Nietzsche's Antichrist

[irateional]

I just finished reading Nietzsche's Antichrist, and I'm just wondering what other Christians who have read it think of it?

I don't think I've ever read a more direct and frankly, logical, attack on Christianity. I mean in a few things, he's obviously wrong, but it's interesting to see how Nietzsche's point about how Christianity basically abandoned Jesus' teachings for a religion based around temples and priests.

Also, his point about Christianity both denying and using nature are very interesting.

What do you guys think?

 

[Nadiine]

I just finished reading Nietzsche's Antichrist, and I'm just wondering what other Christians who have read it think of it?

I don't think I've ever read a more direct and frankly, logical, attack on Christianity. I mean in a few things, he's obviously wrong, but it's interesting to see how Nietzsche's point about how Christianity basically abandoned Jesus' teachings for a religion based around temples and priests.

Also, his point about Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
.

What do you guys think?

I haven't read the book, so consider me ignorant in general about what all it relays.

It's also documented that he fell into mental disorder and died... no doubt we can't know all the details - whether he did go insane or not since people will say it was something genetic or a disease that brought on delerium...

Anyways, specifically - what I notice antiChristian skeptics OFTEN do, is not take into account the facts surrounding the issue (found in many other areas in the Bible; important teachings, principles & concepts given, that they either haven't put together, found, understood, or considered).
In the case you state above:

Christianity basically abandoned Jesus' teachings for a religion based around temples and priests

The Bible clearly points out what changed, and WHY it changed... and that Christ was born under the law (obligation to observe it) so that He could FULFILL IT in our place, and become our atonement after His blood sacrifice to pay for our sins. Our ransom.

It was God's design all along TO USHER IN GRACE, AND DO AWAY WITH THE TEMPORARY SYSTEM OF PRIESTS AND TEMPLE WORSHIP where they brought their animal sacrifices to the Priest there.
So that change isn't a contradiction, IT'S PROPHECIED and planned by God to be changed.

MANY skeptics merely see and use FACTS to compare with other areas of the Bible and then scream, "CONTRADICTION!!"! While the REASONS, commands and dispensations surrounding the alledged contradictions GO UNSEEN - truths that told us why the change occurred or would occur.

The book of Hebrews & Galations (as well as some areas in Romans) explains in detail how the law changed -by Christ's fulfillment of it- and what God brought to us instead of it thru His death. Here's some verses of support:

Gal 4:4But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born* of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Mat 5:17"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Jesus came while the Law was enacted, He fully obeyed that Law becuz He could not sin (as God)...
BY obeying that law, He "became" (not that He already wasn't) SINLESS. It's only unblemished animals that were acceptable for sacrifice to God.
So, being sinless, He then SACRIFICED HIS LIFE/BEING THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB to atone for the sins of man, He then became our High Priest; cancelling out the need for high priests (who continually gave up sacrifices for the people's sins over & over), BECUZ HE IS IT and no more are necessary to cover for sin.
He paid it once, for all.
So Jesus had to first obey the law perfectly to establish the sinless perfection in man's place (which man cannot possibly do himself!) -
then died as the perfect sacrifice - for our ransom.
We still have a high priest, HE'S JESUS CHRIST. It wasn't abolished, He CHANGED IT and became it for us.
Thus, the law wasn't "done away with", Christ fulfilled it and caused a change.

Same with blood sacrificing, the LAW demands life's blood for sin - well, God didn't cancel out & remove that law, JESUS DIED, (OBEYING THAT LAW) and now is our permanent blood sacrifice for our atonement/.
The law isn't GONE, Jesus became things so that parts of the law become unecessary to keep observing.

CHRIST became our High Priest - and further blood sacrifice is no longer needed for us today.
Christ's death fulfilled the OT ceremonial laws by replacing it with a better way - so that under Grace, we worship Him directly rather than rituals & ceremonies.

THAT'S NOT A CONTRADICTION to what God initiated, IT'S THE FRUITION of His intended plan.

All anyone can rightly do then is wonder "why this plan", not scream "contradiction", becuz it's clearly not when it's set up to change.

On your 2nd issue:

Christianity both denying and using nature

I'd need to know more detail about his argument - I don't quite know what part of nature is proclaimed and then denied to give an appropriate reply.

 

[SealedEternal]

I haven't read the book, but he is absolutely correct when he says that man has essentially perverted the gospel into a religion rather than the true faith of the Bible. This began with the redefinition of the word "Church" itself. We tend to think of it as a building, an institution, a denomination, or a worship service. None of these accurately capture the true meaning of the Greek word “ekklesia.”

The word church comes from the old English and Germanic word kirke, (pronounced "keer - kay"), and which itself came from the Babylonian for the goddess Circe (pronounced "seer-say"). The goddess Circe was thought to be connected with the power of the sun, which is round, and thus the connection to Circe, a circle. In Anglo-Saxon history, the pagans worshipped the sun standing in a circle [kirke]. These pagan worshippers became known as the “circle“, or the “kirke“, then ultimately the “church.” Therefore, the word “church” predates Christianity and is actually a pagan term rather than a Christian one.

The first complete English Bible was the Tyndale Bible in about 1524, and that Bible did not use the word "church" anywhere in its pages, but instead used the word "congregation." This is a more accurate translation, even though it doesn’t quite capture the original meaning of “ekklesia“. The word “church” crept into our English translations soon after, probably because of pagans who accepted some form of Christianity and retained the word “church” from their pagan circle’ to refer to their Christian meeting.

King James was the “Head” of the Church of England, which is essentially the Anglican Church, or the equivalent of England’s Roman Catholic Church. At the time of the 1611 King James translation, the Roman Church, as well as the Anglican Church were threatened by separatist and reform movements, and many of their false doctrines were being threatened with being exposed. By translating the Greek word “ekklesia” as “Church,” the Anglican so-called “church” was able to claim to hold the power of salvation over people, just as the Catholic Church does. This is because of a misunderstanding of who the “ekklesia” really is.

The word “ekklesia” comes from two Greek words: Ek means "out" and Kaleo means "call", and this is the verb form. When we put the two together and write the noun form of it, it is Ekklesia and means "called out ones." This is the way it is always used in the Greek language. It means an assembly of people who are called out for a purpose.


"Ekklesia" is used seventy times in the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament from 200-300 BC. It translates the Hebrew word kahal (from which latter we have our word call), as “sunagoge” and “ekklesia.” “Ekklesia” occurs in New Testament 115 times (36 in plural), and is always translated "church" except in Acts 19:32, 39, 41where it is translated “assembly. “

The word ekklesia is also used to translate the Hebrew word miqra in the Septuagint, because it also means “called out.” Miqra is the word that the English Bibles usually translate as “convocation“, as in "it shall be a holy convocation unto you" (Lev. 23:36). So in the Old Testament the phrase “called out” is translated as convocation and in the New Testament the same phrase is translated as “church.” They have the same meaning, but because of the different English words they are made to seem different from each other.

“Ekklesia” was most often used as a political term prior to the Bible, not a religious one. In classical Greek "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly." It essentially refers to an assembly of people who have been brought together for a common purpose. If it was for a political purpose, it would then be a political assembly; if called out for a social purpose, it would be a social assembly.

We see a political, or anti-religious “ekklesia,” or church, called out in Acts 19:25-41. Verse 25 tells us that they were called together; verse 32 tells us that it was an assembly (ekklesia, church), but here was an ekklesia (assembly, church) that was called to work against Paul who had come to preach the gospel to the heathen city, Ephesus. This is not a religious church (assembly), but a plotting church meeting to stir up the people to destroy Paul. When we think of the word “church” today, we tend to think of it as a religious word, but that is not necessarily the case.

The early believers did not view the Church as an institution. Instead, they saw themselves as the “body of God’s people” united under the leadership and control of His Messiah. Using the term “ekklesia” and their meetings together in each other’s homes gave them greater solidarity and allows them to better understand God’s true calling for the Church. God called them to be bound together closer than any other group and to put off any differences that arose.

This is the true meaning of “ekklesia.” It refers to the born-again Christians whom God has called out of the world, rather than referring to any particular institution. By choosing this misleading word, the early Catholic/Anglican translators were able to fool the masses into putting their faith in the “church” as an institution, rather than realizing that we are the Church. Almost all modern translations of the bible have also translated “ekklesia” as “church” because this term has become an integral part of our English language. As Christians we have been called out of the world by our Lord for a specific purpose.

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;" (1 Peter 2:9).

Out of the 115 times "church" is used in the Greek New Testament, it never refers to the building in which the church meets. "Church" is also never used to denote denominations. Denominations did not exist in the First Century Church, and most of he people in these denominations today, are not part of Christ’s “ekklesia” because their faith is in an institution and it’s false teachings, rather than in Christ’s Word alone.

The true Church consists of those who have been called out of the world by Christ by placing our faith in him, been spiritually reborn with the Holy Spirit of God, and adopted into His family eternally.

As far as priests, the Bible says we don't need men as our priests because we have a New Covenant where Christ is our priest forever:


Hebrews 9:11-28 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU." And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Unfortunately mankind is always trying to use religion as a means of control, and has been that way throughout history. This system began with Nimrod in ancient Babylon, and has been used by Satan to corrupt man's relationship with God ever since. With the Jews the Pharisees and Sadducees declared themselves the "clergy" of their day and forced the masses to conform to their religious tyranny. In the same way, so-called "churches" or "denominations" today have set up their own preisthood or "clergy" to control the masses.


SealedEternal

 

[Teufelhund]

I think that people who attack books before reading them, should read them. I have never read it, I cannot say if points are valid or invalid, but at least I can say that I can't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think that people who attack books before reading them, should read them. I have never read it, I cannot say if points are valid or invalid, but at least I can say that I can't.

Or perhaps such books should simply be ignored. What possible good can the opinions of unbelievers do for Christians? We can recognize the enemy from afar, and this is surely one.

owg

 

[Teufelhund]

Ignoring them is your discretion. Making statements about prior to reading is foolish. I don't care if you read it, just don't act like you did.

 

[irateional]

Nietzsche's argument about circular logic in Christianity is summed up sa thus:

-A Christian is afflicted with a disease. Seeing that he is afflicted, he does what the Bible says, and prays. If he is cured, it's proof of God's goodness. If he is not cured, it's proof of how the world is evil.

He centered his argument around the idea of Christianity not being beyond good and evil. He argued that Buddhism was superior because it was not about good and evil, but rather about ending human suffering. Nieztsche argued that the concept of two polar opposites good and evil, was doing humanity more harm than good.

One of his more interesting points was that in the Christian religion, God is perfect and wonderful and hasn't an evil trait nor aspect about him. Nieztsche argues that it fails, because for one, any evil that exists exists by the will of God, unless something is superior to God, and secondly, that it diminishes the value of God. If God is truly good and never punishes or if God is all the things that the Christians of his day say he was, then God is weak, and no God at all.

As for his insanity, just like a lot of famous figures from the 1700's to 1800's insanity was a common part of old age. Nieztsche might have been mentally disturbed, but that doesn't render his points invalid.

 

[Tinkerbell33]

I have not read "antichrist", but I have read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good an Evil" I had to srudy it for Philosophy. For most of the year I found it hard to read his anti-christian ideas but I have managed to keep my faith.

"evil that exists exists by the will of God, unless something is superior to God" - I have heard this before from Nietzcshe, the only answer that I came up with is that sin and evil are necessary in this world because then we have free will, if we had no will then we wouldnt really love God but because we have free will there are some who do love God.

Nietzsche also attacks Buddhism although he does mention it's superiority to Christianity.

 

[Tinkerbell33]

I do think that Nietzsche's upbringing and background influenced him in his arguments. His father who was Lutheran pastor died when Nietzsche was four years old and Nietzsche's older brother died a few years later. Nietzsche experienced misery and pain, his whole life was filled with torment and agony. He was brought by women - his aunt and his mother and had a sister called Elizabeth, all of them held anti-semtic views and were strict orthodox christians. Maybe their hypocrisy made him vies Christianity from a different light - a negative light.

 

[irateional]

A

I have not read "antichrist", but I have read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good an Evil" I had to srudy it for Philosophy. For most of the year I found it hard to read his anti-christian ideas but I have managed to keep my faith.

"evil that exists exists by the will of God, unless something is superior to God" - I have heard this before from Nietzcshe, the only answer that I came up with is that sin and evil are necessary in this world because then we have free will, if we had no will then we wouldnt really love God but because we have free will there are some who do love God.

Nietzsche also attacks Buddhism although he does mention it's superiority to Christianity.

Agreed. I still believe, but I don't hold to the rules and dogma of the church. I only find Nietzsche interesting because he raises some valid points that we should each address on our own.

 

[irateional]

I do think that Nietzsche's upbringing and background influenced him in his arguments. His father who was Lutheran pastor died when Nietzsche was four years old and Nietzsche's older brother died a few years later. Nietzsche experienced misery and pain, his whole life was filled with torment and agony. He was brought by women - his aunt and his mother and had a sister called Elizabeth, all of them held anti-semtic views and were strict orthodox christians. Maybe their hypocrisy made him vies Christianity from a different light - a negative light.

That might be true. Regardless, some of the points he raise are ones we should listen to. Particularly on suffering. If you go to the Project Gutenberg website you can find the entire text online.

 

[Nadiine]

Unfortunately mankind is always trying to use religion as a means of control, and has been that way throughout history. This system began with Nimrod in ancient Babylon, and has been used by Satan to corrupt man's relationship with God ever since. With the Jews the Pharisees and Sadducees declared themselves the "clergy" of their day and forced the masses to conform to their religious tyranny. In the same way, so-called "churches" or "denominations" today have set up their own preisthood or "clergy" to control the masses.
SealedEternal

I disagree w/ your position on us turning "church" just into an organization.
The body of Christ always met and gathered AT GOD'S TEMPLE at Sabbath, they mandatorily HAD to bring their tithes and offerings.

The OT temple worship carried over into the NT meeting places. They met in people's homes (home churches), but you seem to be ignoring all Paul's instructions for church order and headship (leadership within that body who's meeting).
It's when groups get too large for someone's home that they moved into bigger buildings. There's nothing wrong with that is there? God blessing and expanding the body?

WHERE WE MEET BECOMES CHURCH. I don't care if its inside a real church building, or in an outhouse in the woods -
It's simply carried over from the OT gathering. And we can't forget the Hebrews admonishment "do not forsake the assembling of yourselves as some do".

We Assemble.

 

[Nadiine]

A

Agreed. I still believe, but I don't hold to the rules and dogma of the church. I only find Nietzsche interesting because he raises some valid points that we should each address on our own.

Well each church has different dogma - so... I hold onto what the Bible clearly teaches.

There are plenty of false people hiding in sheep's costumes. God warned us of that too - that they're also inside the churches.
Look at the NT, the holiest and most esteemed were the Pharisees and Jesus rebuked them harshly all throughout His ministry - even called them "sons of hell" in Mt. 23.

BUT BAD PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE GOD'S GOODNESS OR TRUTH. They merely lend support to God's teachings to us that ALL HEARTS ARE WICKED at the core, that all of us fail and do wrong and we need God's forgiveness & salvation.

Neitzsche can have all the skepticism he wanted, but it didn't solve his sin condition. And HAD he softened his heart, he'd of had the comfort he needed in his inner pain and anguish (if that's what his issue was?)...
WE ALL go thru crap down here - I have no doubt that many Christians go thru alot worse than he might have; it's all in your perspective how you'll react.

It's alot easier to have the Lord with you during your struggle than to bitterly shut Him out and refuse His comfort.
Many people soften with pain and reach out while others harden and get bitter.

 

[SealedEternal]

I disagree w/ your position on us turning "church" just into an organization.
The body of Christ always met and gathered AT GOD'S TEMPLE at Sabbath, they mandatorily HAD to bring their tithes and offerings.

Where in the Bible does it say that Christians always met at a Temple on the Sabbath? It says that they gathered together if they were from the same region, but they didn't have temples and there was no requirement to meet on a particular day.

The OT temple worship carried over into the NT meeting places. They met in people's homes (home churches), but you seem to be ignoring all Paul's instructions for church order and headship (leadership within that body who's meeting).

You misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that the members of Christ's "Church" or ekklesia should not meet together. I just said that the ekklesia is the people and not a place, denomination, or worship service. Those who are born of God are the ekklesia and we do not meet at man made institutions. If we are able to find others in our region who have been born of God we certainly should fellowship with them.

What I was speaking against were the "Churches" in the modern sense of the term which are institutions created by men where normally a special class of clergy claim to be the experts who mediate between us and our Lord. Such places and people are nowhere in scripture, and are based on the redefinition of the word "Church" or "ekklesia" which is a reference to the called ones of Jesus Christ, and have nothing to with these institutions.

It's when groups get too large for someone's home that they moved into bigger buildings. There's nothing wrong with that is there? God blessing and expanding the body?

The place where people meet is not the issue, and I haven't taken a position one way or the other on that.

WHERE WE MEET BECOMES CHURCH. I don't care if its inside a real church building, or in an outhouse in the woods -
It's simply carried over from the OT gathering. And we can't forget the Hebrews admonishment "do not forsake the assembling of yourselves as some do".

We Assemble.

That is incorrect, and you have bought into the redefinition of the term. The ekklesia is always a reference to people and has nothing to do with the places where they meet. Sometimes in scripture the called ones in a certain region are referred to, but that is still a reference to the people and not a building or institution.

The reality is that all man made religions are based on the Babylonian model of control, and are nowhere to be found in scripture. It is this false concept that created denominations which constantly argue with one another when in reality both sides are usually wrong. The true body of Jesus Christ is united under Him through His Spirit regenerating our hearts and minds and bringing us to Him. Man made religions on the other hand are designed to control and deceive.

SealedEternal

 

[Nadiine]

Where in the Bible does it say that Christians always met at a Temple on the Sabbath? It says that they gathered together if they were from the same region, but they didn't have temples and there was no requirement to meet on a particular day.

That IS where they met on each Sabbath when they did have a temple. Jesus called that temple in the NT His Father's "house".

I usually ask why people seem to put down the idea of having corporate churches that provide proper leadership & order... just like a tiny home church can.

Wherever we meet, we are a "church".

You misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that the members of Christ's "Church" or ekklesia should not meet together. I just said that the ekklesia is the people and not a place, denomination, or worship service. Those who are born of God are the ekklesia and we do not meet at man made institutions. If we are able to find others in our region who have been born of God we certainly should fellowship with them.

What I was speaking against were the "Churches" in the modern sense of the term which are institutions created by men where normally a special class of clergy claim to be the experts who mediate between us and our Lord. Such places and people are nowhere in scripture, and are based on the redefinition of the word "Church" or "ekklesia" which is a reference to the called ones of Jesus Christ, and have nothing to with these institutions.

I understand your main point but in my studies, I've read that the building is a part of it; where we gather.

Sadly, as you mention, people do abuse the establishments and turn them into what God never intended.
(Pharisees did the same in Jesus' time).

The place where people meet is not the issue, and I haven't taken a position one way or the other on that.

K.

That is incorrect, and you have bought into the redefinition of the term. The ekklesia is always a reference to people and has nothing to do with the places where they meet.

But Jesus Himself called the Temple "a house of prayer" and "MY Father's HOUSE"....
I have a problem entirely removing the "HOUSE" or church building or 'garage' that is involved when we meet there.
It becomes the "holy place" where 2 or more are gathered, God is in the midst.

Sometimes in scripture the called ones in a certain region are referred to, but that is still a reference to the people and not a building or institution.

The reality is that all man made religions are based on the Babylonian model of control, and are nowhere to be found in scripture.

I guess I'm confused about the specifics of what exactly you're coining "Man-made"?
Can you give me a specific example of one today?

 

[SealedEternal]

[/size]
That IS where they met on each Sabbath when they did have a temple. Jesus called that temple in the NT His Father's "house".

I usually ask why people seem to put down the idea of having corporate churches that provide proper leadership & order... just like a tiny home church can.

Under the Old Covenant there was a temple and priests, but under the New Covenant our Father's House is in Heaven and Jesus Christ is our priest. We don't attend temples made by the hands of men, because we are the temple of God's Spirit.


You're also still missing my essential point. The "Church" as our English Bibles translate it is "Ekklesia" in Greek comes from two Greek words: "Ek" means "out" and "Kaleo" means "call", and this is the verb form. When we put the two together and write the noun form of it, it is Ekklesia and means "called out ones." It is not a reference to a place whether a home or large Cathedral with fancy stained glass windows. It is not a reference to a denomination, or some sort of man made religion. It is not a "worship service" or anything of the sorts. It refers to Christ's "called out ones" regardless of where we may happen to be.

Wherever we meet, we are a "church".

The place you meet is not the "ekklesia" regardless of whether it's big or small.

I understand your main point but in my studies, I've read that the building is a part of it; where we gather.

You need to study it again because "ekklesia" has nothing to do with buildings as I explained in more detail in my original posting.

Sadly, as you mention, people do abuse the establishments and turn them into what God never intended.
(Pharisees did the same in Jesus' time).

That's exactly my point. Modern day "clergy' are our version of Pharisees.

But Jesus Himself called the Temple "a house of prayer" and "MY Father's HOUSE"....
I have a problem entirely removing the "HOUSE" or church building or 'garage' that is involved when we meet there.
It becomes the "holy place" where 2 or more are gathered, God is in the midst.

The Temple was a house of prayer for those under the Old Covenant, but those who are born of God are now God's temples on earth. Again, it is the people and not the buildings.

I guess I'm confused about the specifics of what exactly you're coining "Man-made"?
Can you give me a specific example of one today?

Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Seventh Day Adventist, Episcopal, Church of God, Church of Christ, Calvary Chapel, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, Reformed, Jehovahs Wittness, Latter Day Saints, etc. Have you seen any of these religions in scripture? Is Christ's Church (ekklesia) divided? These institutions were all created by men, and all of them misapply the term "ekklesia" in order to keep people divided and enslaved to false religion. The true "ekklesia" is one body under Him.

SealedEternal

 

[Limeade]

Or perhaps such books should simply be ignored. What possible good can the opinions of unbelievers do for Christians? We can recognize the enemy from afar, and this is surely one.

owg

One, unbelievers are not our enemies, they are opportunities.

Two, it would be hypocritical to say that we should never take the opinion of someone who is not a Christian, when we all know that we would gladly take the help of a non believing doctor if we were sick. Now in this case, it may not be the best advice "from the book" but using a blanket statement to call all nonbelievers enemies and devoid of precious advice is silly.

 

[Nadiine]

Under the Old Covenant there was a temple and priests, but under the New Covenant our Father's House is in Heaven and Jesus Christ is our priest. We don't attend temples made by the hands of men, because we are the temple of God's Spirit.

I'm not grasping why you aren't acknowledging that there is no difference between Joe Smith's BASEMENT meeting place, and a larger building that accomodates more believers who come to worship.

We're called to ASSEMBLE TOGETHER. We are a BODY and NETWORK all working together for the Kingdom. It doesn't matter if a "church" is established or if you meet in Joe's kitchen as a group of 4.
WHAT MATTERS IS whether private or corporate, CHRIST IS WORSHIPPED & PROCLAIMED.

Can I ask where Jesus or Paul told us to TEAR DOWN ANY ESTABLISHMENTS in order to worship in small groups of 5? It's wide open if churches want to open corporately using the structure Paul taught for leadership and proper church order.

Many claim that tithing went out under the Grace covenant... it doesn't remove the fact that we're called to sacrificially GIVE back to God and they took offerings in the NT churches....

I think you're missing the forest for the trees in your assessment on this. To denegrate church buildings rather than be THRILLED that Christ is being proclaimed AND THE LOST HAVE A BUILDING TO GO TO IN ORDER TO SEEK.
Where do the lost go without a corner church? Joe's kitchen or basement? How does the seeker know what Joe's worldview is? Maybe Joe's a legalist, maybe Joe teaches Jesus isn't God - but a prophet...
At least with a denominational church, one can KNOW what the belief system is to a point.

You're also still missing my essential point. The "Church" as our English Bibles translate it is "Ekklesia" in Greek comes from two Greek words: "Ek" means "out" and "Kaleo" means "call", and this is the verb form. When we put the two together and write the noun form of it, it is Ekklesia and means "called out ones." It is not a reference to a place whether a home or large Cathedral with fancy stained glass windows.

I told you I know that - I'm saying that where we MEET BECOMES "CHURCH". We have to gather someplace, don't we?
Wherever it is, if it's out in a field, the field is a "church".

It is not a reference to a denomination, or some sort of man made religion. It is not a "worship service" or anything of the sorts. It refers to Christ's "called out ones" regardless of where we may happen to be.

Man made "religion" is when a false gospel or doctrine is taught OUTSIDE WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES. NOT that a group of Believers sets up a building and establishes that as the place of gathering, and teaches the doctrines they believe are true.

Pentecostals have a slight twist and imo. a "bent" towards the GIFTS of the Spirit. They place heavy focus on tongues.
I DO NOT. I find no place to elevate them and namely misuse them as Paul gave instruction on how to use them properly.
Errgo, I won't go to Pentecostal churches - BUT THOSE WHO READ THE BIBLE AND BELIEVE THAT TOO, WILL BECOME PENTECOSTAL and be "fed" what they believe is true.

I'm not against denominations - they define the church's statement of belief for itself. I will go to a Baptist church, but I won't go to an Episcopal church... just by what I know of their belief systems.

The place you meet is not the "ekklesia" regardless of whether it's big or small.

I said it BECOMES the place you gather - and in our English definition, "church" IS the building.
Look it up for yourself. The conflict is in the English language def. of church (WHERE you meet) and what the Bible calls the body of Christ.
so we go to church for all intents & purposes IN THE ENGLISH DEFINITION & understanding.

Deviating from that causes confusion to nonchristians. It is the common understanding in our culture.

That's exactly my point. Modern day "clergy' are our version of Pharisees.

So, you now JUDGE all denominational church leaders as "LOST unbelievers"??? wolves?
Unsaved?

The Temple was a house of prayer for those under the Old Covenant, but those who are born of God are now God's temples on earth. Again, it is the people and not the buildings.

Please show me where Jesus commanded that no buildings be used to meet and gather in.
When you show me that, we'll have more to agree on.

Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Seventh Day Adventist, Episcopal, Church of God, Church of Christ, Calvary Chapel, Assembly of God, Pentecostal, Reformed, Jehovahs Wittness, Latter Day Saints, etc. Have you seen any of these religions in scripture? Is Christ's Church (ekklesia) divided? These institutions were all created by men, and all of them misapply the term "ekklesia" in order to keep people divided and enslaved to false religion. The true "ekklesia" is one body under Him.

K, so you're claiming the YOU and the handfuls that believe what you do are the ONLY saved folks on the planet? ALL OTHERS FROM ALL THESE CHURCHES are heathens?

Please define.

 

[SealedEternal]

[/size]


Can I ask where Jesus or Paul told us to TEAR DOWN ANY ESTABLISHMENTS in order to worship in small groups of 5?

Where have I said that? I haven't. What I said is that Christ's "ekklesia" is a reference to the people who He has called and never refers to a building or institution.

It's wide open if churches want to open corporately using the structure Paul taught for leadership and proper church order.

Many claim that tithing went out under the Grace covenant... it doesn't remove the fact that we're called to sacrificially GIVE back to God and they took offerings in the NT churches....


I think you're missing the forest for the trees in your assessment on this. To denegrate church buildings rather than be THRILLED that Christ is being proclaimed AND THE LOST HAVE A BUILDING TO GO TO IN ORDER TO SEEK.

I have nothing against buildings, and have never said anything about them, except that they are not the "ekklesia" or called ones of Jesus Christ. I am not however "thrilled" when Christ is proclaimed in the context of a false religion rather than as He is proclaimed in His Word. I am also not thrilled when a religious institution of men claims to be the Church and therefore people need to come to them for salvation rather than to Christ through His Word.

Where do the lost go without a corner church? Joe's kitchen or basement? How does the seeker know what Joe's worldview is? Maybe Joe's a legalist, maybe Joe teaches Jesus isn't God - but a prophet...
At least with a denominational church, one can KNOW what the belief system is to a point.

You can know exactly what false version of the Gospel is being proclaimed there yes, but I don't see the benefit of that.

I told you I know that - I'm saying that where we MEET BECOMES "CHURCH". We have to gather someplace, don't we?
Wherever it is, if it's out in a field, the field is a "church".

The field can never be the "ekklesia." If the people there have been called by Christ then they are the "church" but the term never applies to a place.

Man made "religion" is when a false gospel or doctrine is taught OUTSIDE WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES. NOT that a group of Believers sets up a building and establishes that as the place of gathering, and teaches the doctrines they believe are true.

That's what I said.

Pentecostals have a slight twist and imo. a "bent" towards the GIFTS of the Spirit. They place heavy focus on tongues.
I DO NOT. I find no place to elevate them and namely misuse them as Paul gave instruction on how to use them properly.
Errgo, I won't go to Pentecostal churches - BUT THOSE WHO READ THE BIBLE AND BELIEVE THAT TOO, WILL BECOME PENTECOSTAL and be "fed" what they believe is true.

Exactly. You recognize the fallacy of man made religion when it is outside of the one that has been sold to you. Every so-called "denomination" has these sorts of doctrines that keep the people incessantly arguing when in fact both sides are usually wrong.

I'm not against denominations - they define the church's statement of belief for itself. I will go to a Baptist church, but I won't go to an Episcopal church... just by what I know of their belief systems.

Again, you recognize that other man made religions have scriptural problems but cannot see the problems in the religion that was indoctrinated into you.

I said it BECOMES the place you gather - and in our English definition, "church" IS the building.
Look it up for yourself. The conflict is in the English language def. of church (WHERE you meet) and what the Bible calls the body of Christ.
so we go to church for all intents & purposes IN THE ENGLISH DEFINITION & understanding.

Deviating from that causes confusion to nonchristians. It is the common understanding in our culture.

How do you think the term became that way? The Bible has always said that the "ekklesia" is the "called ones" of Jesus Christ which takes all of the authority away from the plethora of man made religions. Why is it then to this very day people don't know that and still redefine scripture to defend these false instituitions? The reality is that when people redefine terms they can teach whatever they want and still claim to be following scripture. Unfortunately hardly anyone understands the real meaning of "ekklesia" because the modern day Pharisees have successfully changed the meaning of the term.



So,

you now JUDGE all denominational church leaders as "LOST unbelievers"??? wolves?
Unsaved?

The ekklesia of Jesus Christ is not an institution of men, it is those people who He Himself has called. If these denominal Church leaders are the body of Christ, then why do they all teach radically different things about Him? Is God the author of confusion, or are they?

Please show me where Jesus commanded that no buildings be used to meet and gather in.
When you show me that, we'll have more to agree on.

That's a strawman because I never said He commanded that.

K, so you're claiming the YOU and the handfuls that believe what you do are the ONLY saved folks on the planet? ALL OTHERS FROM ALL THESE CHURCHES are heathens?

Please define.

All I'm saying is that those who follow Him are His sheep and we know Him, while those who follow the precepts of men and a false religious system have never known Him.

SealedEternal