Jesus didn't institute a church

[Rick Otto]

Americans are wonderful.

Thank you.

 

[wmssid]

Rom 8.28 - called; KLEETOIS.

Strongs # 2821 - called; 10 Xs; #2822; call; 6 Xs; #2564 - call; 115 Xs;

#1577 - from (ek) calling (klesia); 114 Xs.

To change 2 words, from calling, to equal one word, church, is impractical.

This has been labeled, "transliteration" for several centuries.

Your French word, "igl.." does not relate to the Scripture.

wmssid

 

[calluna]

Rom 8.28 - called; KLEETOIS.

Strongs # 2821 - called; 10 Xs; #2822; call; 6 Xs; #2564 - call; 115 Xs;

#1577 - from (ek) calling (klesia); 114 Xs.

To change 2 words, from calling, to equal one word, church, is impractical.

This has been labeled, "transliteration" for several centuries.

Your French word, "igl.." does not relate to the Scripture.

wmssid

Some of us know what we are talking about, and others do not.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some of us are sharp, others are just edgey.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the word Church, when interpolated into the text, is in error.

Ekklesia, is NOT church. Ekklesia is an assembly.

When you look at the scriptures in this light, you can see much more clearly the truth of the matter.

Matt.16
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my (assembly of believers), and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

so, the powerr of death will not prevail against Gods children. A wonderful promise! And it completely does away with the notion that He ever promised an error free institution.

Matt.18
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the (assembly of believers); and if he refuses to listen even to the (assembly of believers) let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


another instance that flies in the face of authority of one orginization! We are to take them to the assembly of believers. NOT a church.

it really chages the claim that Jesus instituted the EO or RCC church, doesn't it!

I largely agree....

Every Christian I know is a person.
I don't think a legal/political institution can have faith, thus be a Christian.
It seems to ME that an assembly of people would be people.
Thus, the ecclesia would be people.

Doesn't seem like rocket science to me


AH, but if an institution is going to claim for itself (individually, absolutely, exclusively) that it is the sole authority, sole interpreter and sole arbiter - then it will need to somehow justify all these remarkable, self-serving, accountability-evading things. The two denominations known to me that claim these things both teach that the church is essentially a denominational it, and it just happens to be itself, and that Jesus founded it - and makes the same long chain of self claims based on that self-claim ("...therefore, I'm especially protected and lead by the Holy Spirit" "...therefore, I'm the sole interpreter and arbiter" "....therefore I'm inerrant" "...therefore I'm the one true church" etc.). Those two denominations are the RCC and LDS.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[mont974x4]

In one of the books I am currently reading for a seminary class I was reminded that we are called to a community.

Church being the group of "called out ones". We as individuals are called to Christ, and gifted and called to serve, but in the context of being a part of the body as a whole.

No He did not insititute a denomination, but He has called us, individually, to be a part of the community of believers---the Church.

 

[waywardone]

I think that I am a little ignorant here, what is the point? Why would it seem like an important thing to argue? Who cares if the origin for Ekklesia truly means assembly? If you are a person that is prone to research and studying the Word, would it not be up to your own intrepretations anyways? There is only one that truly understands the vastness and trueness of the bible and its meaning and since none of us can walk on water I am going to go out on a limb and say that your efforts would be better focused in a more direct and useful directions. Christians are given a bad name every day by the media and various other source, dont you think that it would be more of a benefitl to focus our studies in that direction? Just curious, but if you just like to debate than have fun debating the origin of church, I would rather move on and try to get a better understanding of why God would rescue a person like me, and bless me with a life that is truly undeserved. Then share that with the rest of the world.

 

[TheDag]

I reckon it is possible one of us could walk on water. Of course you do make a valid point. It is a silly argument. What is really going on here after the first couple of pages is catholic and protestants wanting to bash each other. I don't know if that was the intent of the OP but hopefully not. Can't remember if they commented on that.

 

[mswift]

If its a church or an assembley I can help you grow it

 

[ArnautDaniel]

If its a church or an assembley I can help you grow it

Most church "growth" is the result of people leaving one church and joining another.

And most church "growth" programs aim for this.

What does any of this have to do with the Great Commission?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Absolutely true.

Destroy the churches - save Christianity !

The churches will last until Yahshua returns to rule.
Then He will finally do away with all that is wrong.

Believers in Yahshua are and will be kicked out of the world churches,
that is normal and expected.
But for the believers, that is a sure sign of sharing the suffering of Yahshua for the Gospels Sake , for Truth.
Yhvh is not pleased with anyone who seeks the approval of man.

 

[mercutio1562]

nice observation.

 

[wmssid]

Uphill Battle has done a valiant work.

But then, he was only a critic. He had no answers.

"Ek KLhsia" is two words. The preposition "ek" is translated "from" or "out of."

"Klhsia" is a verb translated, "called.

"Ek Klhsia" = "Called-out."

"Out of" Israel, and "Out of" pagan religions.

This produced the "dead Body of Israel" and the "remnant saved" -- at the Rapture in AD 77.

So then, the three kingdoms were, and are: "physical Israel" and Jesus' "Called-out" and "New Jerusalem," founded in AD 77 after the Rapture.

See Isaiah's description of New Jerusalem replacing annihilated Israe"

"Look, I will create new heavens and a new earth (New Jerusalem), and the Former (Israel) will not be remembered nor come to mind" - Isa 65.17.

This is one of the most oft-repeated prophecies in the Bible.
Moses was graphic about the annihilation of Israel in Deut 28.
He was also graphis about New Jerusalem - Deut 30.

 

[hollyanglo]

the word Church, when interpolated into the text, is in error.

Ekklesia, is NOT church. Ekklesia is an assembly.

When you look at the scriptures in this light, you can see much more clearly the truth of the matter.

Matt.16
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my (assembly of believers), and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

so, the powerr of death will not prevail against Gods children. A wonderful promise! And it completely does away with the notion that He ever promised an error free institution.

Matt.18
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the (assembly of believers); and if he refuses to listen even to the (assembly of believers) let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


another instance that flies in the face of authority of one orginization! We are to take them to the assembly of believers. NOT a church.

it really chages the claim that Jesus instituted the EO or RCC church, doesn't it!

My pastor told us that if you want to destroy Christianity; attack the structure that defines it i.e the church.

Is the church not an assembly of believers? Did Jesus have a problem with Authority in his assembly? Without the so called organization, would Christianity have "thrived" the way it did over the centuries? Most structureless religions I know do not grow as they are very individualistic in nature, which is contrary to what Christianity is about.

I am not advocating for a particular church, but the EO and the RCC maybe justified to make those claims since they can trace their roots back to Jesus and the apostles. I do understand their line of thought, as far as they are not excluding others.

I assume then that we are to dispute that Paul's writings are inspired as he seemed to be very supportive of the church.

 

[hollyanglo]

Those men that was speaking of in the Gospel are also the men of the government and not teachers of truth. They were the pharasee's and did not love the Lord and IN FACT were the ones wanting Him put to death and you say we are to obey them? I get my authority from the Scriptures and Christ Spirit in me. I do not get my authority from Man when it comes to my Lord. He is my authority. For He is the only Head of His Church.

Is it not "man" who told you which books form your "Scriptures"? Be careful now you are in danger of contradicting yourself.

 

[hollyanglo]

I beg to differ with you. Jesus did institute a church, and its first official members were twelve men. let us get over this romantic ideology that christ came to establish an invisible body, whereby believers only worship in their hearts. Sounds like Eastern mysticism to me and no longer christianity. Without that organized church we would not even know christianity as it would have been infiltrated by all sorts of gnostic teachings and Lord knows what else.


the main issue here has nothing to do with Jesus not instituting a church. this is just an advancement of secular thinking whereby people do not want to see, smell or hear anyone seeming to have some level of authority.

so exactly how would this community of believers look like?

 

[Christos Anesti]

The Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"

1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"

 

[TheDag]

I am not advocating for a particular church, but the EO and the RCC maybe justified to make those claims since they can trace their roots back to Jesus and the apostles. I do understand their line of thought, as far as they are not excluding others.

I can trace back every single denomination to the apostles so I would disagree with this statement. One can also muddy the waters when you bring in people who have received the blessing the way the RCC says it is done but ceased to be part of the RCC. Do they suddenly lose their blessing? I would argue no they do not.
Bear in mind that if you do lose apostolic blessing when you leave the denomination then then we need to ask who does have it. In my experience the RCC claim they were the first and the EO spit from them and the EO claim the other way around.

Is it not "man" who told you which books form your "Scriptures"? Be careful now you are in danger of contradicting yourself.

not at all. Or has the anglican position on the bible changed since I was involved with that denomination? They have never said it was decided by man before but rather by God. I think you need to be more clear about what you are suggesting.
God works through all things good or bad so simply because he has used something does not actually mean he endorses it.
please note I am not making any comment one way or the other on any denomination here but rather just making a point.

 

[TheDag]

The Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"

1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"

No disrespect intended but how does this apply to the discussion please??? I can see two different ways to interpret your post so clarification is required.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If he didn't plan to institute a Church why would the scriptures call the Church the "pillar and ground of truth" ?