The Starting/Purchasing of the Church

It is often said that the Church started on the day of Pentecost, literally fifty days after the last meal shared before Jesus’ betrayal and being killed.
With this in mind, two questions come to play:

  1. How can it be written in Acts 20:28 -
    Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops, to
    rule the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

    if the Church hadn’t started for fifty more days after the blood-shed?

  2. From whom was the Church purchased? This question feels a little strange in relation to the Gospel’s narrative regarding Simon’s renaming to Peter by Jesus and being told “upon this rock I will build my church”. The question is desiring a link between build and purchase.

Ciao for now.

Even if the full inauguration of the Church was on Pentecost, it was still brought about through Christ’s blood. The Church Father’s very often paralled the Church being brought forth as the pure bride of Christ from his pierced side as he descended to the dead (blood and water representing the eucharist and baptism) to Adam’s pure bride being taken from his side whilst he “slept”. The link of the Church being born from his side (and his blood) may be in reference here, pr just his sacrifice as a whole.

Thanks for responding.

On the side ;), you raise a point in your parenthesis.
I’ve read a few times of persons making this correlation, but it never really made much profound sense to me.

If the Eucharist is a fulfillment of the bloodless sacrifice as prophesied in Malachi and also for instance in The Divine Liturgy of St. Mark’s we read
*Section 3. XIII *We offer this reasonable and bloodless sacrifice, which all nations,
from the rising to the setting of the sun, from the north and the south, present to You, O Lord,
how is the natural result of separated water and blood flowing from the pierced side of Jesus postmortem symbolic of the Eucharist?

Where do you draw the line of parallels like this? I could just as easily say the spittle Jesus used on the blind man’s eyes was symbolic of baptism and that the stopping of the blood flow from the woman who suffered for years was a foreshadowing cessation of the bloody sacrifices of animals by its being superseded with the Eucharist. . . .

The dirt and spittle Jesus out into the man’s eyes made a clay like substance, which is a reference to God forming man of clay

Clearly Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is bloody, but the representation of it is not. No new blood is spilled, and it’s perpetuated throughout the world and will continue to be done until the end of time. However, even so, wine is transubstantiated into Christ’s body, blood soul and divinity, and the wine that Jesus consecrated at the last supper was declared to be the blood of the new covenant, poured out for many. Clearly the blood spilt by Christ on the cross and the cup we share at mass are connected.

Clearly they’re connected, but to take the natural result (the flow of water and blood separated) from the action of the Roman soldier’s thrusting a spear into Jesus to test whether he had perspired and then say it is symbolic in nature needs to have authoritative discourse rather than conjecture. Otherwise I could again easily say the earth+spittle is a reference to man’s being from earth and water and say it is symbolic of the phrase “dust you are and to the dust you shall return,” as if to say “sure, you’ll see as you have asked for your sight, but you didn’t ask for eternal life! Tsk tsk!” Apparently I’m touchy when it comes to claims of symbolism; it seems to be abused in the secular order. P.S. Even Origen is under the title of “Church Father” yet he was deemed a heretic.

To get back on point, from whom was the Church purchased?

Pentecost: have a look at these short 21 paragraphs
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=pentecost&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

The Church is referred to as His body.

Jesus paid the ultimate price to His Father for us and His Church that He placed Peter in charge of, so that everything in Jesus promises will come to pass.

Hi!

…that’s where the wisdom of man becomes burnt frijoles… did you know that Salvation was done and done right before the Creation of the world?:

[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]3 Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all the spiritual blessings of heaven in Christ

. 4 Before the world was made, he chose us, chose us in Christ, to be holy and spotless, and to live through love in his presence, 5 determining that we should become his adopted sons, through Jesus Christ for his own kind purposes, 6 to make us praise the glory of his grace, his free gift to us in the Beloved, 7 in whom, through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins. Such is the richness of the grace 8 which he has showered on us in all wisdom and insight. (Ephesians 1:3-8)
…the Church was purchased from the wages of sin: death!

…the Church was purchased, in Christ and by Christ’s Blood, before the Creation of the world!

…yet, there’s a physical/temporal time frame:

9 He has let us know the mystery of his, purpose, **the hidden plan he so kindly made in Christ from the beginning **

10 to act upon when the times had run their course to the end: that he would bring everything together under Christ, as head, everything in the heavens and everything on earth. 11 And** it is in him that we were claimed as God’s own, chosen from the beginning, under the predetermined plan **of the one who guides all things as he decides by his own will; 12 chosen to be, for his greater glory, the people who would put their hopes in Christ before he came. (Ephesians 1:9-12)
Since Yahweh God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, He transcends time; yet, out of respect (to bring it down to our finite understanding) for our being He does act within a Divine schedule that allows us to find linear time references within our temporal existence:

4 but when the appointed time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born a subject of the Law, 5 to redeem the subjects of the Law and to enable us to be adopted as sons. 6 The proof that you are sons is that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts: the Spirit that cries, ‘Abba, Father’, 7 and it is this that makes you a son, you are not a slave any more; and if God has made you son, then he has made you heir. 8 Once you were ignorant of God, and enslaved to ‘gods’ who are not really gods at all; 9 but now that you have come to acknowledge God – or rather, now that God has acknowledged you – how can you want to go back to elemental things like these, that can do nothing and give nothing, and be their slaves? 10 You and your special days and months and seasons and years!

(Galatians 4:4-10)
…if you look back at the beginning of Acts you will find that the Apostles and other disciples were gathering in prayer and celebrating the Lord’s Supper; eventually the day of Pentecost would find 200 of them gathered together… it is Cephas who addresses the issue of Pentecost (the Coming of the Holy Spirit in Tongues of Fire and the Incarnation of the Word will all its travails–Ministry, persecution, apprehension, Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension).

…here’s the chronology of the building: One (Christ) > Twelve > 72 > many followers > back to Eleven > back to One (Jesus) > One (Cephas) > Eleven > back to Twelve > Twelve and many followers > 200 (I suspect more at tangents/secret) > at Pentecost 200 + 3000… today over two billion…

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: …just a technicality… your time frame is flawed since in Acts 20:28 it is St. Paul who is speaking many days removed from the event at Pentecost–this passage actually demonstrate the Church being built (Unfolding).

[/size][/FONT]

How can you say salvation was done and done when St. Paul says to work out your salvation? Or when Jesus said in John 5:17 - But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”? Is it not the work of salvation but something else of which is being spoken? Or, the “It Is Accomplished” of the cross, is this not at that moment but always? If always, why have a finite instance of it in time, namely, the incarnation, if it was already achieved? I know that you can get out of this question by saying “To God everything is NOW”. . . and you’d be quite right in saying so, but still . . . I suppose you could say the actual time-based act was the revelation of the infinite. This seems to be most appropriate, and it raises some theological questions requiring more than a noon-day’s musing for even a slight grasping.

When one speaks of purchasing, one speaks of performing a transaction between one and another party. You are saying that one of the parties is death. Death is usually defined as the separation of the soul from the body or even worse the death of the soul (!), which seems to be the result of the removal of sanctifying grace, the withdrawal of God if you will, or by some other action by whom Jesus said to fear (regarding being thrown into Hell) rather than the one who can destroy only your body. Is this the one of whom you speak? If so, why not mention it explicitly? If not, it sounds as if you are saying “who” is not-applicable here and rather an “action” is one of the parties in the transaction. This isn’t usual language in the sense that one purchases a burrito (speaking of which ;)…) from a “seller”.and not a “cooking” for instance.

What time frame did I posit for you to say it was flawed? Notice the “if” in the first post :wink: Paul’s being far removed from the time of Pentecost is quite obvious. At any rate, one could say the Church was started as soon as Jesus started his “Follow me” to the first apostle command, but it often isn’t spoken of this way. The parable of being told you are the branches seems to suggest that it is already in action at that moment. In another sense who is to say there has never been a Church? Is it heretical to say since the beginning of time those who have performed properly within the limits granted to them by God are functioning as the body? For example, are the angels from the beginning who didn’t fall considered to be part of the “body” of Christ? If so, how is the Church “built” upon Peter? etc. etc. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the fun.

P.S. There’s seems to be a correlation between the word “Build” used regarding the Church and the word “Until” regarding Mary’s being a virgin. Why? Until isn’t to imply that post-birth there was sexual activity. Invertedly, Build doesn’t necessarily mean start but seems to be more-so a fortification. This is only a personal conjecture easily rescinded if need be.

The church is NOT a physical structure WE ARE the church!

Structure (noun) - the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.

Physical (adj.) - relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.

I hear you.
That is to say, I see what you’re saying.
This is to say, I feel ya.

But are you the ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας? The foundation? :wink:

Forgive my being :cool: by quoting non-English words.

As a whole, yes, we are. However Peter and his appointed successors were granted leadership roles, and roles to adjudicate disputes that might be taken to the “whole church”. This is because the church must be visible, and members distinguishable from non-members. That is why Our Lord established a visible leadership through His apostles, which leadership would represent the Church, if need be.

peace
steve

Hi!

While it is true that God transcends time and space… and that Jesus Revealed that He, emulating His Father, Continues to Work (Creation)… Salvation is done and done because Yahweh God Will do nothing more to Accomplish it:

[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]11 so the word that goes from my mouth does not return to me empty, without carrying out my will and succeeding in what it was sent to do.

(Isaiah 55:11)
Please note that the passages that I’ve cited do not employ the Knowledge of God’s Omnipresence; they simply state what was done, from the Beginning of Creation.

When one speaks of purchasing, one speaks of performing a transaction between one and another party. You are saying that one of the parties is death. Death is usually defined as the separation of the soul from the body or even worse the death of the soul (!), which seems to be the result of the removal of sanctifying grace, the withdrawal of God if you will, or by some other action by whom Jesus said to fear (regarding being thrown into Hell) rather than the one who can destroy only your body. Is this the one of whom you speak? If so, why not mention it explicitly? If not, it sounds as if you are saying “who” is not-applicable here and rather an “action” is one of the parties in the transaction. This isn’t usual language in the sense that one purchases a burrito (speaking of which ;)…) from a “seller”.and not a “cooking” for instance.

I think this is one of those examples where technicality, legalism, and etymology get us in trouble… Satan, the prince of this world, has no power over Jesus; it is Revealed that the wages of sin is death; we can surmise that Satan (sin) held us (the world, and specifically the Church) captive and that God Purchased us from that captivity through His Sacrificial Lamb. The Church has been purchased from the power/sting of sin: death–though not through a typical business transaction but by being rescued an oppressive power (sin/death/Satan).

What time frame did I posit for you to say it was flawed? Notice the “if” in the first post :wink: Paul’s being far removed from the time of Pentecost is quite obvious. At any rate, one could say the Church was started as soon as Jesus started his “Follow me” to the first apostle command, but it often isn’t spoken of this way. The parable of being told you are the branches seems to suggest that it is already in action at that moment. In another sense who is to say there has never been a Church? Is it heretical to say since the beginning of time those who have performed properly within the limits granted to them by God are functioning as the body? For example, are the angels from the beginning who didn’t fall considered to be part of the “body” of Christ? If so, how is the Church “built” upon Peter? etc. etc. :slight_smile:

Perhaps I misunderstood your query:

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops, to
rule the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

if the Church hadn’t started for fifty more days after the blood-shed?
…for a minute there I thought that you were intimating that Acts 20:28 could not have happened because St. Paul’s reference was to a pre-Pentecost time frame.

… when did the Dragon make the attempt against the Child and His mom (the Virgin, Mary) and when did the Dragon made the attempt against the rest of the her children? Apocalypse (Revelation) 12 is speaking to Genesis 3:15… this Battle initiates at Creation and continues ongoing till the Parousia… the Church is being attacked, in a Vision, even prior to her Inception since the Word had not become Incarnate, as of yet.

Our typical/generic time frame is not practical to render/understand such events–including the actual moment of the Bringingthe Body of Christ (the Church) into existence.

Maran atha!

Angel

[/size][/FONT]

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.