Church

[homwardbound]

Thanks.

So what bearing does "psychological" have on the truth of God?

Have you not ever gone to a store had a list and were only planning to get what was on your list and gotmany other things or a few other thingsthat were not on your list. Something drew you to that wors that said sale and you got it, and got it home and maybe sat on your self or put in a box and never used it
This happens to a majority of people, needs beyond what is reality are created in the human mind and we are drawn to a fake need that is not a need at all it is a want turned into a need psycologically
If you read get a book called the hidden persuaders. An eye opener
Anyway Church its true meaning no matter which way anyone slices, dices or cubes it means BUILDING period now psycologically when people get in trouble instead of going to God privately they go to the building to get help. This was going on in Jesus's day as well, and did the synagogue accept Jesus? Did the religous leaders of that day accept him or want to kill him?
Is there anything new under the sun. Does man want to be tops, praised, regarded, and rewarded? So being in Christ are we free from all ties of this world even while we are in this world, we are not of this world we are in this world citizens of Heaven put back here on earth as ambassadors representing the love the joy the peace and righteousness in the Holy Ghost. Man has managed to get back in the way of ones personal relationship with God the Father through Christ and Christ's finished work sending you me and all believers the Holy Ghost to teach you me and all others that beleive truth that sets one free from the bondages of this world while yet still in it. There is no mathematical formula to know God, there are no more rituals
Collosians 2:8/ 8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not[d] seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

20 Therefore,[e] if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Thanks for asking hoping you are now aware wise as a serpent yet harmless as a dove
I therefore being aware came up with acronyms for the word Church it is
C= Christ
H= Has
U=Uttered
R=resurrection
C=Choice
H=Heaven
Have a great day

 

[Elin]

Have you not ever gone to a store had a list and were only planning to get what was on your list and gotmany other things or a few other thingsthat were not on your list. Something drew you to that wors that said sale and you got it, and got it home and maybe sat on your self or put in a box and never used it
This happens to a majority of people, needs beyond what is reality are created in the human mind and we are drawn to a fake need that is not a need at all it is a want turned into a need psycologically
If you read get a book called the hidden persuaders. An eye opener
Anyway Church its true meaning no matter which way anyone slices, dices or cubes it means BUILDING period

Thanks for the explanation.

I think we've gotten to the bottom of what I was not understanding.

We are dealing with "church" in Jesus' revelation (Heb 1:1-2), which is the NT.

The Greek word which the apostolic writers chose is ekklesia.

So Biblically, the word "church" means whatever ekklesia means--nothing more, and nothing less.

The meaning of ekklesia is "called-out assembly," which makes that the meaning given to it by the apostolic writers.

We are not authorized to change the meaning given by Jesus' revelation, which is the NT.

What is taking place here, is the meaning of the word "church" as "building" is being taken from outside the Bible, and imposed onto the Bible.

That is backwards.

The meaning of "church" comes from the Bible, where its meaning is "called-out assembly."
That is the Biblical meaning to be used when referring to "church."

Just as I don't decide on what the meaning of "flabberstat" is, then go to the dictionary and change its definition there to agree with my meaning of it.

"Flabberstat" means what the dictionary says it means, just as "church" means what the Bible says it means.
Neither have their meaning outside the book which defines them.

So the Biblical meaning of "church" is "called-out assembly," it is not "building."
It is erroneous to state that the Biblical "church" is a "building."

We are to take our understanding of things Biblical from Scripture, not from our own fancy.

Hoping this will help clear it up.

 

[homwardbound]

Thanks for the explanation.

I think we've gotten to the bottom of what I was not understanding.

We are dealing with "church" in Jesus' revelation (Heb 1:1-2), which is the NT.

The Greek word which the apostolic writers chose is ekklesia.

So Biblically, the word "church" means whatever ekklesia means--nothing more, and nothing less.

The meaning of ekklesia is "called-out assembly," which makes that the meaning given to it by the apostolic writers.

We are not authorized to change the meaning given by Jesus' revelation, which is the NT.

What is taking place here, is the meaning of the word "church" as "building" is being taken from outside the Bible, and imposed onto the Bible.

That is backwards.

The meaning of "church" comes from the Bible, where its meaning is "called-out assembly."
That is the Biblical meaning to be used when referring to "church."

Just as I don't decide on what the meaning of "flabberstat" is, then go to the dictionary and change its definition there to agree with my meaning of it.

"Flabberstat" means what the dictionary says it means, just as "church" means what the Bible says it means.
Neither have their meaning outside the book which defines them.

So the Biblical meaning of "church" is "called-out assembly," it is not "building."
It is erroneous to state that the Biblical "church" is a "building."

We are to take our understanding of things Biblical from Scripture, not from our own fancy.

Hoping this will help clear it up.

All is well, no schisms here

 

[Elin]

It's ek- meaning out, and klesia meaning called, right? Where is the word "assembly"?

"Assembly" comes from its usage among the Greeks, and its usage in the NT.

Words are not always used as transliterations of their roots.

1) From among the Greeks:
Ekklesia was commonly used among the Greeks as a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of State, as in Ac 19:39.

2) From its usage in the NT, where it has two applications in Scripture in regard to Christians:

a) the whole company of the redeemed in the NT, of which Christ said, "I will build my Church (ekklesia)," (Mt 16:18),
and of which Eph 1:22, 5:23 state, "the Church (ekklesia) which is his body."

b) in the singular of Mt 18:17, "tell it to the church (congregation), it means a company consisting of professed believers (Ac 20:28; 1Co 1:2; Gal 1;13; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1;1; 1Tim 3:5,
and in the plural, it means churches in a district.

In Ro 6:23 Gaius is the host of the whole church, where the assembly was accustomed to meet in his house.

You can you see why sunagoge was not used for the Christian assemblies.

No, maybe you could explain it to me. Please cover why there is no command to attend the ekklesia in all scripture

Actually, there is:

Heb 10:25 - "Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves."
The Church is an assembly above, in 2b.

but Heb. 10:25 says to attend the sungoge.

It says to "assemble yourselves," which is how ekklesia is used above, in 2b.

Or maybe you could tell me why Paul tells the Corinthians to follow sunagoge behavior (augmented by the gifts, and the eucharist) in I Cor. 12-14.

Now that's a stretch.

There is no mention of "synagoge" in 1Co 12-14.

And I think maybe now we've come to what's driving this non-issue regarding the word "church."

It has something to do with "synagoge,"
it is evidently some kind of threat to the word "synagoge,"
so in order to remove this threat, the word "church" must be invalidated, discredited, negated.

So. . .just what is really going on here with this non-issue of the word "church"?

 

[kenisyes]

There is no word in the Bible for what we call church. Ekklesia is the people, all of them, not the assembly, of which there can be several. You find only one church per city in the entire Bible, as your examples illustrate. We have many churches per city; this cannot be the same thing. Let's see those 3000+ people in Jerusalem in Acts 2 get together for their meeting; they met in homes. Many homes, one church. The only reason your Scriptures were written that way, is because the churches Paul built were still small enough to have only one meeting place.

Sunagoge means assembly. Heb. 10:25 uses "assemble yourselves", not "be called together by a pastor". Sunagoge behavior is never permitted in a church. Jesus preached "in all their synagogues". Paul preached in the "synagogues". All they had to do was walk in and ask. And when Jesus got done, the crowd felt free to disagree. If Jesus walked into your church as a carpenter turned itinerant evangelist, would He be allowed to preach? I Cor. allows everyone to share in turn. I have never been in a church where more than a dozen or so people shared anything by turns, while everybody watched, and anyone who disagreed had to wait until the service was over and they could gossip about it.

My issue is not with the word "church", but that we have named something that is not in the Bible with that name, and then we try to invoke the Bible to make people come. The threat is that for 1700 years, generation after generation has been trained to be spectators instead of priests. Too many define Christianity as passive listening on Sunday. The world is not getting transformed, and we spend our time fighting over who is right.

 

[Elin]

There is no word in the Bible for what we call church. Ekklesia is the people, all of them, not the assembly of which there can be several.

Kenisyes,

I don't know what you are not understanding (in the following) on the apostolic usage of ekklesia, which is translated "church," and in its apostolic usage means not only all those in Christ, but also the assembly, as in Mt 18:17; Ac 20:28; 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Tim 3:5).

The meaning "assembly" comes from 1) its usage among the Greeks, and 2) its usage in the NT.

And words are often not used as transliterations of their root words, as ek-klesia is not.

1) From among the Greeks:
Ekklesia was commonly used among the Greeks as a body of citizens gathered to discus the affairs of State, as in Ac 19:39.

2) From its usage in the NT, where it has two applications in Scripture in regard to Christians:

a) all believers, the whole company of the redeemed, as in Christ's words, "I will build my Church (ekklesia)," (Mt 16:18),
and in Eph 1:22, 5:23, "the Church (ekklesia) which is his body."

b) in the singular of Mt 18:17, "tell it to the church (congregation), where it means a company consisting of professed believers (Ac 20:28; 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Tim 3:5),

and in the plural, where it means all the churches in a district.

But because the Christian assemblies today do not look like the Christian assemblies in the early church, you think "church" is the wrong word to use for them.

(Are we going to re-write the English lexicon with every change in history?)

But the church is not just those in Christian assemblies, it is also the body of Christ, made up of the born again.
Body of Christ is the primary meaning of "church."

And the nature of the body of Christ has not changed since its beginning in the time of the apostles, nor will it ever change.

Pardon me for saying so, but this non-issue regarding "church" is just not passing the smell test for me.

My issue is not with the word "church", but that we have named something that is not in the Bible with that name

The real basis of this issue is not the change in Christian assemblies since the apostolic age.

Unacceptable change smells like a cover up for a real basis in something else.

And that something else is showing itself to have something to do with "synagoge."

If you are getting these ideas from another source, you may not be aware of the real motives of that source.

generation after generation has been trained to be spectators instead of priests.

Believers being priests has nothing to do with church leadership.
They are priests because they are offer spiritual sacriices (1Pe 2:5),
reflect the holiness of God and that of their high priest (1Pe 1:15; Heb 7:26, 10:10),
intercede for man before God, and
represent God before man.

Believers are living stones that make up a spiritual temple in which, as a holy priesthood,
they offer up spiritual sacriices of Christian works.

the world is not getting transformed

Jesus didn't come to transform the world, he came to transform those who believe in him.

He came to call his own out of the world, not to transform the world.
The world is headed for destruction (2Pe 2:10, 12-13).

I'm sorry, kenisyes, but this whole "church" thing is just a smoke screen for something else. . .having to do with "synagoge."

 

[kenisyes]

Church (ekklesia) is the Body of Christ. It is never used in the NT in plural unless multiple cities are meant. In all the cases you mention, such as the "church at Thessalonica", it refers to those people who are members of the Body who meet there. in the one case, Matt. 18:17, you are confused by the modern application, where such a person is brought before his congregation. It means that the congregation to which he is brought, acts in the stead of the whole Body. If he were simply brought before the "assembly", they would have no more standing to pronounce the judgment that is called for, than the synagogue people who wanted to stone Jesus.

I agree with your distinction. Church is the Body of Christ, or the body of Christ in a particular place. Assembly is one of their official actions. When they meet in assembly, they act as "church" when they make certain decisions. It applies to Matt. 18:17, as well as to "whenever two or three are gathered". One cannot absent himself from the "church"; he belongs to it the moment he is saved. (Unless one can get "unsaved") One can choose not to come to "assembly", and that is what we are told to do in Heb. 10:25.

My problem is that modern churches are neither churches nor assemblies. First, if I choose to come to an assembly (as Scripture directs me to), I must choose either the catholic one, the methodist one, etc. Each one will condemn the other. Christ has clearly been divided into parts. None of them can be a church, because none of them allows the others to be their members. They are not assemblies, since the assembly word is used for the synagogues and they acted as the recommendations in I Cor. 14 (which I admit are sunerchomai, come together, not sunagoge, gather together, but surely are close enough). If I wish to follow Scripture, I have noplace to go. The official churches are not church, do not act like sunerchomai or sunagoge.

Jesus came to transform us, so we can ultimately rule with Him and transform the world. Rom. 8:20-24 and the whole idea of the thousand year reign, and everything being placed under Jesus' feet. Adam gave away his right to subdue the earth (Matt. 4:9, the devil had the authority to give the kingdoms to Jesus).

There is no smokesceen intended. It is a legitimate complaint.

 

[Elin]

Church (ekklesia) is the Body of Christ. It is never used in the NT in plural unless multiple cities are meant. In all the cases you mention, such as the "church at Thessalonica", it refers to those people who are members of the Body who meet there.

Yes, I indicated that the plural use of "church" (churhces) referred to all the churches in a district.

in the one case, Matt. 18:17, you are confused by the modern application, where such a person is brought before his congregation. It means that the congregation to which he is brought, acts in the stead of the whole Body.

If he were simply brought before the "assembly", they would have no more standing to pronounce the judgment that is called for, than the synagogue people who wanted to stone Jesus.

Yes, there was authoritative leadership for the assemblies (1Co 5:4-5, 13),
for which leaders Paul lists extensive qualifications in 1Tim 3.
Their assemblies were not just leaderless pot-luck gatherings.

But the NT does not show "congregation" (sunagoge) as the word for the group exercising authority in the churches.
That is your invention.

And no, I am not confused by modern application.

To be brought before the assembly is synonymous with, and understood to mean, brought before its leadership, since only the leadership has the authority to act.

I agree with your distinction. Church is the Body of Christ, or the body of Christ in a particular place. Assembly is one of their official actions. When they meet in assembly, they act as "church" when they make certain decisions. It applies to Matt. 18:17,

The church as the body of Christ is not my distinction. It's the NT distinction.

In the NT, the word ekklesia itself is not used to distinguish between official actions of the churches, and gatherings of the Christians in assembly (1Co 5:4-5, 13).
That distinction is reflected only in its contextual usage.

I gave Mt 18:17 as an example of the use of "church" in the singular form to refer to a group of believers, as we see that usage in Ac 20:28; 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1, 1 Tim 3:5.

And its usage in the singular form above does not exclude a contextual meaning of official action.
But that official action is not derived from the use of another word instead of ekklesia, it is derived only from the context.

The distinction between "church" and "assembly" is your modern application to ekklesia.

One cannot absent himself from the "church"; he belongs to it the moment he is saved. (Unless one can get "unsaved")

Yes, I indicated that in the NT usage of "church" (ekklesia) as applying to all those born again, as in Mt 16:18; Eph 1:22, 5:23.
Did you read that?

My problem is that modern churches are neither churches nor assemblies.

Well actually, your problem is making a distinction between "church" and "assembly" in the use of ekklesia, which the Scriptures do not make.

None of them can be a church, because none of them allows the others to be their members. . .They are not assemblies

Firstly, I am not aware of any churches which do not allow Christians to become their members.

Secondly, "church" (ekklesia), as used in the above NT Scriptures, refers simply to Christians, both individually, or in assembly.

Your differentiation between "church" and "assembly" is not found in the NT.

However, though your problem is of your own making, it does have a solution.

Find a church where you can fellowship.
Forget the irrelevant stuff about "church" vs. "assembly."

If you can't find a church, find another group of Christians with whom to fellowship and grow in the Lord.

Jesus came to transform us, so we can ultimately rule with Him and transform the world. Rom. 8:20-24 and the whole idea of the thousand year reign, and everything being placed under Jesus' feet.

Jesus came to transform us to prepare us for glory in the family of God, not to transform the world.

Our reigning with Jesus' now consists of conquering the world, of Jesus putting his enemies therein under his feet, (1Co 15:25:28; Heb 10:12-14,) for the sake of the church (Eph 1:22-23).

The world will not be transformed until after its destruction (2Pe 3:12-13).

There is no smokesceen intended. It is a legitimate complaint.

Well. . .it seems overstated. . .based in purist expectations. . .from unBiblical notions of ekklesia.

God didn't promise us a perfect church.

 

[kenisyes]

Yes, there was authoritative leadership for the assemblies (1Co 5:4-5, 13),

There is no mention of authoritative leadership in this passage. Synagoge leadership is mentioned in the gospels once and once in Acts. Our personal usage is that someone acts as coordinator. This passage (you mean verse 13, right?) says, only what they are to do, and does not mention how the organization is to do it. By the way, the passage uses the word sunagoge. What it proves is that members of the ekklesia meet in a sunagoge, and then they may do as Jesus directs the ekklesia. Bishops were elected in those days, and I doubt very much that each sunagoge had one in residence.

for which leaders Paul lists extensive qualifications in 1Tim 3.
Their assemblies were not just leaderless pot-luck gatherings.

They had leaders, but not bishops.

But the NT does not show "congregation" (sunagoge) as the word for the group exercising authority in the churches.
That is your invention.

I never said that. The sunagoge, being members of the church, exercise authority by that right. They also have the right to decide the order of speaking, etc., just for order's sake.

And no, I am not confused by modern application.

To be brought before the assembly is synonymous with, and understood to mean, brought before its leadership, since only the leadership has the authority to act.

By your Matt. 18 passage, Jesus says bring them before the ekklesia, by your I Cor. 5, Paul says bring them before the sunagoge. It sounds to me like no bishop is necessary. Whatever leadership the group uses will suffice. That is also common practice among prayer meetings.

The church as the body of Christ is not my distinction. It's the NT distinction.

My distinction is between ekklesia of the NT, and "church" used today.

In the NT, the word ekklesia itself is not used to distinguish between official actions of the churches, and gatherings of the Christians in assembly (1Co 5:4-5, 13).
That distinction is reflected only in its contextual usage.

You are correct. The right of a group of Christians to judge matters, or to gather in the name of Jesus, comes from their membership in the Body, the Church, the ekklesia. They assemble in sunagoge as they decide.

I gave Mt 18:17 as an example of the use of "church" in the singular form to refer to a group of believers, as we see that usage in Ac 20:28; 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1, 1 Tim 3:5.

Every usage refers to the church in one city, except 1 Tim 3:5 where it is used generally (the part of the church you are assigned to). This is a "group" only because most of the churches started by Paul were still numerically small when he wrote the letters.

And its usage in the singular form above does not exclude a contextual meaning of official action.
But that official action is not derived from the use of another word instead of ekklesia, it is derived only from the context.

The distinction between "church" and "assembly" is your modern application to ekklesia.

It's not mine. It is reality. The modern "church" (the building on the corner) is an assembly point. It is not a church in the Scriptural sense. If it is anything, it is a sunagoge, but does not act like one in any other respect.


Yes, I indicated that in the NT usage of "church" (ekklesia) as applying to all those born again, as in Mt 16:18; Eph 1:22, 5:23.
Did you read that?

And I agree with it.

Well actually, your problem is making a distinction between "church" and "assembly" in the use of ekklesia, which the Scriptures do not make.

The distinction is in the words themselves. In Jerusalem, there were over 400 synagogues, yet all were members of the Jews, and before Jesus, that was the church. (Acts 7:38). Presumably, before Jerusalem fell, the 3000 people saved on Pentecost had a hundred or more house meetings going (Acts 2:46). These house meetings certainly were not "churches", they were synagogue, copying the Jewish tradition. Together the 3000 plus were the church at the time.

Firstly, I am not aware of any churches which do not allow Christians to become their members.

When I was a Catholic, I was informed that if I ever went to any Protestant church, I would go to hell.
Since coming to CC, I have read many times that if I am a Catholic, I am going to hell.
Geometar has gone to great pains to tell us that Orthodoxy is both and neither Protestant or Catholic.
I was denied communion in a Pentecostal church, because I was not rebaptized.
If I speak in tongues, the Baptists will tell you I am deceived.
If I do not speak in tongues, the Assembly of God will tell you that I am not baptized in the Holy Sprit.
Several people in these threads have stated that every baptized believer is baptized in the Holy SPirit.
The Amish would tell you I'm in sin because I got to church in a car instead of buggy.
And this doesn't even begin to get to pre, post, and midtrib churches.
One time I got in trouble for writing a play where Santa Claus preached about Jesus in a street outreach; you see, Santa is just Satan with the letters switched, and that makes him a demon.

If you would like a complete list of churches in your city that do not allow at least some baptized Christians full participation in their church due to some technicality, open the phone book. I promise you, that anyone you care to call will tell you that you are not permitted full rights in their denomination until you change something demanded by another. Since there is no visible Body of Christ in any church listed in the phone book, there is no Ekklesia visible to the world. They will accept you as an attendee, hoping to change you. But if you become a member, and do not change, they will do their version of Matt. 18 and I Cor. 5 on you.

Secondly, "church" (ekklesia), as used in the above NT Scriptures, refers simply to Christians, both individually, or in assembly.

I agree with you. My problem is with the churches today.

Your differentiation between "church" and "assembly" is not found in the NT.

However, though your problem is of your own making, it does have a solution.

Find a church where you can fellowship.

I just gave you the reasons I can't. Now I can always become part of the ministry staff. But then I can only fellowship with the leadership, until I tell them I know something that their denomination does not know. Then, like you, they will give my 100 Scriptures that prove the church down the block wrong.

Forget the irrelevant stuff about "church" vs. "assembly."

And what about the other 84% of Christians in America and up to 99% of them in some European countries. Thank God, there is always CC.

If you can't find a church, find another group of Christians with whom to fellowship and grow in the Lord.

That's what I do, and have done for many years. But I feel also a need to tell others to do the same, and why. Those statistics are quite alarming to me.


Jesus came to transform us to prepare us for glory in the family of God, not to transform the world.

Our reigning with Jesus' now consists of conquering the world, of Jesus putting his enemies therein under his feet, (1Co 15:25:28; Heb 10:12-14,) for the sake of the church (Eph 1:22-23).

The world will not be transformed until after its destruction (2Pe 3:12-13).

This is a different transformation. Mine is based on God's command to Adam to subdue the earth, and on the fact that Jesus' death merited a restoration of whatever Adam lost. I think of this as an ongoing process. If you disagree, we'd better stop writing, because internet must then be a work of Satan, as is electricity, modern mchinery, and everything else we think is a gift of God.

Well. . .it seems overstated. . .based in purist expectations. . .from unBiblical notions of ekklesia.

God didn't promise us a perfect church.

But we could do it differently if we chose.

 

[Elin]

Yes, there was authoritative leadership for the assemblies (1Co 5:4-5, 13),

There is no mention of authoritative leadership in this passage.

The context indicates it without mentioning it,
just as without mentioning "group of people," the context indicates when the singular form, "church," really means a (plural) group of people, as in Mt 18:17; Ac 20:28: 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Tim 3:5.

Since there were overseers (elders) appointed in the churches, the presence of leadership in 1Co 5 is consistent with NT practice.

The point here: "Congregation" does not mean the leadership in the ekklesia is concluded.

By the way, the passage uses the word sunagoge. What it proves is that members of the ekklesia meet in a sunagoge,

By your Matt. 18 passage, Jesus says bring them before the ekklesia, by your I Cor. 5, Paul says bring them before the sunagoge.

No, 1Co 5:4 uses the word sunago, a verb, meaning "to gather or bring together."

The Greek text reads: "When you are gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus. . ."

Your presentation makes the Greek text read: "members of the ekklesia meet "to gather together"

And Mt 18:17 reads: "bring them before the assembly (ekklesia)," which is consistent with 1Co 5:4: "when you are gathered together."

The ekklesia of 1Co 5 did not meet in a synagogue, it gathered together in assembly at Gaius' house (Ro 16:23).

And we're back to what I see as the real underlying issue here: "church" is some kind of threat to "synagogue."
It looks like the threat is that "church" replaces "synagogue" as the NT people of God, comprised of both Jew and Gentile.

The ekklesia did not "do syngogue," anywhere in the NT.

Point concluded.

I gave Mt 18:17 as an example of the use of "church" in the singular form to refer to a group of believers, as we see that usage in Ac 20:28; 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1, 1 Tim 3:5.

Every usage refers to the church in one city

Yes, that is what I indicated, and each of them was a group of believers.
My point is about use of the singular form of "church" to denote a (plural) group of believers.

Point concluded.

The modern "church" (the building on the corner) is an assembly point. It is not a church in the Scriptural sense.

The "modern" body of Christ of those born again, both Jew and Gentile, is the modern "church" in the Scriptural sense.

"Church" is what Scriptures says it is; i.e, the called-out assembly of the born again.
Why do you take your understanding of it from the world's usage?

Point concluded.

God didn't promise us a perfect church.

But we could do it differently if we chose.

Well, when God makes you the head of his church (Ac 20:28), you can do it your way.

As it is now, things are going as God has determined from eternity past.

Read the last chapter of the Book. It doesn't end with all mankind living happlily ever after.

 

[kenisyes]

The context indicates it without mentioning it,
just as without mentioning "group of people," the context indicates when the singular form, "church," really means a (plural) group of people, as in Mt 18:17; Ac 20:28: 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Tim 3:5.

I agree. I just disagree that it means that there are several such different churches in the same locality.

Since there were overseers (elders) appointed in the churches, the presence of leadership in 1Co 5 is consistent with NT practice.

Consistent, but not guaranteed. If the group is too small to appoint elders, authority may be shared some different way.

The point here: "Congregation" does not mean the leadership in the ekklesia is concluded.

Each chooses their own form of leadership, as churches do today.

No, 1Co 5:4 uses the word sunago, a verb, meaning "to gather or bring together."

The same verb root as is used for the particple in Heb. 10:25. Granted, I am abusing the language, but English has no word for what we are to do, because we don't do it.

The Greek text reads: "When you are gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus. . ."

If you don't keep the words the way I am doing, you lose the connection with early Christianity and what they did.

Your presentation makes the Greek text read: "members of the ekklesia meet "to gather together"

That is what it means. If they met together for a golf game, they would not be the ekklesia. In every Scriptural context, they meet together for the business of the ekklesia.

And Mt 18:17 reads: "bring them before the assembly (ekklesia)," which is consistent with 1Co 5:4: "when you are gathered together."

And that's why we need to relate the two, and at the same time keep separate the two concepts.

The ekklesia of 1Co 5 did not meet in a synagogue, it gathered together in assembly at Gaius' house (Ro 16:23).

You are correct. Which also proves what a small group they were. And maybe that's why Paul doesn't mention elders. The English word synagogue is confusing, since it now means a "Jewish assembly building" and has no realtionship to Christians.

And we're back to what I see as the real underlying issue here: "church" is some kind of threat to "synagogue."
It looks like the threat is that "church" replaces "synagogue" as the NT people of God, comprised of both Jew and Gentile.

If you have been thinking I meant to impy that the modrn Jewish synagogue had anything to do with this, you are wrong. I am simply using the Greek root to substitute for the modern word "church" that no longer means ekklesia.

The ekklesia did not "do syngogue," anywhere in the NT.

Point concluded.

Yes, that is what I indicated, and each of them was a group of believers.
My point is about use of the singular form of "church" to denote a (plural) group of believers.

Point concluded.


The "modern" body of Christ of those born again, both Jew and Gentile, is the modern "church" in the Scriptural sense.

"Church" is what Scriptures says it is; i.e, the called-out assembly of the born again.
Why do you take your understanding of it from the world's usage?

Point concluded.

Well, when God makes you the head of his church (Ac 20:28), you can do it your way.

Like Jesus told the woman at the well, there is no head of the churches, as they clearly have divided Christ into parts. Each person pays a pastor to say what he wants to hear, and everyone shops around until satisfied, which in many cases is never. Most Christians never even realize the authority they could have. And any Christ appointed head would never do it "your way"; he would do it "His way".

As it is now, things are going as God has determined from eternity past.

No, as Catholic history determined from the third century, and Protestants are just now getting around to realizing needs to be changed.

Read the last chapter of the Book. It doesn't end with all mankind living happlily ever after.

But it does end with US living happily ever after.

 

[Elin]

The context indicates it without mentioning it,
just as without mentioning "group of people," the context indicates when the singular form, "church," really means a (plural) group of people, as in Mt 18:17; Ac 20:28: 1Co 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Tim 3:5.

I agree. I just disagree that it means that there are several such different churches in the same locality

That was never said and was never the point.

Since there were overseers (elders) appointed in the churches, the presence of leadership in 1Co 5 is consistent with NT practice.

Consistent, but not guaranteed. If the group is too small to appoint elders, authority may be shared some different way.

So there is no basis for saying 1Co 5:4 does not indicate the leadership, whereas consistenty with NT practice does indicate the leadership.
In addition, one of the meanings of the word sunago, which is used in 1Co 5:4, is "to lead together," which does indicate the leadership.

The point here: "Congregation" does not mean the leadership in the ekklesia is concluded.

No, 1Co 5:4 uses the word sunago, a verb, meaning "to gather or bring together."

Granted, I am abusing the language,

On that we are agreed.

but English has no word for what we are to do, because we don't do it.

Whatever are you talking about?

The Greek text reads: "When you are gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus. . ." (1Co 5:4)

If you don't keep the words the way I am doing, you lose the connection with early Christianity and what they did.

Who is not keeping the words?
The word sunago and its meaning "to gather together" is being kept in 1Co 5:4.
You're not making any sense.

Your presentation makes the Greek text read: "members of the ekklesia meet "to gather together"

That is what it means.

Meet is gather together!

They meet to meet, they gather together to gather together?
You're not making any sense.

And we're back to what I see as the real underlying issue here: "church" is some kind of threat to "synagogue."
It looks like the threat is that "church" replaces "synagogue" as the NT people of God, comprised of both Jew and Gentile.

I am simply using the Greek root (sunagoge) to substitute for the modern word
"church" that no longer means ekklesia.

You've got to be kidding!

On what authority do you change Jesus' revelation (Heb 1:1-2), which is the NT, by substituting the word sunagoge for ekklesia?

The apostolic writers chose ekklesia for the NT people of God, they did not choose sunagoge for a reason.
And now you would override apostolic authority?

Anathema!

So, it is as I suspected, the issue is replacing "church" with "synagogue" as the NT people of God, because the "church" is corrupt and does not deserve to be the people of God.

Now I see where this is going.
"Church" must be invalidated, discredited and negated as unworthy, in order to prove that the "synagogue" of Jews are the people of God and, therefore, the church must be a "synagogue" to be the people of God.
The church, as the body of Christ and the one people of God, separates Israel from the people of God and, therefore, the church is not legitimate. It's all just a relatively recent invention of man.

And, furthermore, since the people of God are really the "synagogue," that means all understanding of the NT, which does not agree with what is given in the OT, is incorrect and to be rejected, starting with Hebrews and Paul, but by no means ending there.

Like Jesus told the woman at the well, there is no head of the churches,

That's a bit of a stretch regarding the woman's question, "Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob who gave us this well?"

Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. . .it will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (Ro 5:5)

To make this passage about a head of the church is eisegesis (reading into the text), not exegesis (reading out of the text).

Most Christians never even realize the authority they could have

What authority are you talking about?

Jesus gave authority to the apostles and sent them out to preach the kingdom of God (Lk 9:1).
What authority does Scripture give to all believers?

As it is now, things are going as God has determined from eternity past.

No, as Catholic history determined from the third century, and Protestants are just now getting around to realizing needs to be changed.

Catholic history has nothing to do with say the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, or the non-denominational churches.
Are you beating a dead horse?

It seems to me it would be better for you if
you let go of what you cannot control,
adjusted to the reality of what is, and
gave up feeling that you are being denied your right to church as you think it should be.

Just sayin'.

 

[kenisyes]

That was never said and was never the point.

My entire statement is that the word "church" as in "catholic church", "lutheran church", etc. is different from the word ekklesia, translated "church". I have never known a person to disagree with this. Everyone I have ever spoken to agrees that ekklesia is the church, the collection of all God's people. At best, "catholic church" is some of them, "lutheran church" is some of them. All of these groups fail to let in believers in the other denominations without change of theology. The ekklesia includes them all, and that is a difference, and to me, a major one. What you do not agree with here? Do you believe the Catholic church allows their communion to Methodists? Do you not believe that ekklesia means all believers?

So there is no basis for saying 1Co 5:4 does not indicate the leadership, whereas consistenty with NT practice does indicate the leadership.
In addition, one of the meanings of the word sunago, which is used in 1Co 5:4, is "to lead together," which does indicate the leadership.

A church that meets in a household is in no position to hold formal elections. That's all I am saying. "Lead together" means to show everyone into the same room, so they will be together. It does mean to lead as in giving orders what to do next.

The point here: "Congregation" does not mean the leadership in the ekklesia is concluded.

On that we are agreed.

Whatever are you talking about?

I am talking about the activities of I Cor. 14. We have no word to describe such a meeting that is agreed on by most denominations. So few people do it.
Who is not keeping the words?
The word sunago and its meaning "to gather together" is being kept in 1Co 5:4.
You're not making any sense.

Unless we keep both words, and separate them in our minds, we are losing part of the Scripture. If Scripture uses two words, God thinks with two words. There must be a distinction. For anyone to say "my church" is the meeting in Heb. 10:25 is wrong on the face of it. The church is a group too big to meet together.

Meet is gather together!

They meet to meet, they gather together to gather together?
You're not making any sense.

The members of the ekklesia meet in order to fullfill the command to sunagoge.

You've got to be kidding!

On what authority do you change Jesus' revelation (Heb 1:1-2), which is the NT, by substituting the word sunagoge for ekklesia?

I'm not doing that. I'm the one insisting they are separate. Ekklesia is who does it. Sunagoge is what they do.

The apostolic writers chose ekklesia for the NT people of God, they did not choose sunagoge for a reason.
And now you would override apostolic authority?

Anathema!

So, it is as I suspected, the issue is replacing "church" with "synagogue" as the NT people of God, because the "church" is corrupt and does not deserve to be the people of God.

The church system is in fact corrupt, because each one insists the other's members are not welcome.

Now I see where this is going.
"Church" must be invalidated, discredited and negated as unworthy, in order to prove that the "synagogue" of Jews are the people of God and, therefore, the church must be a "synagogue" to be the people of God.
The church, as the body of Christ and the one people of God, separates Israel from the people of God and, therefore, the church is not legitimate. It's all just a relatively recent invention of man.

The synagogue is not the people of God. It is model for what they should be doing on Sunday mornings.

And, furthermore, since the people of God are really the "synagogue," that means all understanding of the NT, which does not agree with what is given in the OT, is incorrect and to be rejected, starting with Hebrews and Paul, but by no means ending there.


That's a bit of a stretch regarding the woman's question, "Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob who gave us this well?"

I am not connecting them Scripturally. I am paraphrasing as a literary device. The connection is that as the woman had several supposed husbands, none of the who was really a husband, Jesus has thousands of claimants to being His Bride, none of who care enough to work on the spots and wrinkles.

Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. . .it will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (Ro 5:5)

To make this passage about a head of the church is eisegesis (reading into the text), not exegesis (reading out of the text).


What authority are you talking about?

Authority to agree in His name, authority over demons, authority to get people saved, authority to hear God and act on it. Most Christians I have known have no idea of most of this in any but a theoretical sense.

Jesus gave authority to the apostles and sent them out to preach the kingdom of God (Lk 9:1).
What authority does Scripture give to all believers?

Are you really trying to say that I have no authority to preach the Gospel? My authority to assemble with other believers is right in "wherever two or three are gathered..."

Catholic history has nothing to do with say the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, or the non-denominational churches.

Everyone of these copied the Catholic worship service. Today, the worship services of most mainline denominations still pretty much match. Non-denoms copied the prayer meeting which copied the sunagoge. But as soon as they tried to grow, they fell into the trap of spectator worship.

Are you beating a dead horse?

It seems to me it would be better for you if
you let go of what you cannot control,
adjusted to the reality of what is, and
gave up feeling that you are being denied your right to church as you think it should be.

I'm not being denied. I've had what I am speaking of most of my life. Most churches organize home groups for prayer and sharing, but only 10% or so of the people go. But everybody defines Chrisitanity by the Sunday music+sermon+periodic eucharist. So everyone defines Christianity as passive.

Just sayin'.

And saying it a lot.

Again, the ekklesia (noun) is supposed to synagoge (verb). Most do not. Most go to a repeated spectator event. Most do not encourage one another while they are there, but go out and gossip about each other after it is over. Most of this problem, in my opinion, is traceable to the establishment of the definition of "church" as a business designed to produce religious spectator events. Even you have to agree that "business designed to produce spectator events" is different words from "the people called-out by God". Once in a while, I meet a person who goes to a real assembly of some of the ekklesia (usually called church, but they know the difference), and they disagree with my observation. I have been in professional ministry in organized churches for most of a lifetime, and I assure you, my use of the word "most" is valid to about 95% of all people who go to an organized meeting of Christians on Sunday morning.