Early Church

IreneAdler said:

the KJV makes alot of things equivalent that are not, like the use of the word nudity/nude in Genesis (two different words are used but don't mean the same thing or there wouldn't be two words now would there?) Covenant and Testament do not mean the same thing. Covenant in the most basic sense is a solemn promise. Testament is tangible proof or expression of conviction or determining the disposition of one's property.

Click to expand...

Just for you sweetheart. The word diatheke is translated both as covenant and testament in the NT. It means a disposition specifically a contract.

bugkiller

bugkiller said:

Just for you sweetheart. The word diatheke is translated both as covenant and testament in the NT. It means a disposition specifically a contract.

bugkiller

Click to expand...

Both require a minimum of 2 parties (giver and receiver of the action).

IIRC, diatheke is used in the LXX for 'covenant' (its Hebrew equivalent), don't know about "testament". But, as the OT covenant identified the Jews as the people of God, the covenant was a testament of this relationship.

In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew _kahal_ of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found.

Greek kyriakon (κυριακό&#957, "thing belonging to the Lord"; also ekklesia (ἐκκλησί&#945 (Latinized as ecclesia, "assembly"

There is some uncertainty on the exact development of the word "church." The Compact Oxford English Dictionary says its origin is "from Greek kuriakon doma ‘Lord’s house’." Kuriakon is from kurios ‘master or lord’.1 According to The Online Etymology Dictionary, it is from the Old English cirice, from West Germanic kirika, and from Greek kyriake, meaning Lord’s, and the Greek adjective kyriakon, of the Lord.2

Another source identifies "church" from the Old English chirche and cherche, and from the Anglo-Saxon circe, cirice, and cyrice. It also compares to the Scottish word kirk, the Dutch kerk, the Danish kirke, and the German kirche.

Christian meeting places: people came to speak of these buildings as "the lord’s" (kyriakon) "house" (doma). They used the term kuriaka when speaking of articles associated with these buildings.

Eventually, the term kyriakon came to mean the people who meet within these buildings. The word itself gradually evolved to become the English word "church." People came to accept it as part of our religious vocabulary. It stands to reason that some scholars might want to use "church" in passages that speak of believers.

For the most part, there is no comparison. The inspired writings do not use the Greek word kyriakon. In every passage where the word “church” appears, the manuscripts from which we get our English translations read ekklesia (ek-klay-see'-ah). Unlike kyriakon (church), ekklesia is not a religious word. It simply refers to people who answer a summons or calling. Their assembling or grouping together was for a particular cause. In none of the Greek writings, divinely inspired or otherwise, did any writer ever use ekklesia exclusively to refer to a religious gathering. It was a called out or assembly of individuals.

Church as you know it today and use it isn't a biblical thought or term... A gathering is.

It is impossible to translate “church” into New Testament Greek because there is no Greek word to convey the same equivalent understanding that people today have of the English word church. If these two words were synonymous, then they would have the same or similar meanings. In most cases, we should be able to use them interchangeably but we cannot.

So can we please stop throwing the word "church" around like it means anything special? Thank you.

(biblegateway, wikipedia, our lord's ekklesia)

Thekla said:

Both require a minimum of 2 parties (giver and receiver of the action).

IIRC, diatheke is used in the LXX for 'covenant' (its Hebrew equivalent), don't know about "testament". But, as the OT covenant identified the Jews as the people of God, the covenant was a testament of this relationship.

Click to expand...

It's interesting who KEEPS the covenant in the Tanakh. It ain't Abraham. Abraham keeps the sign, not the covenant itself. God keeps it. but that's another thread entirely.

bugkiller said:

I guess it depends on your understanding. What we call the church did not exist in the wilderness of Sinai.

Click to expand...

Acts 7 states different. It was still God's church, just like how the church in Corinth, Rome, etc was God's church.

bugkiller said:

You are appllying a 21st century meaning here. I do think it is anunfortunate mistranslation, espceially for techies.

bugkiller

Click to expand...

but the church has always meant the congregation/assembly of God's people. Ps 22:22 affirms this.

church... sigh... there's that word again... oh well. have fun discussing. laterz

In the EO, we still use the word "Ekklesia"

However, the sense of the ekklesia as those called out/called together is contained in the English word church. That it is also used for the building where the ekklesia meets is a matter perhaps of the more limited English vocabulary (in terms of number and nuance). Also, as the ekklesia may meet on ground specifically set aside as dedicated to God (agia/set aside/holy), the English word church also contains the meaning of that which is specifically dedicated to God (people and space).

Tyndale said:

Acts 7 states different. It was still God's church, just like how the church in Corinth, Rome, etc was God's church.



but the church has always meant the congregation/assembly of God's people. Ps 22:22 affirms this.

Click to expand...

We have a disagreement about they conveyance of communication. The way it was used to what I responded to is a misconception for the purpose of deception. There is a clear difference in Israel and the church. Christians are not (spiritual) Jews. Even with the reference to the church being Israel, the NT states there is neither Jew nor... No Jew no Israel (church) as was the intended meaning.

bugkiller

bugkiller said:

We have a disagreement about they conveyance of communication. The way it was used to what I responded to is a misconception for the purpose of deception. There is a clear difference in Israel and the church. Christians are not (spiritual) Jews. Even with the reference to the church being Israel, the NT states there is neither Jew nor... No Jew no Israel (church) as was the intended meaning.

bugkiller

Click to expand...

I support what you are saying, but you said originally that there is a difference between the 21st century church and the one in the wilderness, I disagree with that. God's church is the same. The church in the wilderness wasn't necessarily jews, they believed in God and hoped for salvation. They were God's chosen.

Jews (Judah) were the result of scattered Israel and they included their own rituals to those given by God. That's why Christ opposed their leaders in the synagogue.

IreneAdler said:

check out Acts in various bibles

Click to expand...

I have. I think you'll find we all have the same number of chapters in it.

The body which fixed the Christian canon called itself a Church. Since we only know what the canon should be because of that Church, having an argument over 'that word' seems quite pertinent really. How do you think we know the NT Canon? Perhaps if you'd help us understand where you are coming from it would help the course of the discussion here?

peace,

Anglian

OrthodoxyUSA said:

Authority does not equal power... as the power is from God. Authority is something given.

I hope that you can find it in yourself that you may be wrong about the gift of absolution. The laying on of hands and the affirmation of absolution is good for the soul. Christ God made gave this through HIS Church. If we don't have a Church that can do this for us then we are left starving in our Christian life.

Thanks for your honesty.

Forgive me...

Click to expand...

Well I am not left starving. So I don't understand really. We have our sins forgiven through the Blood of Christ. If we do sin all we have to do is to confess to God and He is just and able to forgive us of our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.. So my forgiveness comes from the Father.

MamaZ said:

1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and what our hands touched, as regards the Word of Life.
1Jn 1:2 And the Life was revealed, and we have seen, and we bear witness, and we announce to you the everlasting Life which was with the Father, and was revealed to us.
1Jn 1:3 We announce to you what we have seen, and what we have heard, that you also may have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And we write these things to you, that your joy may be full.
1Jn 1:5 And this is the message which we have heard from Him, and we proclaim to you: God is light, and no darkness is in Him, none!
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and we walk in darkness, we lie and are not practicing the truth.
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of His Son Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous that He may forgive us the sins, and may cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to answer me, that's okay.

IreneAdler said:

again, unable to make an argument and therefore goes off on childish tangents

Click to expand...

Thanks for the warning. Let me know when you're ready to talk again.

MamaZ said:

Well I am not left starving. So I don't understand really. We have our sins forgiven through the Blood of Christ. If we do sin all we have to do is to confess to God and He is just and able to forgive us of our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.. So my forgiveness comes from the Father.

Click to expand...

Why did Jesus ask us to forgive those who trespass against us?

IreneAdler said:

check out Acts in various bibles

Click to expand...

Are they different books of Acts?

Montalban said:

If you don't want to answer me, that's okay.

Click to expand...

I don't see what you said John said.. We do not get to make up what we think John said. We do have what he has said in the written form and can stand on that.

Montalban said:

Why did Jesus ask us to forgive those who trespass against us?

Click to expand...

Because we have been freely forgiven.

Secundulus said:

And the gnosticising.

Click to expand...

And the icons.

Brennin said:

And the icons.

Click to expand...

Icons are not heresy, but nice try at slipping that one in there.

MamaZ said:

When people speak of the early church why do they only go back to 367 or so?

Click to expand...

you must be reading in different areas where I have read. Over 30 popes existed and died before even the 3rd century.

The patristic writings I have that go from the time of Christ to the 3rd century add up to over 4,000 pages of writings from saints, doctors, martyrs, and bishops. The 3 sections of Tertulian and St. Ireaneus "Against heresies" alone constitutes an enormous amount of paper

Interesting a thing when you actually pick up a book and start researching it for yourself

Why do some people have trouble only going back to the 16th century?