You have built yourself a straw man again. The reader’s atheist protagonist did not claim that the gospels came before the church only that there is no direct evidence of great merit that supports the idea that the church was begun by the Jesus character portrayed in the gospels rather than by others who followed later, (or even perhaps earlier).

Well said.  Also, bonus points for using the phrase “ahistorical rubbish”.  I’ll have to find a way to work that into conversation.

@GordonHide

But is there, as you say, “any direct evidence of great merit that supports the idea” that it did not happen this way?  I understand, I understand - it is always up to us prove that it DID but I am pretty tired of all the burden being on us. 

Our ‘proof’ (which is apparently unacceptable) is that Jesus said it in several different ways:  You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, go preach to the whole world, do this in remembrance of me, etc.  Then these brave men and women did just that - they did as they were asked.

This isn’t unlike chores in my house, I tell my kids to go clean their rooms and the rooms get clean (eventually).  If you were to come into the house and see those clean rooms you could argue that the idea was the kids and not mine.  They weren’t following my request but came up with it on their own.  BUT, my kids would quickly tell you that cleaning their rooms was certainly NOT their idea.  They would have much preferred to watch TV, go outside or play video games.  But, they did clean their rooms.  They did it out of love for me and because I asked.

So, it was for the first apostles.  They went out because Jesus asked them to - they went preach the Gospel to establish Churches, celebrate the Eucharist and so much more.  And there seems to be some historical and archeological evidence to support such activities.

And, if you were able to time travel and catch Timothy, Paul or Peter on the road way back then, they just might let you know that this whole thing wasn’t their idea.  If it were left up to them they’d happily be at home, not worrying about being arrested, killed, hungry, cold and sleeping on the side of the road.  BUT, they did it because Jesus asked them to and they loved Him.

I accept that you will poke a million holes in my analogy but that doesn’t matter - I also love Jesus and will do my best to defend Him regardless of how silly it seems or how poorly I do it.

I’m curious as to the alternative scenario “Jesus didn’t found the Church” people envision.  Occam’s Razor favors the ordinary Christian account pretty strongly.

That is a very odd argument to be having with an atheist. Assume the atheist accepts that Jesus really existed based on scriptures. If there’s no god it doesn’t matter if the idea of a church came from Jesus or an apostle. If you assume no god, both were just men with illusions about having a relationship with supernatural beings.

Gordonhide. 

The Gospels were written during the lifetime of eye witnesses, and no substantial changes have been made.  So, we have two options: the Evangelists believed what they wrote or they were liars.  If they were liars, then why do the Apostles look so stupid and immature?  Why was the tomb discovered first by women instead of Peter?  Why did no one correct them?  (“Hey guys, they’re lying!  C’mon, we’ll show you the tomb.”).  Why would they be willing to suffer and die for a work of fiction? (We’re not talking about just their followers.  The people who, according to your speculation, would have known that “the way” was false died for a lie).  Their words and actions only make sense if the evangelists were honest men.

Mark:

By the time they are written, the Church has been a living reality for roughly forty or fifty years.

I have a small disagreement here, in that I think that they started being written a bit earlier than that. Acts was apparently written before Paul died, since it leaves off with his future uncertain, and it would almost surely have mentioned his execution had it happened at the time, and Luke was written before Acts, since Acts is a continuation of Luke. Since Paul died in 67 AD, and Jesus was crucified at 30 AD at the earliest, it gives us an upper limit of about 37 years between the crucifixion and the completion of Book Of Luke. And if (as I do) you believe that Matthew was written first (with Mark being second or 3rd), it would place Matthew even before that. None of this detracts from your main argument, of course. Just thought I’d throw it out there.

I think Luke’s Gospel provides us with the best reason for thinking Jesus didn’t institute the papacy through the words attributed to him in Matt. 16. I say this because I’m sure by ‘Church’ you’re including some notion of a primitive papacy from which developed the current papal dogmas.

Stevo.  How so?

Jared.

(1) If Jesus instituted the papacy through his words in Matt. 16:18, then these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [Premise]

(2) If these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel, then Luke recorded this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]

(3) Luke didn’t record this understanding of these words in his parallel (Lk. 9:20) to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]

(4) Therefore, these words were not understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [(2), (3), M.T.]

(5) Therefore, Jesus did not institute the papacy through his words in Mat. 16:18. [(1), (4), M.T.]

Since this is logically valid, the only way to avoid (4)-(5) is to deny one of the premises. But, (3) is practically a biblical verse. That leaves (1)-(2), each of which has powerful support which I can produce if you like.

The issue of the real and the historical Jesus seems to me to be one of the most misunderstood issues.  Here is a video I made summarizing my own understanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebSN9c-C6k

Stevo,

I deny premise 2.

matt: Why?

For an event in the Gospels to be important, it must be told in all four?

matt, you beat me to it: I also deny premise 2.

It doesn’t necessarily follow from premise 1.  Just because something “bear[s] significant ecclesiological weight” doesn’t necessarily entail that another writer will repeat it. 

In his version, Luke does not deny the details in Matthew’s Gospel.  Instead, he simply doesn’t record it.  Just because it isn’t recorded doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or that it doesn’t “bear significant ecclesiological weight”.  It just means that Luke didn’t record it.

The life of the early Church - indeed, even Acts (written by Luke) - attest to the “pope-like” authority of St. Peter.

St. Matthew had a purpose - a specific audience in mind - for his Gospel.  This audience demanded that he mention certain things that “bear significant ecclesiological weight”.

St. Luke, writing at a later time and to a different audience, didn’t feel the need to stress exactly the same things that “bear significant ecclesiological weight”.

What’s difficult to understand about that?

matt,

No, of course not. Given the interconnection between the Christian communities of the early 1st century and Luke’s extensive travels and labors in compiling material for composing his Luke-Acts work (typical of a Greek historian); he would’ve encountered an understanding of Jesus’ words held by Christians for half a century on a weighty ecclesiological doctrine. Further, given Luke’s purpose in composing his works (i.e., Lk. 1:4, “so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught”), an ecclesiological doctrine like this would’ve been exactly what Luke wanted in his Gospel.
It’d be inexplicable that Luke fail to record this if he was aware of it.

“Just as most scholars today recognize the Gospels as biographies, the dominant view concerning Acts today, earlier argued by Lukan scholars such as Marian Debelius and Henry Cadbury, is that it is a work of ancient historiography. Luke Timothy Johnson in the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that most scholars today accept this assignment of genre for Luke-Acts as a whole. Indeed, Hengel and Schwemer contend that those who deny Luke-Acts as acceptable first-century historiography need to read more ancient historiography “and less hypercritical and scholastic secondary literature.”” – Keener, Craig. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, p. 86.

Nicholas Jagneaux,

(2) isn’t supposed to follow from (1). (2) is a premise, not a deduction.

Stevo
You’re 2nd premise is false thus rendering your deductions 4 and 5 erroneous.

Stevo,

I humbly acknowledge that I don’t know the “technical” definitions for proofs.

However, it doesn’t change the fact that premise 2 is a load of bunk for the reasons that I cited.

In other words, they are a false premise.  From my layman’s perspective. :)

Stevo.

By your logic, the Nativity is not important to Christianity because Mark does not write on it.

Guys, I’ve replied but my comment hasn’t been published yet. Basically, my argument doesn’t rely on the reasoning that if an event is important, then all four authors should record it. It relies on Lukan scholarship which establishes that Luke-Acts is ancient historiography, that Luke traveled extensively, interviewing witnesses, all so that he could compile the best evidence available to support the Christian claims. If Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight, Luke would’ve been all over that.

woops, just saw that it was published, my bad.

If Luke recorded everything of importance in his Gospel, why do we even need the other ones?

@Rachel W. and Jared

Thanks for bothering to reply. You seem to think that the gospels constitute history. Well, except for where they contradict each other, non confessional records, or the archeology I can’t show that this is wrong. Of course it doesn’t mean that a human Jesus didn’t order the creation of the Church but one is left wondering why the creation of the Church was not begun in his lifetime or why nobody in his lifetime left any written record.

If he charged the apostles with creating the Church and spreading the gospel why don’t we see Paul deferring to them as god appointed successors in any of his letters? He seems to believe he is at least as good as any of them.

Jared, -shrug-. So, do you still reject (2)? If so, why?

“The preface to his gospel (1:1-4) most demonstrably makes the case for Luke’s ability to use the conventions of Greek historiography, both the linguistic (as it is a single, periodic sentence with a balanced, hypotactic structure) and the topical (as it references preceding writers on its subject and the author’s own investigation, claims to be a narrative, purports a didactic purpose, etc.)” – Loney, Alexander C. “Narrative Structure and Verbal Aspect Choice in Luke.” Filologia eotestamentaria 28 (2005): 10. As cited by Culy, Martin M., Mikeal Carl Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: a Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor Univ., 2010., p. 1.

“Although Greek historians usually referred to only one or two predecessors and quoted them uncritically…their primary research was often superior to that of modern historians: they relied to a large degree on ‘autopsy’ and their own experiences, collected and examined the oral transmission, questioned eyewitnesses and sources, and visited the scenes of the events in order to gather their information on the spot.” – Meister, Klaus. “Historiography: Greece.” 421, in Brill’s New Pauly. As cited by Keener, ibid., p. 89

Thanks for bothering to reply. You seem to think that the gospels constitute history.

Not history in the modern sense.  But then, neither is Herodotus or Thucydides in the modern sense.  But they do reflect actual events which occurred, yes.

Well, except for where they contradict each other,

“Contradict” as in “There are different accounts of how many shots were fired at Dealey Plaza” or do you mean something substantial?  What is really remarkable is how similar they are.

non confessional records, or the archeology I can’t show that this is wrong.

What archeology contradicts the NT?

Of course it doesn’t mean that a human Jesus didn’t order the creation of the Church but one is left wondering why the creation of the Church was not begun in his lifetime or why nobody in his lifetime left any written record.

Given that the whole point of the Church is that it is founded to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus it is, in fact, in the very nature of the Church that it cannot be founded in Jesus’ lifetime.  The foreshadow of the Church’s founding is, precisely, given in the passage from Matthew which does tell us what Jesus said during his lifetime.  As to the notion that there were not a lot of Roman historians following Galilean peasants around and transcribing their conversations, this is only to be wondered at if you live in a dream world.

If he charged the apostles with creating the Church and spreading the gospel why don’t we see Paul deferring to them as god appointed successors in any of his letters? He seems to believe he is at least as good as any of them.

Paul treats the message of the apostles as the divine tradition upon which he relies, but he also is aware that he is also an apostle by the will of Christ.  The balance is seen in 1 Cor 15:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4* that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5* and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8* Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9* For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

“Delivering” and “recieving” is rabbinic jargon.  It means that Paul is passing on Tradition from the Twelve.  So he does indeed regard them as God-appointed successors.  But he also recognizes that he has been called to be an apostle himself.  He does not, by the way, believe that he is authorized to call himself that on his own, as for instance, a modern day Pentecostal preacher might.  He only begins his apostolic mission when the Church at Antioch lays hands on him (what we call ordination) and *sends* him on his first mission (with Barnabas).  You can see it in Acts 13.  So Paul sees himself as the least of the apostles.  The same combination of deference and equal apostolic dignity is seen in Galatians 2, where Paul, on the one hand, goes to have his preaching vetted by the apostles in Jerusalem “lest I was running my race in vain”.  But Paul also feels obliged to hold Peter accountable to Peter’s own teaching when he chickens out at Antioch.  Note, though, that Paul does not feel himself competent to *change* Peter’s teaching.

So, I repeat, if Jesus never existed or did not found the Church, what is the better explanation?

Stevo:

Luke also only mentions the “new covenant” once and never explicit says that Jesus is a priest.  Are we therefore to conclude that, according to the theory, “If Luke doesn’t talk about it explicitly it’s not really important” that the whole letter to the Hebrews is a big blunder and the priesthood of Jesus is of no consequence to the early Church?  Or might it be possible that Luke is not the Big Book of Everything and is not intended to answer ecclesiological disputes that postdate it by centuries.  The notable thing about Luke, as with every gospel, is that Peter is, quite obviously, the head of the apostolic college, doing almost all the talking and speaking for the disciples constantly.

And now, could return to actual subject of this thread, which is not Petrine primacy, but whether Jesus founded the Church?

Mark Shea, what we know for sure is what Lukan scholarship has delivered: Luke’s genre is ancient historiography, and Luke behaved like a Greek historian. So, I think the appropriate conclusion with the Hebrews thing is that Luke didn’t consider that enough evidenced, granting he was aware of it. Hebrews is just a theological reflection anyways. I don’t understand these attempts to find a counter-example :p regardless, you’re right this is off topic.

Test—this comment is a test.

Sorry to say it:  my actual comment ran to a couple of paragraphs, and I didn’t see the restriction—one paragraph—and lost my comment…... I’ll be back tomorrow, in one paragraph.

Stevo:

It’s true that Luke obeys the conventions of ancient Greek historiography.  But, of course, he is also doing theological reflection too.  My point in mentioning Luke lack of explicit testimony to Christ as priest is simply that the fact Luke doesn’t focus on aspects of the gospel that other NT writer mention means… that Luke doesn’t focus on aspects of the gospel that other writers mention.  It doesn’t mean those aspects were unimportant to the early Church.  Indeed, it could mean those aspects were taken for granted (as the priesthood of Christ certainly was) in the early Church. So the notion that Luke’s failure to mention “You are Peter, etc.” is significant seems to me to constitute a big argument from silence.

@Mark Shea

There is no archaeological record of a first century bce/ce settlement at Nazareth. There is no record of a census around Christ’s postulated birthday in the Roman records.

Your quote from Corinthians is interesting. We know that Saul/Paul received his calling by revelation on the road to Damascus. There is no intimation in your quote that he believes that the apostles did not do the same.

Most religions are founded in the lifetime of their founders. There’s no good reason why Christ’s should be any different unless the creation of a Church was not his idea.

“Delivering” and “receiving” can just as easily be referring to Jewish scripture or revelation.

It is clear from your quotes that Paul only believes himself to be the “least of these” because he persecuted Christians and not because the twelve were directly appointed during Jesus’ life.

It is not necessary for me to determine who founded Christianity. It is only necessary to point out that the evidence that it was Christ himself is thin and that there are arguments against.

Wow. If Jesus mythers reasoned about everything in the same illogical way they reason about Jesus, I doubt they’d last a day without getting themselves killed.

GordonHide, perhaps - just perhaps - Christianity is not “most religions”!
On the census: hasn’t Mark himself covered this subject?  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-has-a-question-about-extrabiblical-testimony-to-christ/  (And I don’t see your name in the combox.)
It has also been discussed at Shameless Popery. http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/11/are-infancy-narratives-historically.html