Come Out Of Her My People

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

"Unto what then were you immersed? Unto John's immersion"...I dunno brother. that sort of loses it's appeal for me

Well, it's like those who refuse to use the term 'Holy Ghost' preferring instead 'Holy Spirit'... lol

*Correction: 'church' was used by Geneva Bible translators also.

Gonna do a correction on my previous post.

[Esaias]

http://bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

The purpose of this paper is to show that the early translators of the English Bible mistranslated the word "ekklesia" using the English word "church" instead of "assembly" or "congregation." This translation has helped promote the false doctrine of a universal church and a hierarchical authority over the local congregation. Showing how this translation has adversely affected the proper understanding of the biblical doctrine of the church will demonstrate the absolute necessity of translating the text literally and rejecting the influence of any particular church's theology.


(Please note that the use of the word "church" does not mean that the Bible has an error. It is common knowledge that the Greek word from which it was translated is "ekklesia." Further the word "church" is used in modern English to denote a local congregation or assembly as well as buildings and denominations. The problem, as this article points out, is that word "ekklesia" would have been better translated "assembly" or "congregation" and in doing so the false teaching of a universal or invisible church would have been avoided. The reason for the article is to uphold the original meaning and use of the word as God intended.)

(The quotation is just a teaser. The whole article is pretty interesting.)

[Esaias]

Another from the article:

The English dictionary reveals that the English word "church" which is used in our English Bible is taken from the late Greek word "kyridakon" not"ekklesia."(6) The Greek word "kyridakon" is not found in the New Testament and only came into being in the 16th Century long after New Testament times. Thus the English word "church" cannot be translated back into Greek because there is no word in the New Testament Greek that is the equivalent of the understanding of the English word. More will be said on this later.

[Praxeas]

ekklēsía; gen. ekklēsías, fem. noun from ékklētos (n.f.), called out, which is from ekkaléō (n.f.), to call out. It was a common term for a congregation of the ekklētoí (n.f.), the called people, or those called out or assembled in the public affairs of a free state, the body of free citizens called together by a herald (kḗrux [G2783]) which constituted the ekklēsía. In the NT, the word is applied to the congregation of the people of Israel (Act_7:38). On the other hand, of the two terms used in the OT, sunagōgḗ (G4864) seems to have been used to designate the people from Israel in distinction from all other nations (Act_13:43 [cf. Mat_4:23; Mat_6:2; Jam_2:2; Rev_2:9; Rev_3:9]). In Heb_10:25, however, when the gathering of Christians is referred to, it is called not sunagōgḗ, but episunagōgḗ (G1997), with the prep. epí (G1909), upon, translated "the assembling . . . together." The Christian community was designated for the first time as the ekklēsía to differentiate it from the Jewish community, sunagōgḗ

Zodhaites Word studies

[Praxeas]

I. Meaning

The English word ‘church’ is derived from the Gk. adjective kyrialos as used in some such phrase as kyriakon dōma or kyriakē oikia, meaning ‘the Lord’s house’, i.e. a Christian place of worship. ‘Church’ in the NT, however, renders Gk. ekklēsia, which mostly designates a local congregation of Christians and never a building. Although we often speak of these congregations collectively as the NT church or the early church, no NT writer uses ekklēsia in this collective way. An ekklēsia was a meeting or assembly. Its commonest use was for the public assembly of citizens duly summoned, which was a feature of all the cities outside Judaea where the gospel was planted (e.g. Acts 19:39); ekklēsia was also used among the Jews (LXX) for the *‘CONGREGATION’ of Israel which was constituted at Sinai and assembled before the Lord at the annual feasts in the persons of its representative males (Acts 7:38).


Robinson, D. W. B. (1996). Church. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (199–200). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[Praxeas]

I. Terminology

The English word “church,” like cot “kirk” (cf. Dutch “kerk”; Ger. “Kirche”), is derived from Gk. kyriakós “belonging to the Lord,” or more specifically, kyriakḗ oikía “belonging to the house of the Lord.” In the Old Testament, Heb. qāhāl designates an assembly, either religious (e.g., 2 Chr. 30:23; cf. “congregation”) or secular (e.g., Jer. 26:17, KJV; RSV “assembled people”). In the New Testament Gk. ekklēsía is roughly the equivalent of Heb. qāhāl since it connotes the assembly and could be literally translated “meeting called together” (see below). At Acts 19:32, 39, ekklēsía refers to a large gathering in the theater at Ephesus, while at 7:38 it refers to the Hebrew community in the wilderness. Usually the Greek term represents God’s people as distinguished from others, thus called out (ek “out” and klētos “called”) of the world. Though the New Testament community of believers is intimately bound to its Old Testament counterpart, many Christians hold that the Church is a distinctly Christian concept, based on the teachings of the New Testament and especially those of the apostle Paul


Myers, A. C. (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (215). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819

I did not start this Thread to attack anyone personally. I feel like that I was the one being attacked. I guess this subject can't be discussed on this Forum

Prax wrote,

We ARE discussing IT

.
Maybe I should have said, discussed with intelligence and a desire to learn.
You call this a discussion?
I imagine, you have much more education, and maybe even more intelligence, but you and others reduced the subject down to a joke. Why?

Renee wrote,

I know that most Pentecostals and Apostolics have the right foundation, as long as they stick to the Apostles Doctrine in the book of Acts. However, I can see that we are being destroyed, by a system, foreign to Acts. And yes, I attacked the system. But the greater message of my Post was ignored. I didn't attack you personally. It was the system that I was talking about

.

Prax wrote,
I ignored it because I found this one particular issue in error.

And by jumping on this one particular issue, which you think is in error, (I'll prove that it isn't when I get time to do some more research) you blurred the main subject that God said, “Come out of her my people.” Was it your intention to destroy the subject? Or do you not see that the Church has taken on Babylonish ways?

Renee wrote,

The reason that I said that we might have to start home churches, is that any dedicated saint that has done their homework can see some of the problems

.

Prax wrote,

So certain people do not have the right foundation and or are not dedicated saints?

You twisted my words here. I said, MOST have the right foundation if they adhere to the Apostles doctrine. And I didn't say it, but I find some of the saints, more dedicated to Truth than many of the Pastors. Therefore, when they study, because of the hunger in their heart, there is no way for them to go to a a Pastor, especially one entrenched deeply in Denomalism, (msp) and pour out their heart.

Renee wrote,

And then, can that member go to their Pastor and say, “Pastor, I see by the Word of God that we need to make some changes.” Do you think for a minute that Pastor will even listen?
They would be received about like my Post was received on here

.

Prax wrote,
There are issues with your post. I don't receive it, NOT because I am not a christian, not because I am a sinner, not because I lack love, not because I am a Pagan, not because I have not done my homework, not because I am not dedicated and not because I don't have the right foundation but because some of the things you said are either NOT TRUE or have not been substantiated as being true.

As long as you passively suggest others here are sinners, pagans, lack love etc etc etc, YOU WILL BE ATTACKED. Sorry but people in glass houses should not throw stones

I did not call you a sinner, nor a Pagan, neither did I say that you were not dedicated, nor that you don't have the right foundation. But is it love, that claims my words are incoherent, in an effort to belittle my Post, or twist my words, saying that I said Church buildings were sin.

I would no sooner call a church building sin, than I would to call a gun a killer. Although it could be a killer, it might be a life saver. The killer is the one using it. Also the building is according to it's use.
And as I explained, church buildings accepted by the 3rd century Pastors, became sin because of what they had to accept to receive them. The compromises they had to make. And if you have done any study on this subject, you would know that what I am saying is true.

The only glass house that I am throwing stones at, is the Babylonish practices in the Church. And God said, "Come out of it."
And for that I get stones thrown at me???? And it's alright to throw stones at me???? And call it a discussion.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by renee819

Maybe I should have said, discussed with intelligence and a desire to learn.
You call this a discussion?

See? You just resorted to another insult Renee. Real nice. Yes I have been approaching this with Intelligence and I had HOPED you had a desire to learn. You know we are not YOUR students. You ever thought of that? I mean talk about arrogant.

I imagine, you have much more education, and maybe even more intelligence, but you and others reduced the subject down to a joke. Why?

I didn't. I addressed it intelligently and pointed out the flaws in your reasoning.

And by jumping on this one particular issue, which you think is in error, (I'll prove that it isn't when I get time to do some more research) you blurred the main subject that God said, “Come out of her my people.”

no actually I did not. I addressed HOW you used that verse on top of the assertions that we are all in a Pagan church and pointed out the flaw in THAT argument.

Was it your intention to destroy the subject? Or do you not see that the Church has taken on Babylonish ways?

My intention was to test your assertion. You don't seem to deal well with opposing view points.

You twisted my words here. I said, MOST have the right foundation if they adhere to the Apostles doctrine. And I didn't say it, but I find some of the saints, more dedicated to Truth than many of the Pastors. Therefore, when they study, because of the hunger in their heart, there is no way for them to go to a a Pastor, especially one entrenched deeply in Denomalism, (msp) and pour out their heart.

No, I quoted you. That is what I have been doing is quoting you.

I did not call you a sinner, nor a Pagan, neither did I say that you were not dedicated, nor that you don't have the right foundation.

Yes you did. You very well KNOW you did. You have a way of doing it that makes you feel better about yourself because you did it subtly. It's called PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE. You IMPLIED a lot of things about those that disagree with you.

But is it love, that claims my words are incoherent, in an effort to belittle my Post, or twist my words, saying that I said Church buildings were sin.

It's a fact. If someone says something that is not understandable, it's incoherent. It has nothing to do with Love or not

I would no sooner call a church building sin, than I would to call a gun a killer. Although it could be a killer, it might be a life saver. The killer is the one using it. Also the building is according to it's use.

Like I said, you have a way of speaking where you use words like SIN and PAGAN and other words to IMPLY certain qualities about people and ideas or objects without saying "It's a sin", so that you don't "feel" you've done what others have said you are doing. But an implication is still obvious to others

And as I explained, church buildings accepted by the 3rd century Pastors, became sin because of what they had to accept to receive them.

First of all, you never proved that.

Second of all that does not make church buildings sin. That makes what they DID a sin as far as disobeying the word of God. A Gun does not become Sin because someone uses it in a crime.

The compromises they had to make. And if you have done any study on this subject, you would know that what I am saying is true.

If you've done study on it, you should be able to do more than say " if you have done any study on this subject, you would know that what I am saying is true."

You'd be able to cite Historical references

The only glass house that I am throwing stones at, is the Babylonish practices in the Church. And God said, "Come out of it."
And for that I get stones thrown at me???? And it's alright to throw stones at me???? And call it a discussion.

No it's your IMPLICATIONS and PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE manner of attacking others