Just Truth

[David Lamb]

My point was that anyone can make claims.

Sorry, I misunderstood. You seemed to be saying that by looking at your profile, people could see that your life was blameless. Indeed, you have below your name the words, "Leading a Blameless Life." I apologise for misunderstanding.

 

[Larniavc]

Your words are not of Yahovah.

How do you know? How do you know the Bible are his words?

 

[th1bill]

I dunno man; if we look in my profile we learn that I’m living a blameless life.

How are we to appraise the veracity of the two claims?

Scripture is never wrong and if you actually believe you are living without sin you might find it profitable to read through the Bible, in prayer, in a one year study.

 

[th1bill]

How do you know? How do you know the Bible are his words?

Because the Ruah, that indwells me testifies it is so.

 

[Larniavc]

profitable to read through the Bible, in prayer, in a one year study.

I have read the Bible. I remain unconvinced.

 

[th1bill]

I have read the Bible. I remain unconvinced.

And that leaves me with nothing to say.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Given the common cognates among the Germanic languages, the etymology seems clear, it derives from Kyriakon.

-CryptoLutheran

I already proved that the origin of the word stems back even further of the word “church”. The word church is a new word actually but it is used in scripture in context of the called out assembly of believers. Never ever of a man made building unbiblically called a church when refering to the church Christ is building. , never.

So for any today to say things like “there’s my church on the corner over there”, when no people are there is a false statement. We read of the church which meets in thier house or bring it to the ears of the church etc, all referring to people never a man made building.

Even if sone only take the meaning of church to be the house of a Lord. That would line up with the meaning of the church which is the house of God made up of living stones and who assemble together. Or a body of many parts.

Some clear verses to consider the next time you or anyone unbiblically refers to a man made building as the church.

1 Peter 2: 5. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

2 Corinthians 5: 1. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:”

Hebrews 3: 6. But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.”

1 Timothy 3: 15. 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.”

1 Corinthians 3: 16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

Ephesians 1: 22, 23 “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

So even the word church if you take a more modern interpretation meaning the house of a lord, would line up spiritually that believers are the house of the Lord assembled together as living stones.

An interesting side note. I believe Luther says whatever you do don’t call yourselves Lutherans. Yet today many do??? I think this is telling how traditions of men often go away from the truth. This is similar to how men set up religious man made buildings as the church or have a one man pastor over all unbiblically or a priest over all etc. Traditions that make the word of God of no effect as cash be shown scripturally. Yet they love to have it so and hold onto these traditions of men so hard and defend them with intense passion.

 

[Astrid]

Scripture is never wrong and if you actually believe you are living without sin you might find it profitable to read through the Bible, in prayer, in a one year study.

Why do you think its never wrong?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I already proved that the origin of the word stems back even further of the word “church”. The word church is a new word actually but it is used in scripture in context of the called out assembly of believers. Never ever of a man made building unbiblically called a church when refering to the church Christ is building. , never.

Please follow along. The word "church" is etymologically connected with the word Kyriakon oikos, "Lord's house", a term used to describe places of Christian gathering for worship. The Greek kyriakon/kyriaka was borrowed into the Germanic languages. In the Germanic languages this word referred both to the place of worship (the building) as well as what the New Testament and Christian writings outside of the New Testament call the ekklesia/ecclesia--the Church, the called-out, gathered, people of God (not the building, but the community and institution and people).

The word "church" in English is a valid word when applied to the building, the people, and what we are doing when we gather together--we are going to church, we are the Church, we are doing church. All of this is valid, because that's how the word has been used in English.

The word "church" does not just apply to the Ekklesia in the big universal sense; but has nuances of meaning based on context.

When the Church in Corinth met together, they met together in a church. They wouldn't have called where they met a "church", but in English that is exactly what we'd call it, even if it was a modified home of a local member (the original house churches were modified villas and homes of wealthy members of the community, they had been set apart for the special and specific task of Christian worship and gathering).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[th1bill]

Why do you think its never wrong?

Because it is God-breathed.

 

[trophy33]

Because it is God-breathed.

Its a statement of Paul, but its precise meaning is not defined in the text.

Bible has a lot of easily demonstrable problems - from different textual families, imperfect preservation, ambiguity of the original languages allowing basically unlimited amount of translations and interpretations, to different biblical canons.

Any fundamentalist position of dictation-like word-for-word inspiration is also obviously debunked by comparing two gospels to each other.

 

[th1bill]

Its a statement of Paul, but its precise meaning is not defined in the text.

Bible has a lot of easily demonstrable problems - from different textual families, imperfect preservation, ambiguity of the original languages allowing basically unlimited amount of translations and interpretations, to different biblical canons.

Any fundamentalist position of dictation-like word-for-word inspiration is also obviously debunked by comparing two gospels to each other.

A question I need to know the answer to before I can respond; Are you professing to be Christian? And if yes is your God omnipotent?

 

[Astrid]

Because it is God-breathed.

So you believe because you believe?
How about Christians who believe it says
different than you?

What's that line in there to the effect of
" test all things, hold to what is true".

Do you do that?

Its a statement of Paul, but its precise meaning is not defined in the text.

Bible has a lot of easily demonstrable problems - from different textual families, imperfect preservation, ambiguity of the original languages allowing basically unlimited amount of translations and interpretations, to different biblical canons.

Any fundamentalist position of dictation-like word-for-word inspiration is also obviously debunked by comparing two gospels to each other.

Theres also the mismatch between text and
what is written into the earth itself.

 

[trophy33]

Are you professing to be Christian?

I am a Christian. I think it should be also visible below my nickname, when you expand the section with more info.

And if yes is your God omnipotent?

Not sure what you mean by "my" God, but the true God, by definition and as follows from even just natural theology, is omnipotent.

 

[th1bill]

So you believe because you believe?
How about Christians who believe it says
different than you?

What's that line in there to the effect of
" test all things, hold to what is true".

Do you do that?

Theres also the mismatch between text and
what is written into the earth itself.

I do and if you knew the scriptures you would know Malachi 3:10 says we are to test Yahovah. I tested Him, found Him true, and cannot be turned away because His Ruah/Holy Spirit lives in my heart. Since November 3, 1966 I have seen my God allow six choppers be riddled so badly they looked li fancy tea strainers without a single one of my 41 friends or me being wounded and the shaky, mushy things flew us back to our staging area. I can recount so many other things He has and is doing for my family and I but you need to test Him and His Word yourself to discover that His Word never falls short in any respect. He is speaking through me to you, right now.

 

[th1bill]

Its a statement of Paul, but its precise meaning is not defined in the text.

Bible has a lot of easily demonstrable problems - from different textual families, imperfect preservation, ambiguity of the original languages allowing basically unlimited amount of translations and interpretations, to different biblical canons.

Any fundamentalist position of dictation-like word-for-word inspiration is also obviously debunked by comparing two gospels to each other.

If you had the Ruah living in your spiritual heart you, also, would chuckle at your words.

 

[th1bill]

I am a Christian. I think it should be also visible below my nickname, when you expand the section with more info.


Not sure what you mean by "my" God, but the true God, by definition and as follows from even just natural theology, is omnipotent.

And yet you find Him to weak to keep His Holy Scriptures safe? How does that work with The Omnipotent, Omniscient, All Knowing, All Seeing Elohim of Eternity? Please elaborate on the apparently obvious, to you, short fall.

 

[trophy33]

If you had the Ruah living in your spiritual heart you, also, would chuckle at your words.

I expected a better response. Focus on answering the points in my post, instead of trying ad-hominem fallacies.

 

[trophy33]

And yet you find Him to weak to keep His Holy Scriptures safe? How does that work with The Omnipotent, Omniscient, All Knowing, All Seeing Elohim of Eternity?

Bible is neither God nor God's direct product. It was written by people, copied by people, composed by people, picked by people, translated by people, printed by people. And it is read and interpreted by people.

Please elaborate on the apparently obvious

Take two gospels and compare them side by side where they speak about the same events. Even important or prominent places, like the Our Father prayer, have different versions.

I think it may be possible that, one of the reasons 4 gospels were chosen by the first church instead of just one, was to prevent any kind of fanatical or idolizing view regarding the Scriptures. The variations are easily apparent to everyone who just wants to look, without a need to spend days studying deeper things like textual families or translations.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Please follow along.

To talk this way , you must admit is arrogant, acting like your some great expositor and like I have not studied this issue for almost 40 years.

And I already showed you the word has distant origins in gathering in a circle. Even the Meaning “the Lord” or “house of a lord”. Is in connection with many living stones gathered or assembled together as the house of the Lord God fits the meaning and can be similar to the meaning on the actual word in Greek the called out assembly.

Never is the word church as a man made building in scripture ever when referring to believers. The church met in their houses for about 300 years. This was the biblical pattern as given by God as scripture shows clearly.

The word "church" in English is a valid word when applied to the building,

No, it is never valid to use it this way in scripture, no, not once when referring to believers.

the people,

Only when referring to the called out assembly of people. “The church which meets in their house”, is the biblical understanding. The house is not called the church …EVER, when referring to the believers.

and what we are doing when we gather together-

No, what we do is edify one another as Christ the head of the church (his body) effectually works in the measure if every part (Ephesians 4:25,16 KJV) this also corrects the false one man pastor or priest over an assembly and shows body ministry to one another as God’s order.

-we are going to church,

Never in the history of the church have any believer ever gone to church. Believers are the church and the church which meets in their house is the biblical usage.

This man made tradition of saying “I’m going to church over there”, referring to a building is a wrong thing and displaces the understanding and function of the true church (the called out assembly of believers) who gather in homes.

we are the Church,

This is one right statement here and can be proven by many scriptures. Believers are the body of Christ (the church) the house of God (the church) made up of living stones assembled in Chris as our head.

we are doing church. All of this is valid, because that's how the word has been used in English.

No, none of this is valid except we are the church. This is similar to the word temple. The pagan roots of the word have nothing to do with how The New Testament believers are the temple of God.

The word "church" does not just apply to the Ekklesia in the big universal sense; but has nuances of meaning based on context.

It always means the called out assembly in Greek always. But the scriptural context and use shows how it can be used in different expressions such as a house of living stones or a body of many parts etc.

When the Church in Corinth met together, they met together in a church. They wouldn't have called where they met a "church", but in English that is exactly what we'd call it,

No, they did not meet in a church, they are the church. And we don’t know how large the church was there, they could simply have met in larger homes of rich people.

We read of believers meeting in a house in Corinth as we see here,

Acts 18: 7. And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 8. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 9. Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10. For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. 11. And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”

And

Romans 16: 23. Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.”

There are so many scriptures that the church met in homes all over the new testament I can post them if you want.

even if it was a modified home of a local member (the original house churches were modified villas and homes of wealthy members of the community, they had been set apart for the special and specific task of Christian worship and gathering).

Not until Constantine, do we start to see the formal basilicas being converted to regions meeting houses for believers as I remember in history . We do read of one meeting in a house where the walls were knocked down for more people before that but on history the church mostly met in homes as you cans study and as most commentators will agree. And as scripture shows.

The most high dwellers not in temples made with hands.