synagogues
less frequently. --thus I am fairly opened minded about the whole
subject-------you, CLEARLY, are not. Jews threw stones at
Jesus? I missed that part.

 

[SweetSue92]

Before Abraham was, I AM--John 8:57

who is "I am" and in what language was the concept expressed
----and using what word(s)?

Let me guess, you're a Bart Ehrman acolyte. Yes?

nope---------have barely looked at his stuff------the little I do
know is that he does get into linguistic in a scholarly manner.
INDEPENDENTLY of bart------I noticed how important is
Linguistics when I first learned a bit of Hebrew-----and learned
a bit of how the Talmud and its scholars work. I am not a
bible scholar. Anyone who WANTS to be a bible scholar
of the NT should learn the Judeo/Aramaic of the time of Jesus

Then why are you, Ehrman like, demanding that we pick at weeds and ignoring the forest? Why do you assume the Bible--the most sold, most widely read and translated book in all of human history, has been translated so poorly?

You're picking at weeds, you realize, when you demand we answer these minutiae. And that's exactly what it is. Jesus said exactly what He meant, and it's been gone over and gone over. That is why the Jews picked up stones to kill Him. THEY knew exactly what He meant--He was saying He was God.

Did this not occur to you?

I know that it has been translated inaccurately because I read it.
I know that it is entirely misunderstood in the various churches
of the USA because I was born and grew up in the USA. My
education in religion as a kid was very simple. I knew mostly
Christians----went to their churches sometimes and to synagogues
less frequently. --thus I am fairly opened minded about the whole
subject-------you, CLEARLY, are not. Jews threw stones at
Jesus? I missed that part.

So you don't even know the passage and yet you're trying to interpret it. Yes, Jesus declared that before Abraham was, I AM. And then the Jews attempted to stone Him for blasphemy. Please don't pick at me for languages and attempt to impress me with how many churches you attended when you don't even know the Scriptures, which are foundational.

John 8:57-58

So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

 

[irosie91]

who is "I am" and in what language was the concept expressed
----and using what word(s)?

Let me guess, you're a Bart Ehrman acolyte. Yes?

nope---------have barely looked at his stuff------the little I do
know is that he does get into linguistic in a scholarly manner.
INDEPENDENTLY of bart------I noticed how important is
Linguistics when I first learned a bit of Hebrew-----and learned
a bit of how the Talmud and its scholars work. I am not a
bible scholar. Anyone who WANTS to be a bible scholar
of the NT should learn the Judeo/Aramaic of the time of Jesus

Then why are you, Ehrman like, demanding that we pick at weeds and ignoring the forest? Why do you assume the Bible--the most sold, most widely read and translated book in all of human history, has been translated so poorly?

You're picking at weeds, you realize, when you demand we answer these minutiae. And that's exactly what it is. Jesus said exactly what He meant, and it's been gone over and gone over. That is why the Jews picked up stones to kill Him. THEY knew exactly what He meant--He was saying He was God.

Did this not occur to you?

I know that it has been translated inaccurately because I read it.
I know that it is entirely misunderstood in the various churches
of the USA because I was born and grew up in the USA. My
education in religion as a kid was very simple. I knew mostly
Christians----went to their churches sometimes and to synagogues
less frequently. --thus I am fairly opened minded about the whole
subject-------you, CLEARLY, are not. Jews threw stones at
Jesus? I missed that part.

So you don't even know the passage and yet you're trying to interpret it. Yes, Jesus declared that before Abraham was, I AM. And then the Jews attempted to stone Him for blasphemy. Please don't pick at me for languages and attempt to impress me with how many churches you attended when you don't even know the Scriptures, which are foundational.

John 8:57-58

So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

oh----mushroom galvanized john-----unidentified person-----you might just as well quote the book of revulsions. The statement made by Jesus is nothing to throw stones at. --------the concept of an eternal soul----GILGUL----existing for all time is sorta an idea batted about by jews into mysticism. Mysticism was a biggie back then . ---where is the
"I am 'god' " ------not that I care what JOHN wrote a few hundred
years after the fact

 

[Baron]

YES

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16

 

[Taz]

Jesus was the original con man.

I doubt it

Moses?

More like Taz

Forgive him. He doesn’t know what he is doing. He doesn’t know anything. And he is proud that he doesn’t.

Don’t waste your time

Your magic underwear on a little too tight? Go up a couple of magical sizes.

So what happened to the golden plates? Did they even really exist?

 

[irosie91]

It's bullshit. He made it up. So he's conning people.

What is the con, exactly?

not Jesus-----the con is the NT

Let me guess. It's a fourth-century Roman creation.

you need not guess-----just read it. I am going to ASSUME
that you are a Christian-----ie GUESS. Where do you find the
the phrase "cast not your pearls before swine" and what does it
mean?

I find it in Matthew.

Jesus is very ethnocentric. It's a cultural thing, even today. Back then, if you weren't Jewish, you were a pig or a dog.

well----no cigar. It was part of colloquial Hebraized Aramaic. -----I know of no
basis for your claim that "back then non jews were dogs or pigs"----but see
your point. ---the important issue is that it was a WELL KNOWN expression
for jewish Aramaic speakers of that time

 

[irosie91]

According to some biblical historians, such as Bart Ehrman, most scholars believe Jesus did not know that he was launching a new movement, i.e., the church, because that movement started after his death. If that’s the case, did Jesus fail? What was the purpose of his ministry? What was the “good news”?


I say that Jesus did know what he was bringing to the world, and he quite explicitly says so. What do you say?[/QUOTE"]
"Upon this rock I will build my church."

"Upon this rock I will build my church."

Why would some scholars disagree?

Because many are arrogant fools who can’t see what’s in front of them because they want to find and teach something unique and new. Ironically their efforts usually make them sound exactly like everyone else in their profession

I'm not so sure. Scholars who disagree that Jesus knew he was starting a movement are like mainstream fundamentalist Christians in that regard. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the church is accidental, or better maybe that it is parenthetical, not Christ's ultimate objective.

Christ’s ultimate objective was the cross. But it’s clear He certainly established a Church. He trained His disciples. He organized them. He made the Twelve their leaders. If He didn’t want a Church established He went about not establishing one in a strange way.

And then we have to ignore references like Matthew 16:18. But if we just ignore it as unreliable why should we trust anything found in the Gospel?

the NT is a scriptural writing----so is the Odyssey and the Baghavad Gita. ----
There is lots of stuff in all three to trust-----Ya gotta read them with a HUMAN
level of discernment

 

[norwegen]

What is the con, exactly?

not Jesus-----the con is the NT

Let me guess. It's a fourth-century Roman creation.

you need not guess-----just read it. I am going to ASSUME
that you are a Christian-----ie GUESS. Where do you find the
the phrase "cast not your pearls before swine" and what does it
mean?

I find it in Matthew.

Jesus is very ethnocentric. It's a cultural thing, even today. Back then, if you weren't Jewish, you were a pig or a dog.

well----no cigar. It was part of colloquial Hebraized Aramaic. -----I know of no
basis for your claim that "back then non jews were dogs or pigs"----but see
your point. ---the important issue is that it was a WELL KNOWN expression
for jewish Aramaic speakers of that time

I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the thread topic, but anyway, you asked me what the expression means, and yet you haven't explained what it means.

Hint: Jesus wasn't the only ethnocentric Jew. St. Paul referred to foreigners as barbarians. Everyone was ethnocentric, including Jews.

The biblical text is generally interpreted to be a warning by Jesus to his followers that they should not impart doctrine to those who were unable to value and appreciate it.

Another hint: Who do you suppose would not have valued and appreciated the Jewish scriptures?

 

[irosie91]

not Jesus-----the con is the NT

Let me guess. It's a fourth-century Roman creation.

you need not guess-----just read it. I am going to ASSUME
that you are a Christian-----ie GUESS. Where do you find the
the phrase "cast not your pearls before swine" and what does it
mean?

I find it in Matthew.

Jesus is very ethnocentric. It's a cultural thing, even today. Back then, if you weren't Jewish, you were a pig or a dog.

well----no cigar. It was part of colloquial Hebraized Aramaic. -----I know of no
basis for your claim that "back then non jews were dogs or pigs"----but see
your point. ---the important issue is that it was a WELL KNOWN expression
for jewish Aramaic speakers of that time

I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the thread topic, but anyway, you asked me what the expression means, and yet you haven't explained what it means.

Hint: Jesus wasn't the only ethnocentric Jew. St. Paul referred to foreigners as barbarians. Everyone was ethnocentric, including Jews.

The biblical text is generally interpreted to be a warning by Jesus to his followers that they should not impart doctrine to those who were unable to value and appreciate it.

Another hint: Who do you suppose would not have valued and appreciated the Jewish scriptures?

close----Paul was greek---the word BARBARIAN is greek and was
used to refer to any non-Greek speaking people. Even Plato used
it. There evidence that lots of greeks valued Jewish Scriptures --but
the Romans did not. Of course, the romans at that time were the
oppressors of both jews and greeks. The lines were part of the common
vernacular

 

[norwegen]

Let me guess. It's a fourth-century Roman creation.

you need not guess-----just read it. I am going to ASSUME
that you are a Christian-----ie GUESS. Where do you find the
the phrase "cast not your pearls before swine" and what does it
mean?

I find it in Matthew.

Jesus is very ethnocentric. It's a cultural thing, even today. Back then, if you weren't Jewish, you were a pig or a dog.

well----no cigar. It was part of colloquial Hebraized Aramaic. -----I know of no
basis for your claim that "back then non jews were dogs or pigs"----but see
your point. ---the important issue is that it was a WELL KNOWN expression
for jewish Aramaic speakers of that time

I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the thread topic, but anyway, you asked me what the expression means, and yet you haven't explained what it means.

Hint: Jesus wasn't the only ethnocentric Jew. St. Paul referred to foreigners as barbarians. Everyone was ethnocentric, including Jews.

The biblical text is generally interpreted to be a warning by Jesus to his followers that they should not impart doctrine to those who were unable to value and appreciate it.

Another hint: Who do you suppose would not have valued and appreciated the Jewish scriptures?

close----Paul was greek---the word BARBARIAN is greek and was
used to refer to any non-Greek speaking people. Even Plato used
it. There evidence that lots of greeks valued Jewish Scriptures --but
the Romans did not. Of course, the romans at that time were the
oppressors of both jews and greeks. The lines were part of the common
vernacular

As you wish. Paul is a self-proclaimed Pharisee. A Pharisee among Pharisees (Acts 23:6). But . . .

. . .as you wish.

And you still have not explained what to cast pearls before pigs means.

 

[irosie91]

you need not guess-----just read it. I am going to ASSUME
that you are a Christian-----ie GUESS. Where do you find the
the phrase "cast not your pearls before swine" and what does it
mean?

I find it in Matthew.

Jesus is very ethnocentric. It's a cultural thing, even today. Back then, if you weren't Jewish, you were a pig or a dog.

well----no cigar. It was part of colloquial Hebraized Aramaic. -----I know of no
basis for your claim that "back then non jews were dogs or pigs"----but see
your point. ---the important issue is that it was a WELL KNOWN expression
for jewish Aramaic speakers of that time

I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the thread topic, but anyway, you asked me what the expression means, and yet you haven't explained what it means.

Hint: Jesus wasn't the only ethnocentric Jew. St. Paul referred to foreigners as barbarians. Everyone was ethnocentric, including Jews.

The biblical text is generally interpreted to be a warning by Jesus to his followers that they should not impart doctrine to those who were unable to value and appreciate it.

Another hint: Who do you suppose would not have valued and appreciated the Jewish scriptures?

close----Paul was greek---the word BARBARIAN is greek and was
used to refer to any non-Greek speaking people. Even Plato used
it. There evidence that lots of greeks valued Jewish Scriptures --but
the Romans did not. Of course, the romans at that time were the
oppressors of both jews and greeks. The lines were part of the common
vernacular

As you wish. Paul is a self-proclaimed Pharisee. A Pharisee among Pharisees (Acts 23:6). But . . .

. . .as you wish.

And you still have not explained what to cast pearls before pigs means.

its obvious------YOU simply made HAY out of the ethnocentric thing.
As to Paul's "Pharisee" claim----neither here nor there. He may
have been presenting himself as "learned" -----Pharisees were
virtually always literate. Do you believe everyone who claims "I AM A
GOOD CHRISTIAN" According to the NT---Paul made his statement
SPECFICALLY when facing two gaggles------one Pharisee and the other
Sadducee. What he was doing is ascribing to the PHARISEE notion of
----(<hold your breath>) REINCARNATION ----the eternal durability of the
SOUL. It was a single issue stance. Also ---the sadducees were known
suck-up to the Romans

 

[irosie91]

Jesus was the original con man.

I doubt it

Moses?

More like Taz

Forgive him. He doesn’t know what he is doing. He doesn’t know anything. And he is proud that he doesn’t.

Don’t waste your time

Your magic underwear on a little too tight? Go up a couple of magical sizes.

So what happened to the golden plates? Did they even really exist?

shylock stole them and melted them down

 

[norwegen]

I find it in Matthew.

Jesus is very ethnocentric. It's a cultural thing, even today. Back then, if you weren't Jewish, you were a pig or a dog.

well----no cigar. It was part of colloquial Hebraized Aramaic. -----I know of no
basis for your claim that "back then non jews were dogs or pigs"----but see
your point. ---the important issue is that it was a WELL KNOWN expression
for jewish Aramaic speakers of that time

I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the thread topic, but anyway, you asked me what the expression means, and yet you haven't explained what it means.

Hint: Jesus wasn't the only ethnocentric Jew. St. Paul referred to foreigners as barbarians. Everyone was ethnocentric, including Jews.

The biblical text is generally interpreted to be a warning by Jesus to his followers that they should not impart doctrine to those who were unable to value and appreciate it.

Another hint: Who do you suppose would not have valued and appreciated the Jewish scriptures?

close----Paul was greek---the word BARBARIAN is greek and was
used to refer to any non-Greek speaking people. Even Plato used
it. There evidence that lots of greeks valued Jewish Scriptures --but
the Romans did not. Of course, the romans at that time were the
oppressors of both jews and greeks. The lines were part of the common
vernacular

As you wish. Paul is a self-proclaimed Pharisee. A Pharisee among Pharisees (Acts 23:6). But . . .

. . .as you wish.

And you still have not explained what to cast pearls before pigs means.

its obvious------YOU simply made HAY out of the ethnocentric thing.
As to Paul's "Pharisee" claim----neither here nor there. He may
have been presenting himself as "learned" -----Pharisees were
virtually always literate. Do you believe everyone who claims "I AM A
GOOD CHRISTIAN" According to the NT---Paul made his statement
SPECFICALLY when facing two gaggles------one Pharisee and the other
Sadducee. What he was doing is ascribing to the PHARISEE notion of
----(<hold your breath>) REINCARNATION ----the eternal durability of the
SOUL. It was a single issue stance. Also ---the sadducees were known
suck-up to the Romans

Now you're just out there.

 

[ding]

He was about the church. That was his mission. It's what he died for.

what word did Jesus use for "the church" ?

In English, church, of course. One verse signifying that has already been cited a number of times.

Much more often, though, Jesus referred to it as the kingdom.

Jesus did not know English-----it is likely that he did not know greek
either------as described in the NT, he was literate in both Hebrew
and Aramaic. WORDS are important in understanding------
just WAT A WRITING MEANS. Jesus referred to WHAT as
"the kingdom"? and what is the WORD he used?

The church is the Kingdom. Are you lost?

He used the word kingdom (in Aramaic, of course). In Greek, which is the language of the Gospels, the word is basileía.

so you don't know. You are guessing that Jesus claimed
he had founded a "kingdom" stated in Aramaic which is also
"church" In Hebrew it is mamlekhah-----sorta "that which is of
a king" ------at that time a country ruled by a king-----probably similar
in Aramaic. At that time Rome was ruled by a king-----it was a kingdom

Jews never had kings or kingdoms?