Dennis On: "Are not..." "Are too..."

"My eyes are anointed..."

"No!  My eyes are anointed..."

"Are not..."

"Are too..."

"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.

Matthew 16:18

Now there is a scripture that has launched a hundred thousand churches if ever there was one! 

Aside from my suspicion this text has been inserted years after the fact to support a much more mature set of practices and beliefs than any Jesus in Matthew would have had in mind, every COG leans heavily on this scripture to know without a shadow of a doubt, the Church they are is the Church the author of Matthew meant and put in the mouth of Jesus.

I'm pretty sure Jesus never had the concept of himself building any church. Jesus either thought he would not die and God would rescue him in the nick of Roman time, or if not, he would return immediately, or perhaps the "Son of Man" would, who he may or may not have thought of as himself, and kick the collective Roman ass once and for all.  Sadly, and of course, we know how that worked out.  

My personal regret about this scripture is that Jesus, who wrote NOTHING himself evidently, but is quoted here never went on to define what that Church would look like.  What would its beliefs and realities be?  What would it teach?  Who would get to have the final say?  Would it be a Jewish Christian perspective as Peter, James and John would have found correct, or would it be the Gentile Church as understood by the Apostle Paul?  If you believe these two groups "all spoke the same thing," or had the same one truth and Gospel, you are not doing your homework.  

The Gospel of Paul, with his Cosmic Christ and the soon coming "Son of Man" in a Jewish context were not the same Gospel message.  The Book of Galatians is clear that these men were at odds with each other and not on the same page.  Paul cursed those who brought another Gospel than the one Paul thought up and he was talking about the Jerusalem leadership, who Paul defined as "however, in all men is not that knowledge")  He even called them "reputed to be pillars" but went on to say that they added nothing to his own Gospel and actually he learned nothing from them.  When Paul chided Peter for his turn around in the presence of "those from James,"  it sounds like Peter was the bad guy and not near as mature as Paul.  In fact, in my view, Peter recognized at this meal that Paul had no intention of going along with the Acts 15 directives to place the Noahide rules on those who wished, as gentiles to become Christians.  I believe Peter probably noticed Paul was serving not unclean meats but meat offered to idols which Paul is said originally to have agreed not to do in Acts 15.  In I Corinthians 8 we see that Paul considered that view as "weak" and had no intention of teaching it in fact. 

In short, Paul was a liar and two faced in just the same way he accused Peter of being.  The reason Paul comes out looking so good and Peter so bad is that we only have Paul's story and really a dummied down version of that. We don't have Peter's view or a description of exactly what Peter found to be a problem with Paul's table.  Paul gets to brag about his bravely getting in Peter's face over the issue and "winning."  Peter gets to say nothing.  

So back to the original concept of Church building.  How nice it would have been had Jesus taken a few moments to outline exactly what that Church would look like.  But since he probably neither thought about it in reality or actually said these words added years later when there was a version of the "one true Church" up and running already, we can never know.  Jesus would not have known what his Church would look like because he never considered the concept.  Like bearing one's cross, the concept was a product of another time and the priests of those times were not unwilling to put words in Jesus or Peter or Paul's mouth to justify their current practices, when there actually was a Church.   

So we can see, and the NT is full of evidence that Peter was not to be followed according to John who thought him to be no better than Judas.  In a process called "Intercalation", the author of John always sandwiches a negative comment about Simon Peter between negative comments about Judas, Son of Simon.  While we miss the point, the readers of the day would have understand that Peter was no better than Judas and was the baloney between the two slices of Judas.  

We also have the sarcastic story of Peter , who said he would do one thing, (never leave Jesus) and did another, (Denied him) killing off Ananias and Sapphira who said they would do one thing (Give all) and did another, (held back).  We miss the point today but the audience of Luke and Paul would have clearly understood the sarcasm and humor behind it sending the message not to follow Peter the Judas and hypocrite. Peter denies...Judas betrays...no difference!

The Book of James , asking how you can have faith without works to show the faith in action and Paul's Book of Romans which makes great fun of works of any kind proving anything are not the same Gospel.   While the COG's try to see both men speaking the same thing, they really are speaking the opposite.  

Today in Fundamentalist Christianity in general and the COG's in particular the war designed to see which version of the True Church is the True Church wages on. 

Its a Church version of "I'm Spartacus...No, I'm Spartacus...oh no your not, I'm Spartacus!"   It's both funny and sad but also confusing and harmful to those that feel that their job in life is to discern EXACTLY which one of these competing views is the right view of Jesus and God.  Ok, and the Holy Spirit too.  

But I will say it again.  Never in the history of whoever and whatever Jesus said, did, meant and taught has there ever been one true church.  There was not one to be found in the New Testament either.  What you find is a smaller more focused battle between the Jewish version of Peter, James and John and the Gentile version of the Apostle come lately Paul.  

It is no accident that Paul, who never met any earthly Jesus or quoted him ever because for Paul, Jesus was a cosmic hallucinatory version in his head, while the Gospels, written long after Paul died, are the bringing his Jesus down to earth version.  For Paul, Christ died in the heavens and was killed by demons and spirits while for the Gospel writers the Romans, oops, the Jews killed the earthly version.  They are not the same story.  They are not the same concept.  They are not the same Gospel.  And there never was one true coherent, all speaking the same thing Church of God EVER.

In my opinion, the Apostle Paul was the false prophet proven false by the Ephesian Church (home of John?) that was tried and found wanting in Revelation.  Vespasian was the Beast.  None of it has anything to do with today. It is what Paul was getting at when he noted "all those in Asia have turned away...may God not lay it to their charge."  Ephesus is in Asia.  All of them found Paul to be one donut short of a dozen and they all sent him on his way.  Paul, in his typical way, never seemed to ask why?  He merely noted that they were all wrong and he was still right and he hoped God did not hold it too hardly against the Ephesians.  However, the Jesus of Revelation assured the Ephesians that they had done a good thing by telling them "well done," so guess who won that argument?  The topics was the Ephesians finding certain Apostles to be found wanting.  They weren't talking about the original 12 you can be sure.  

Also, we have to note that of the 24 times Paul is called an Apostle in the NT, Paul calls himself one 22 of those times with Luke, his biographer adding the other 2. Seems no one else but Paul thought he was a genuine Apostle.  Kinda like today with the competing true Apostles telling their churches "and yes brethren, I am an Apostle,"  but no one outside that organization believing that to be true in any way.  Paul made himself an Apostle and said that Jesus and God did it.  He had to say Jesus and God because you can't prove that and no others humans were buying it.  It's kinda like saying that if the Apostle is wrong, God will correct him, not you or I.  But really, who would say such a stupid thing in real life?  :)

So for those of you who still struggle with seeking the one true and exactly right Church of God.....RELAX!  There isn't one.  Never has been and never will be.  There will always be many versions both similar and so very different from each other that are the one true church.   Don't stress over to eat or not to eat out on the Sabbath.  Forget about Moons and Moon Pies.  Don't feel obligated to go along with any man who says he and his wife are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 or this, that or any other prophet.  I mean really...what's the chance? 

The most amazing True Churches of God are really not all that amazing and the moment the guru dies, you are going to be back in the mud wondering if anything is ever going to work out in your lifetime.  Lighten up.  Don't fret about days and dates, time is short or the night being far spent.  2000 years is really a long time for time is short and the Book of Revelation being written to "show the things which must shortly come to pass," so long ago now.  Revelation is true. It really did try to show the things which would shortly come to pass in the 70's AD.  It was just wrong and the Romans won.  The brethren it was meant to encourage either ran for their lives or died on the spot on the ends of Roman swords.  That's what really happened and what really came to pass.

Personally, if I am wrong and ever get to speak to a genuinely resurrected Jesus or God, I am going to ask why they did not make these most important topics more clear.  I mean if it determines our eternal lives, should the gods leave any of that in the hands of humans to get right in the translation?  I think not.  I am going to mention that faith seems to be what is required but then along come the facts and ....well, things change. 

I'd like to ask why they did not write anything down themselves.  Even the Buddha wrote much and all the great writers of the day, some of whom actually lived just down the street at the right time, never seemed to notice the events spoken of in the Gospels. Maybe they were at a writer's convention and out of town for that year (according to Matthew, Mark and Luke)  or three years, (John). 

At any rate, whatever "more correct,"  "more true," or  "the original" Church of God means is up for grabs and debate. I do know that the Church of Brotherly love today seems hateful and nuts.  The Church that has restored has really just copied not true either stuff.  The Church that is United is terribly divided.  The Church that is alive seems small and dying.  And the true church that is a mere remnant is ...well, not all that impressive and can't get their message down the street, much less to all the world.

Relax...Take a deep breath.  You don't have to struggle over which organization, Apostle or view of scripture is the exact right one.  It does not exist.  It NEVER has, not in the pages of your Bible nor in present day reality.  It never will.  

While everything you see today in the COGs is very much, if not exactly what we see in the New Testament Church and its leadership doing and being exactly what we see in the NT,  I don't mean that in the way you might think.  

Dennis C
DenniscDiehl@aol.com