The smoking gun, of the Church’s birthday

But it most certainly does not state that He gave it to them then either. Thus the point made is that it was still future.

Both of the above relate to the same point so I will address them together with respect to 'before pentacost', if that is ok brother.

First, what I am getting at is that the church can not have started before His resurrection and thus His death also.

Now, in relation to pentacost..
Yes, Jesus appointed the 11 to 'go' (and all that entials) now that 'all authority has been given Him'.

Thus we have Him authorizing them, and sending them, but there is a small problem that can not be over looked, something that emphatically establishes them as the NT Church body and without it they are not. It is the very reason they were forbidden to 'go' even though they were already commanded to do so. It was the reason they were forbidden by the very one who authorized them to preach, teach, and baptise but were told NOT to go ahead yet. - The Holy Spirit.

Without the Holy Spirit there is no church. Without His baptism there is no body nor is there power in, of, through or for it. The argument of when the Church 'started' or 'caming into being' revolves explicitely (sp?) around Him and His work in, of, through and for - the church. Without Him it is an empty vessle, a shell, a lifeless assembly, dead.
Sure the parts were already around but just having parts does not make a computer. Even putting it together does not make a computer. What makes a comptuer is that once it is all placed together, when it is 'empowered' and 'functioning' THEN it becomes a computer. See without that power that 'assembly' of items is no different than any other box of neatly assembled accessories that do not work but are in fact useless to the concept it was intended for. It has no being, no beginning, until it is empowered and functioning.

Without question, and I do not shy away from it since Paul is the one who illistrates it

Yes, churches are betrothed and we are awaiting our full allotment promised us because though we are 'promised' to be as one, we are not yet one in fulness of His promise but anxiously awaiting that which is yet to come.


And yes, the shedding of His blood took place before pentacost, but the promises that came with it did not come till Pentacost which came with Spirits baptism.

True, but that is true of the Jewish group, and pagan religious groups as well. This is seen in scripture refering to all three groups with the same word in the Greek.

It can not mean that brother. In Hebrews it is not refering to that at all in context- at all. It is quoting a passage from Psa 22 and is 'specifically' speaking of the declaration that we are one with Christ and thus truely His brethren and that God is truly our Father just as He is of Christ Jesus.

In Psa 22, if take in context is speaking about the Lords death and all it's agonies, and then speaks of the triumps AFTER it. To try to make that passage mean 'the hymn' which Jesus sang is completely against context. You would have the horrific death of Christ and then it begins speaking of His triumph, half sentence flash back to a hymn sung before His death, and then back to His triumph made through that very death. It makes no conctextual sense brother

Secondly, on this point please remember that no where in the none of the gospels does it ever make reference to Jesus prophetically fulfilling Psa 22 in relation to His singing when it was done, as it does on so many other occassions. Hebrews does not do that either but still keeps the very point (even the song) about His triumph and making us one in His with the Father.

Context brother in both of these are key. This passage

 

Well, I suppose that if one is bound and determined to believe that the church did not start until after Jesus died on the cross, they will find all sorts of reasons to do so.

But two things seem pretty clear to me-

1. That there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

2. That this is something that isn't going to be settled until we sit at the Master's feet and someone raises his hand and says, "Lord, about the beginning of the New Testament church..."

(Of course that has to happen AFTER the Bible version and Calvinism/Arminianism discussions are settled. :laugh

 

After reading thru this thread, I guess the phrase "smoking gun" was a bit of an overstatement? :laugh:

 

Hello, stilllearning,

You and Allan have responded to my posts at length. I will try to speak to points both of you have made, so this could get a little long.

Wonder why he said that. I don't know, do you? I can make a guess, drawing from verses 21 and following. The disciples had an incomplete understanding of Jesus' messiahship, prompting Jesus to teach them more about. They, specifically Peter, didn't understand about his death, so they needed more teaching.

Yet, in Mark 1, Jesus himself was preaching the gospel, and exhorted his hearers to repent and believe the gospel. And Old Regular makes the point that in Luke 10, the disciples were preaching the same gospel of the kingdom.

On the Day of Pentecost, sometime prior to the appointment of deacons, bu well after miracles and gifts of healing.

Not just any group. This group.


--------------------------------------------------

John was not just prophesying His coming; he was declaring his presence among the people. The bridegroom had come. John, in that same verse described himself as the "friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him."
He rejoiced at hearing the bridegroom's voice.
--------------------------------------------------

I assume you agree that both the Psalms 22 and Hebrews 2 passages refer to Jesus the Christ. Jesus was not here at Pentecost, but he was here for 3-and-a-half-years. If not his church, which congregation did he sing in? The only reference we have to Jesus' singing is at an assembly of his disciples--a congregation, which Hebrews describes as a church.
--------------------------------------------------

But he had it, right there in front of him--visible, with substance, in existence.

This is getting long, so I'll respond to Allan's response to my response to Allan's response to my brilliant response in a later post. Oh, my, I've lost track.

 

Good morning, Allan.

You have hinged your argument against Jesus' founding of his church prior to Pentecost on the work of the Holy Spirit on that day. Your argument is summed up by your comment: Without the Holy Spirit there is no church.

I doubt if you will argue that the Holy Spirit was not active before Pentecost.

In fact, the Holy Spirit indwelt every believer before Pentecost, and they experienced the new birth. Jesus suggested that Nicodemus, the premier teacher of Israel, should already know this. Review the conversation in John 3.

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb. Surely one would acknowledge that a Spirit-filled John preached with power and boldness. Prior to Pentecost.

I have already alluded to the disciples' amazement when they return from their missionary journey, that they had power over demons, as Old Regular pointed out, "through thy name."

Let me cut to the chase here. While Jesus was on earth, his little, but growing, church had power. His followers healed the sick, and did miracles, just as he did. (Although, I don't think they raised the dead.)

He instructed his disciples to wait until the Spirit came to replace him (which happened ten days later). As Jesus empowered a small number, confined to the geographic limits of the nation Israel, the Holy Spirit would empower believers and would send them all over the world.

There is no question that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost was an important event. But his admonition to wait for the power was given to his already-existing church.

This church had been sent out by Jesus to preach the gospel--the same message he preached.

---

It also makes sense that the gospel they preached was in fact, the keys to the kingdom. They preached that the door to the kingdom was unlocked by repentance and faith.

 

Great, then show where the Spirit indwelt or better, dwelled 'in' any person in the OT or prior to Jesus resurrection. Remember 'filling' is not the same thing as indwelling -never has never will be. We do have scripture from Christ stating the Spirit dwells 'with' them and 'shall be' in them. (John 14;17) The Spirit of God temporarily came upon people in the OT which is known as filling or empowering, and He always left them. He was always 'with' God's people but was never 'in' them and Jesus illstrates this old relationship and the new about to be. He was 'with them'. Another good illistration is that the OT had a 'temple' of God but in the NT 'we' are the temple of God.

Well we have discussed this very thoroughly in the thread "Speaking in tongues and would have you go back and read our posts starting with #62 (my post to your about John the baptist); then your next post to me on the subject is #73; My responding post in # 75 specifically addresses his being filled and what the difference between filled and indwelt is. Your next post relating to mine is #76 -89 (here it is pretty much a straight discussion of the subject). You even agreed that 'indwelling' and 'filling' are not the same things in post #87.

CHristh gave to them of His authority but you do not, and can not (thus will not) find them being indwelt with the Spirit, especially since Jesus states He can not come until Christ is taken out of the way,

Yes, His disciples did have authority to do these thing (heal sick and cast out demons) because they were going under His authority and Judas was one of them and he did (as one of the 12) did these same things. To assume he didn't is cast doubt upon the text which states that they 'all' were amazed at how the spirits were subject 'to them'. Difinately a different senario, huh.

Now wait a minute, first you state they are already indwelt and empowered, and then state in the above 'they have to wait for him'- which is it? How can they wait for something they already have and are already empowered with??

Doesn't sound right does it?

How was it an important event?
Wait for what - Again, if they alreayd have Him and if they are alreayd empowered (filled) by Him - what are they waiting for? Jesus Himself said that the Spirit was not yet given, but you say He was. Who am I to believe?

Acutally, the gospel could not be preached since it consists of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for our salvaiton.

---

True, and they could not preach the 'gospel' message till Christ rose again and you will notice they did not preach that message until after the Holy Spirit was given and they were bapstized by Him into Christ.

 

I'm going to borrow from John Piper to answer your question.
1. In Job 33:4 Elihu speaks for all faithful Jews when he says, "The Spirit of God has made me and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
2 Psalm 104 celebrates the wonder and variety of all living things and says (vv. 29-30), "When thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground."
3. Piper: There are two groups of humans: those in the flesh (born of the flesh) and those in the Spirit (born again of the Spirit). Those in the flesh are devoid of the Spirit and cannot submit to God's law or please God. Those in the Spirit are indwelt by the Spirit and are enabled by him to fulfill the just requirement of the law. (Romans 8)
4. Numbers 14:24 says of Caleb, "My servant Caleb, because he has a different Spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into this land."
5. And Numbers 27: 18 says, "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Take Joshua the son of Nun, in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him.'"
6. David Psalm 139:7-10 says, "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there thy hand shall lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."
7. Referring to Joseph, Pharaoh says, "Can we find such a man as this in whom is the Spirit of God?"

When Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of the water and the Spirit, how was that different from Old Testament believers?

I won't rehash that discussion, except to say that I'm not aware of anyone who is filled with the Spirit who was not first indwelt.

So the disciples were not born of the Spirit, even though he told Nicodemus that one must be?

Judas is a problem, of course. But the question is empowerment, and the disciples were empowered.

As long as Jesus was on the earth, they were empowered. When he left, he told the disciples to wait until he sent the Holy Spirit.

Believe the scripture, of course. Pentecost was a fulfilment of Joel 2:28. It was a new level of empowerment, far beyond what came before. From that point, the gospel spread from inside Israel to outside, to the whole world.

Except what Jesus preached was called the gospel. Surely it was not a different gospel from what Peter preached on Pentecost, Paul preached in Athens.

 

Psalms 51:1-13
<<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.>>
1. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
13. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

I believe the Psalms are in the Old Testament!

 

Ok

Not sure why these two are place here; 1) it isn't part of the discussiong, and 2) I am in complete agreement

While he is correct that we must be 'born of the Spirit' to be enabled to be able to fulfill the requirement of the law - but he stretches scripture beyond it's teaching to contend that 'born of the Spirit' necessitates an 'indwelling' of the Holy SPirit.

Here is what I mean, because he causes himself huge theological problems with his statement, since in the OT we see God removing His Spirit from people and also as OldReg points out, people begging God NOT to 'take' His Spirit from them, which was known to happen. What then is to be said, when God takes His Spirit away, that they are no longer saved??

In the OT the Spirit of came upon and left people, but in the NT Jesus promises never to leave then nor forsake them and that He is 'sending' them a comfortor who has not yet come - The Holy Spirit. Remember that 'indwelling' refers to a permenant state of residency.

I can go through each of these if you like and show you that Piper is reaching far beyond scriptures intent with these passages trying to prove indwelling prior to Pentacost. for example.. the first one in which he tries to make the passage state that Caleb was the only one who was indwelt because he had faith. What about the Joshua did he not believe why leave him out here? And what about Hebrews 11 which, speaking of all who left Egypt did so by faith and thus are recorded in the hall faith.

Secondly, to 'empower' and the phrase 'to come upon' both imply an entering into of the individual to some extent if not totally (I'm believe it is to totally enter). The discussion is not about Him coming in temporarily but about His 'indwelling' or a permenant state of residency. No one in the OT had this and it is 'the reason' they asked 'do not take thy Spirit from me'. The indwelling is something you only find it in the NT. REmember what Jesus said He would do -

So did the disciples have the indwelling Holy Spirit? No, not yet.

And again Jesus restates:

Do the disciples, according to Jesus, have the indwelling Holy Spirit? No, not yet.

Being saved does not necessitate having the indwelling Holy Spirit, except in the NT after the ascension of Christ.

THen I encourage you to do a study on the two words, their context and usage.

Again, in the OT being saved did have the promise of the indwelling Spirit. In the NT, the indwelling Spirit was promised but was only to be given 'after' Jesus ascension.

You like Piper must give a reasoned answered if you are going to contend the 'indwelling' of OT saints of the Spirit of God can leave them, and they still be saved. (Yes, the literal rendering is the physical/personal absense from them) and how it is the disciples 'were indwelt' when Jesus specifically states they were not as of yet (just prior to his cruxifiction).

And so was the Son of Perdition. You can't step around this issue brother, like the 'elephant in the room' no one wants to talk about. If there is a problem then the reasoning has a flaw, IMO. (not being accusitive here brother).

Again, which is it . Did they have the Holy Spirit or not? First you contend they do, and now you are stating they don't but must wait for Him. In the first you state they were empowered by the Holy Spirit and here you state they were empowered by Christ.

I think I have and am making a strong case that it was much more than that brother but will agree that it is 'far beyond what came before'.

So are you telling me that Jesus preached His death, burial, and resurrection to the people?
Jesus did preach the good news which was 'the Kingdom of God being at hand'
but it was still veiled as to what He was speaking to, so much so that even 12 disciples did not know the truth till after the resurrection when Jesus expounded the scriptures to them. It was then we see them preaching the 'gospel of Jesus Christ'.

 

You didn't read my post very well. I never stated was not with them, I said he did not indwell them in a perminent state of residency. But I am wondering if by the same token you believe God the Holy Spirit leaves us believers as He did with those in the OT. You do realize that is 'why' David pleads with God 'not to take His Spirit from Him'?

 

'Morning, Allan,

I think that when we discuss the work of the Holy Spirit, it is easy to be imprecise (not you, me). It can be confusing to sort out the Holy Spirit as being on you, with you, in you, indwelling, filling, being filled with, being baptized with. In reviewing my posts, I find that I have been imprecise, thus confusing. No wonder your eyes lit up when you read some of them. Easy pickings.

I do agree that the work of the HS in the Old Testament, and in believers, seems to be different. Specifically that God removed the Spirit in certain circumstances. And gave the Spirit to men and women for specified tasks.

My overall point has been that the Holy Spirit was active prior to Pentecost, that He did, in fact, indwell believers, came upon believers, filled believers. That the Holy Spirit came to believers in an earth-shaking, unprecedented way at Pentecost is undeniable.

But neither can the pre-Pentecost operation of the Holy Spirit be denied.

More than once, we read in Judges that "The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon Samson." It was the source of his great strength.

Luke 1:41: "...and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost."

Luke 2:25 (Of Simeon) "....and the Holy Ghost was upon him."

John 14:16-17 (Jesus to the disciples) "And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, neither knoweth him; but you know him, and he dwelleth in you, and shall be in you."

John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost."

I confess that I do not have enough understanding to sort out what it means when Jesus says he will send another Comforter, when he already dwells in the disciples--and will be in them.

I confess that I do not have enough understanding to sort out what it means for Jesus to speak of sending another Comforter (which already dwells in them), yet after the resurrection breathes on them to give them the Holy Spirit; the same Holy Spirit Jesus told them to wait on, which was poured out at Pentecost.

Despite that, the disciples really never did understand. This suggests that a fuller presence of the Holy Spirit would be warranted--as on Pentecost. This could be what Jesus talked about in John 16:13 when he said, "Howbeit, when the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth."

So, to recap:
Did the Holy Spirit come upon people in the Old Testament? Yes.
Did it empower those--Samson, prophets, the seventy, etc.? Yes
Were people filled with the Spirit before Pentecost? Yes
Were believers indwelt with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost? Yes.

Yet, was the Comforter still to come? Still to be poured out? Yes.

So, can we relate this to the OP? I think so. The fledgling church Jesus established had what it needed to function--but it was going to get a whole lot more at Pentecost.

 

LoL.. that is why I love debating with you.. you make me laugh - in good way.

No disagreement here. The only thing I would add is that the Holy Spirit being given or empowering was something that scripture does not speak of as something that was a common occurance. This however is an argument from limited information, though admittedly it is with a supposition that those specific times where we are told of these things happening, it is given to see that it was not a something common.

No one denies that He was active prior to pentacost brother.

Please note my previous posts never denied such but in fact states that He did 'fill them' and 'came upon'.

I'm curious here as to what translation you give here.
First, becuase I looked at 18 different translations and none of them state "and He dwelleth in you" (Including the old KVJ's that didn't spell right )
Second, becuase the word 'with' in the Greek means - beside, near, or in the vicintiy of something (ie. I'm with you)
para

par-ah' - A primary preposition; properly near, that is, (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local [especially beyond or opposed to] or causal [on account of]).

But He never said the Holy Spirit 'dwells in them', as I showed specifically from the translation of the word 'with'/para - meaning to be near, or beside, or in the vicinity of. Also I have still not found a translation which gives the word 'in' in place of 'with' with respect to this verse.

Well the first half is easy IMO since Jesus didn't state they were already indwelt but that the Spirit of God was 'with' them (present tense) and 'shall/will be in them' (future).

The last part can be somewhat confusing for certain views. To those who hold my view, Jesus was illistrating the certainty of His coming, who was giving/sending Him, and the manner of it's coming - a wind. Also the text doesn't state the Spirit was given them, but in fact we see he tells them to wait for it later on.

In your view, I can see how it can be confusing. (now I'm not saying mine is right and yours isn't but comparing the the views as how that passage is seen)

I would state the 'fuller presence of the Holy SPirit' is the very indwelling that hasn't been. Remember 'indwelling' refers to a 'permenent' state of residency. This is obtained via the baptism of the Holy Spirit due to us being placed into Christ. It is this placement that both place us and 'establishes us' in Christ's righteous and sanctified us, having had our sins removed and thereby a making a proper and holy abode for the Holy Spirit. THus the OT saints could never have the indwelling Holy Spirit because their sins were only covered, but still there as Hebrews tells and not yet removed. Thus the Holy Spirit could not indwell them in a permenant way due to their sin remaining and He was Holy unable to abide with sin.

.
I would state it this way from scripture as I see it:

Did the Holy Spirit come upon people in the Old Testament? Yes.
Did it empower those--Samson, prophets, etc.? Yes
Were people filled with the Spirit before Pentecost? Yes

Were believers indwelt with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost? No.
Were believers baptised with the Holy Spirit before Penecost? No.
Were believers placed into Christ (being the head of the Church) before Pentecost? No.
Was the Comforter still to come? Still to be poured out because He was not yet given? Yes

And here we disagree. The disciples Jesus was teaching and preparing to be the Church, which is established upon or through His death and resurrection, could not yet be due to some important factors though not in any particular order:
1. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus
2. The 'indwelling' that Jesus said had not yet happened because He was not yet given. Indwelling as being a permenant state of residency. The seal until the day of redemption.
3. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit which places one into the body of Christ of which only came into being after His resurrection since it pretains to His death. Being in His body means we are risen with Him to newness of life (Rom. 6:4)
4. This body is called/refered to as the New man, which means it is distinct and differentfrom anything previously known.
5. The kind of empowering, and consistancy required for the Church in function and life can only be found in the permenancy of the of the Holy Spirit indwelling the people of God, which only comes through His baptism, which only exists due to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Anothing interesting note no Old Testament predictions of the Holy Spirit baptism exist, and our Lord said it would happen for the first time when the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5). We see later on that Peter called this “the beginning” (Acts 11:15-16). Also we note the purpose of the baptism is to join believers to the body of Christ, and the distinctiveness of the body as it is called 'the new man'. Thus the church could not come into being till after Christ death, burial, and resurrect, but even then it was still only partly complete. It was there in form (people and some knowledge) but not in power (which was the Holy Spirit not yet given to them) and therefore having no function. And so it goes back to my illistration of the computer:

It has been fun brother, thank you for making me go back and dig once again to make sure

Much love and respect,
Your brother in Christ Jesus our Lord and God
Allan

 

This is curious. I am at this moment looking at at a KJV New Testament, which I have had for 30 years. It is called the Christian Life NT, published in 1978 by Thomas Nelson publishers. It translates the passage in question as "dwelleth in you, and shall be in you."

Just to see, I followed your lead and Googled several versions, including the KJV and the New KJV. And you are correct, they all translate it "with" instead of "in."

I think that you are right, we have pretty much wrung as much as we can out of this discussion. As usual, you have provoked a lot of thought, and I'm sure others have benefited from this discussion as well.

Thank you for the sweet spirit you exhibit in engaging an interesting conversation. You set a great example of how one can firmly state his position, firmly rebut another position, but with civility and cordiality. Blessings on you.

 

I can't help but tell you this brother, you are a true blessing and one in whom I can say without a doubt my Lord truly indwells you God be praised for His work which He began in you, and since He began it we know that He alone will fulfill it.

 

The church was assembled (for lack of a better term" in Christ's ministry on earth with His Apostles/Disciples. They fulfilled the literal definition of the church - local called-out believers. But He told them to wait until they were empowered by the Holy Spirit to carry out His mission (great commission). that happened on the day of Pentecost.

The simplest way I have come up with to explain it:

When a car is assembled in an auto manufacturing plant, at what point does it become a car? When the frame is welded together? No - it is just a frame. When the body parts are added? How about the engine and drivetrain?

It is a car when the parts are in place, even before the battery is installed, and the key turned for the first person to drive it. It is a car. But it isn't empowered until the parts are in place, and the engine is started and it can be driven. Even if no battery is every put in, and the engine started - it is a car. For that matter - even without an engine, one might see it as a car (kind of like some churches that Christ is absent from...hehehe).

But the illustration is this - the "church" was planted by Christ, but the empowering to GO and DO came with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

 

The Church did not begin at Pentecost nor with the disciples.

The Church existed in the wilderness.

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

The church is the assembly of God's people.

I came here to Unity in part to "build this church." But there was already a church here. Build doesn't mean BEGIN. No. It means to expand.

And that is what Christ came to do. Expand his assembly of his people until it spans the globe.

 

If you are simply going to look in an English concordance, like Strong's and find where the word "church" is used, and use that as a basis for your theology of ecclesiology then your doctrine of the church is very weak and confused. The word church in the Greek is from ekklesia which simply means assembly. It is rightly translated in Acts 19. There they assembled in the theater. The mayor of the city in Ephesus dismissed the assembly. According to your reasoning the crowd in the theater in Acts 19 is a church because the same word is used for church--ekklesia.

The church did not start in the wilderness simply because a similar Greek word translated as "church" was used in the KJV. Your reasoning here is the same as a KJVO, who believes in the inspiration of the KJV, and that the KJV has more authority than the Greek or Hebrew. You know better than that. Check out the original languages and see what the word means and how it should have been translated.

 

The context confirms that the church existed before Jesus' incarnation.

 

When Jesus says "my church", I believe he means the New Covenant church, as opposed to the Old Covenant church under Moses. I don't think he intends that small group of His during the days of his earthly presence because according to Hebrews there had to be the death of the "testator" before the "testament" (covenant) could be in effect. So I see the birth of "the church", that is, the New Covenant Church of Christ, has having had three significant phases: 1) the death of Christ, making the atonement and rendering temple worship archaic; 2) the inauguration of the Kingdom on the day of Pentecost with Gospel power and mass conversions; 3) the destruction of the last vestiges of the Old Covenant in 70 a.d., confirming the New Covenant Church as God's visible people on earth and completing the transition from the Old to New Covenant.