Was it a church or synagogue?

[visionary]

There is simply no good reason to deny the Greek authorship of the New Testament in General. One can make arguments for Hebrews or Matthew being in Aramaic but that's about it.

Be this as it may the only text we can rely upon is the Greek which distinguishes between the two and if are you suggesting the text cannot be trusted in this instance what else can't we trust about it? Are we to trust your reconstruction over the text we have?

Mind you, your premise is simply wrong that the New Testament was written by Jews to Jews in Jerusalem. Mark was likely written to a Roman Audience. Luke's gospel was likewise written to a Gentile audience and he himself was not Jewish. Paul's letters explicitly are towards Churches not in Jerusalem and it makes sense for them to be in Greek.

Even if all you say is true, it doesn't change the fact that "church" is not something used verbally as a noun, pronoun, or as a verb in Jerusalem by the locals before 70 AD .

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Even if all you say is true, it doesn't change the fact that "church" is not something used verbally as a noun, pronoun, or as a verb in Jerusalem by the locals.

That doesn't matter since it was used by the authors of the New Testament to describe the community of believers and is distinguished from the synagogue. When Luke tells us in acts that Paul went to a synagogue, we know he went to a synagogue, likewise we know when he gathered with the Church.

 

[visionary]

That doesn't matter since it was used by the authors of the New Testament to describe the community of believers and is distinguished from the synagogue. When Luke tells us in acts that Paul went to a synagogue, we know he went to a synagogue, likewise we know when he gathered with the Church.

And that is where the thread started... Did the authors of the New Testament describe the community of believers as a "church" or is this a translation for those congregations you mentioned it was written for and not for the people of Jerusalem who were there?

 

[Broken Fence]

That isn't what I am asking. I know that the translators of scripture used terms that people they are translating for would relate to. What I am asking is whether there was any "church" in Jerusalem before 70 AD? The believers in Jerusalem were Jews. They have been and were going to the synagogue during this time period. If the persecution was bad enough they gathered where they could in peace. If it was the upper room or something similar it would have been an "assembly".

As far as using the term "church" as in the believers in gatherings, it was called an assembly. “Susya” near Hebron in Israel tells an interesting story from stone and mosaic evidence left over two thousand years. Ancient stones say “Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah.” Susya — Living Evidence for Yeshua’s Followers in Ancient Isreal
This synagogue is of the time period of Yeshua and the followers after His death.

That is very interesting.

 

[HARK!]

That doesn't matter since it was used by the authors of the New Testament to describe the community of believers and is distinguished from the synagogue. When Luke tells us in acts that Paul went to a synagogue, we know he went to a synagogue, likewise we know when he gathered with the Church.

How are they distinguished in these verses?:

(CLV) Ac 18:4
Now he argued in the synagogue on every sabbath and persuaded both Jews and Greeks

Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Is anyone discussed in these verses, "the church;" if so why? If not, then why not?

Please be very detailed in your explanation of who and why. I already know the answer; and it refutes your previous claim.

 

[HARK!]

“Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah.” Susya — Living Evidence for Yeshua’s Followers in Ancient Isreal

That was intense.

 

[pinacled]

Is edah the appropriate word?

פרשת השבוע - Torah Readings for this week

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And that is where the thread started... Did the authors of the New Testament describe the community of believers as a "church" or is this a translation for those congregations you mentioned it was written for and not for the people of Jerusalem who were there?

Since the New Testament was written in Greek and does describe the community of believers as the Church or Ecclesia, I'm going to answer the question yes.

That the New Testament authors have no problem with the term Ecclesia, it should be reason enough that it is an acceptable term. You don't, for instance need, to use a Jewish term to describe it (since the Apostles didn't bother to insist on a Jewish term in the Greek New Testament) and I doubt they called themselves a synagogue since that had a very specific connotation in the first century. Namely being a building Jews used for communal worship.

I don't know the aramaic term they might have used, but it seems irrelevant. Church is a perfectly acceptable word, like Jesus, like God, like Law, like Christ.

 

[pinacled]

Since the New Testament was written in Greek and does describe the community of believers as the Church or Ecclesia, I'm going to answer the question yes.

That the New Testament authors have no problem with the term Ecclesia, it should be reason enough that it is an acceptable term. You don't, for instance need, to use a Jewish term to describe it (since the Apostles didn't bother to insist on a Jewish term in the Greek New Testament) and I doubt they called themselves a synagogue since that had a very specific connotation in the first century. Namely being a building Jews used for communal worship.

I don't know the aramaic term they might have used, but it seems irrelevant. Church is a perfectly acceptable word, like Jesus, like God, like Law, like Christ.

Acceptable language(tongues) whatever it may be. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and so on ..What is important is the message conveyed that Yeshua(Jesus) is salvation.
The body of faithful sons and daughters that gather under his Holy Name are One in Him.

Blessed be The Holy One.

Ignoring an aspect of history is irresponsible to further generations.
Heber Hebrew nourishment is from the Lord of Host and should be given proper respect..

Blessings Always

 

[Hank77]

That isn't what I am asking. I know that the translators of scripture used terms that people they are translating for would relate to. What I am asking is whether there was any "church" in Jerusalem before 70 AD? The believers in Jerusalem were Jews. They have been and were going to the synagogue during this time period. If the persecution was bad enough they gathered where they could in peace. If it was the upper room or something similar it would have been an "assembly".

As far as using the term "church" as in the believers in gatherings, it was called an assembly. “Susya” near Hebron in Israel tells an interesting story from stone and mosaic evidence left over two thousand years. Ancient stones say “Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah.” Susya — Living Evidence for Yeshua’s Followers in Ancient Isreal
This synagogue is of the time period of Yeshua and the followers after His death.

I just wanted to repost this site you posted. This evidence is a cause to rejoice. Thank you for sharing.

 

[visionary]

I just wanted to repost this site you posted. This evidence is a cause to rejoice. Thank you for sharing.

You are most welcome

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Acceptable language(tongues) whatever it may be. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and so on ..What is important is the message conveyed that Yeshua(Jesus) is salvation.
The body of faithful sons and daughters that gather under his Holy Name are One in Him.

Blessed be The Holy One.

Ignoring an aspect of history is irresponsible to further generations.
Heber Hebrew nourishment is from the Lord of Host and should be given proper respect..

Blessings Always

No one's suggesting we ignore an element of history. Jewish origins of Christianity is an interesting area of study, worthy of investigation.

As for the bolded font, I'm not sure what you mean. The Apostolic writings literally used the word Ecclesia to describe the Church. They didn't feel the need to directly transliterate an Aramaic/Hebrew word like they did elsewhere in the New Testament. Neither did they deem it fit to write the Tetragrammaton, say Messiah instead of Christos or Yeshua instead of Iesous. The Apostles and their associates seemed quite willing to adapt their religious language when speaking to Gentile audiences.

So I'm left to wonder what proper respect wtih regards to Hebrew nourishment means.

 

[HARK!]

Acts 15:4
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

Wow! Has it been 9 days already? I had been working on this thread when you posted yours:

I forgot all of the points that i wanted to make in my thread; but I decided to just go ahead and get it out there:

Who Composed the Assembly?

 

[pinacled]

Even if all you say is true, it doesn't change the fact that "church" is not something used verbally as a noun, pronoun, or as a verb in Jerusalem by the locals before 70 AD .

I agree with the likely hood of such a premise with admirable motive.
Yet there is much to consider in linguistic distinctions given with letters to certain audiences in regard to each.
Whether latin or Greek.
Church in many languages extending the globe is known as a house were family gathers..
The simplicite understanding in spirit is a commonality cleansed in The Holy One whose Word washes all who have been called to gather under The Shelter of wings.

Most importantly gathered with a singleness in heart that expresses Love for the gift of inheritance in The name of Father, Son, and Ruach hakodesh(holy spirit).

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

No one's suggesting we ignore an element of history. Jewish origins of Christianity is an interesting area of study, worthy of investigation.

As for the bolded font, I'm not sure what you mean. The Apostolic writings literally used the word Ecclesia to describe the Church. They didn't feel the need to directly transliterate an Aramaic/Hebrew word like they did elsewhere in the New Testament. Neither did they deem it fit to write the Tetragrammaton, say Messiah instead of Christos or Yeshua instead of Iesous. The Apostles and their associates seemed quite willing to adapt their religious language when speaking to Gentile audiences.

So I'm left to wonder what proper respect wtih regards to Hebrew nourishment means.

With careful thoughts of consideration there are times when a son or daughter apply themselves in the fruit of patience..

At the moment I'll only address the assertion you chose to speak of concerning The Holy Name of The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob(Israel).

The Lord's Name being Holy is never to be used in vanity.
This is something I assume you recall.

So whether or not the authors of the gospels or letters sent by ole sh'aul(Paul) included The Holy name as known by Hebrew(Jewish) men is for each individual to decide after careful consideration in The Spirit of knowledge and understanding.

Respect and regard to an history of inheritance is very much tantamount to carrying a Lamp.
Luke 14:28

Blessings Always

 

[Aaron112]

Ironically enough, churches actually have pagan origins, and are not a biblical concept.

I think ekklesia, or assembly, of the ones borne of The Creator,
is simply more accurate and would in practice and in definition delineate (separate) them distinctly from the meetings of any other group(s).

 

[Laureate]

Acts 15:4
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

Contextually he was received by members of the Faith, wherefore the Context should read, ….they were received by the Congregation…., otherwise this is not a reference to a structure erected by the hands of men.