Church... A word of pagan origin -

[tango]

go read the article .. the thread is not about me nor my opinion .
if you wish contact the author ,, he is a fully qualified historian of Christianity -im sure he can answer your questions

Presumably you have an opinion on the article or you wouldn't have shared it?

 

[tango]

MoreCoffee:

Please, stop the nasty remarks.



Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

What nasty remarks are you referring to? I don't see any.

 

[Josiah]

go read the article .. the thread is not about me nor my opinion .

The topic is related in the title.

Thus:

1. Please document that the ENGLISH word "church" was first use by non-Christian(s).

2. Please document that because you've proven the ENGLISH word "church" was first used by non-Christians, THEREFORE the word is "pagan."

3. Please tell us which words not proven to first be used by Christians are permissible for us to use and which are not, and WHY?



I surveyed the article. I found it to be.... worthless.
We all know that Jesus never said the modern English word "CHURCH" and no one on the planet Earth has EVER claimed that He did.
We all know the word in the Koine Greek text was "ecclesia" and we all know the meaning(s) of that ancient GREEK (pagan) word.
The article stating the obvious (known to all) is just stating the obvious known to all, disputed by none. Leaving.... so what?

The rest of the article is just an ENTIRELY BASELESS rant - with NOTHING submitted to support the rant (which, frankly, I couldn't follow - I don't know what his/her point is, or if there is a point, or what credentials this person has that we should care what the point is if there is one). I can't find anything in the rant to comment on since it seems baseless and pointless - and all with NOTHING to REMOTELY indicate that the point is true (whatever that point may be).

And if the article is not your opinion, why did you link to it, if it's not your view and has nothing to do with this thread? If the "point" is not about a modern English word being "pagan" why did you entitle the thread to indicate such?



You indicated the thread is about a modern ENGLISH word... and the claim (never supported) that this word is "pagan".... and the implication (never supported) that because the word is "pagan" (but no evidence of that) ERGO it should not be used (yet your whole post is filled exclusively with pagan words, indicating such may be used - by you anyway).




.

 

[Alithis]

He's infallible?

Lol.. No one is but God.
But he ,the author of the blog, is certainly more knowledgable ofthe topic then i .
Simple.

 

[Alithis]

Presumably you have an opinion on the article or you wouldn't have shared it?

Where have ya been ....

 

[Alithis]

The topic is related in the title.

Thus:

1. Please document that the ENGLISH word "church" was first use by non-Christian(s).

2. Please document that because you've proven the ENGLISH word "church" was first used by non-Christians, THEREFORE the word is "pagan."

3. Please tell us which words not proven to first be used by Christians are permissible for us to use and which are not, and WHY?



I surveyed the article. I found it to be.... worthless.
We all know that Jesus never said the modern English word "CHURCH" and no one on the planet Earth has EVER claimed that He did.
We all know the word in the Koine Greek text was "ecclesia" and we all know the meaning(s) of that ancient GREEK (pagan) word.
The article stating the obvious (known to all) is just stating the obvious known to all, disputed by none. Leaving.... so what?

The rest of the article is just an ENTIRELY BASELESS rant - with NOTHING submitted to support the rant (which, frankly, I couldn't follow - I don't know what his/her point is, or if there is a point, or what credentials this person has that we should care what the point is if there is one). I can't find anything in the rant to comment on since it seems baseless and pointless - and all with NOTHING to REMOTELY indicate that the point is true (whatever that point may be).

And if the article is not your opinion, why did you link to it, if it's not your view and has nothing to do with this thread? If the "point" is not about a modern English word being "pagan" why did you entitle the thread to indicate such?



You indicated the thread is about a modern ENGLISH word... and the claim (never supported) that this word is "pagan".... and the implication (never supported) that because the word is "pagan" (but no evidence of that) ERGO it should not be used (yet your whole post is filled exclusively with pagan words, indicating such may be used - by you anyway).




.

Skim read it huh.. Guess so.
And missed the essence of it.

 

[Alithis]

OK folks, we've had one staff notice in here before to say not to question whether other people are believers. By all means disagree but questioning whether someone else is a Christian isn't on even if it is veiled.

If this is an official staff notice could you please state it is.. As we are not allowed to reply to official staff notices butif you dont state its a STAFF NOTICE how are we to know .or must we Fear replying to any post by mods incase its a staff notice.

 

[Lamb]

Staff Notice:

Obviously, since it was in a different color to capture the attention and in bold giving a directive then it should be considered a staff notice.

Any other discussion on this should be taken to the Member Admin Center. Other posts relating to it that continue in this thread will be deleted. Please continue with the topic now.

 

[amadeois]

Should we all start speaking Hebrew and Greek now?

It is good to know the original languages of the Bible.

There has been many errors committed when translating it. One case mentioned in this thread.

If you do not want to be deceived, check the original language. Nowadays, they are so many places on the Internet that are easy to use and you will learn something new.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[visionary]

It is always better to know the meaning and history. IN the original translation [some would argue was in Hebrew but all that is left are the Greek translations] the best we can do is learn more about the word, its meaning and and learn the translators opinion on why he/she chose the word that they chose. Together a clearer picture is formed on the message it gives or should present.

In this thread "church" was the subject of discussion. Since choosing "church" which lends itself to the building itself does detract from "congregation or assembly" which lends itself to the people, I think "congregation or assembly" would be better where the word chosen "church" is use. It gives a richer picture which, in my mind, is a more accurate one.

Ex

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my congregation; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the congregation: but if he neglect to hear the congregation, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the congregation daily such as should be saved.

Congregation is the body of believers. Church lends itself to the hierarchy rather than the body of believers.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Lol.. No one is but God.
But he ,the author of the blog, is certainly more knowledgeable of the topic than I.
Simple.

I keep trying to explain to anybody who wants to read that none but God is perfectly and completely and always right. But so many people have trouble with the additional concept that instrumentally sometimes God's infallibility is exercised through people such as the Apostles when they wrote inspired holy scripture and the Prophets when doing the same thing and many other people also exercised the same instrumental infallibility when speaking (not writing) as God directs them to speak. It's the attribute of infallibility that belongs to God always and perfectly but the gift is given to God's creatures when they are acting as his messengers.

I also try to explain that infallibility is not the same thing as inspiration. Inspiration is the gift through which people instrumentally exercise both infallibility and inerrancy in writing the revealed message of God while infallibility is the gift through which people instrumentally speak the truth revealed by God in the holy scriptures and in the works of the Holy Spirit who illuminates the holy scriptures and implants the message and the life of God in the hearts of the faithful.

God be with you Alithis.

 

[Lamb]

It is good to know the original languages of the Bible.

There has been many errors committed when translating it. One case mentioned in this thread.

If you do not want to be deceived, check the original language. Nowadays, they are so many places on the Internet that are easy to use and you will learn something new.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

My comment was not directed toward knowing the original languages to interpret scripture properly.

Here is why I wrote what I did asking if we should all speak Hebrew or Greek: It was the result wondering why there is so much fuss over the use of a word when the actual definition is NOT Pagan at all in our modern speak. Should we cease speaking English all together in order avoid any Pagan terms? Would that make the few who are disturbed by Pagan terms much happier?

 

[Lamb]

Church lends itself to the hierarchy rather than the body of believers.

I've never equated "Church" with hierarchy. Why does it mean that to you?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The body lends itself to a natural hierarchy. Head, hands, feet play prominent roles. Trunk, hips, thighs play less prominent roles. Paul explains it in 1 Corinthians chapter 12. The Church like the body also has natural hierarchies with teaching, preaching, governing prominent and caring, cleaning, volunteering less so. It ought surprise no one that Pastors, Elders, and deacons are prominent while those who perform other tasks or those who mainly listen to teaching and take it out into the world practising it and consequently evangelising by deed and word have less prominent roles.

 

[Lamb]

Prominent in the actual church service, but servants nonetheless

 

[Josiah]

The body lends itself to a natural hierarchy. Head, hands, feet play prominent roles. Trunk, hips, thighs play less prominent roles. Paul explains it in 1 Corinthians chapter 12. The Church like the body also has natural hierarchies with teaching, preaching, governing prominent and caring, cleaning, volunteering less so. It ought surprise no one that Pastors, Elders, and deacons are prominent while those who perform other tasks or those who mainly listen to teaching and take it out into the world practising it and consequently evangelising by deed and word have less prominent roles.

I get the exact opposite point from First Corinthians 12..... that the church is community with ALL being important, needed, essential.... indeed, Paul seems to be saying that what SEEMS lesser may be actually greater. 1 Corinthians 12 suggests nothing of hierarchy or power or superiority or lording over others, to me it suggests just the opposite. But I sure can see how a Catholic would try to spin this.

In any case, whether the modern English word "church" was first used by Christians or not, "church" is us..... the community/communion of believers..... one, holy and catholic..... organic, active, loving, serving.... not some individual, geopolitical, legal, economic denomination such as the LDS or UCC or UPC or RCC or UMC.... it's not "Jesus and IT" but "Jesus and WE" (pardon the grammar). Institutions - on an obsessive quest for POWER, CONTROL, GLORY, LORDING it over others as the Gentiles do, to promote and preserve it itself, to exempt it itself from accountability - such will always try to equate self with God and the church (as egotistical as that obviously is). But such is wrong: it's quite what is wrong with Christianity since Rome got ahold of it.


Back to the issue: Where is the documentation that the modern English word "church" was first used by non-Christians and thus is 'pagan' and thus not to be used?



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perhaps it is time to let this thread fall into silence since its premise was shown to be in error. The English word "church" is no more pagan than the English word "Jesus" is.

 

[Josiah]

Perhaps it is time to let this thread fall into silence since its premise was shown to be in error. The English word "church" is no more pagan than the English word "Jesus" is.

I agree.

 

[FredVB]

I run into people online that won't use the name "Jesus" because according to what they claim it is a pagan meaning, and they insist on using their Hebrew name for him, which often is not even "Yeshua", which it really would have been, but their alternate way of saying it, which those saying it claim is the only right way.

The body of Christ is still not actually corresponding to any of the outward organizations of believers in the world.

 

[FredVB]

The church is yet not the same as it has been earlier. There were changes. The earliest church of all believers consisted of many who were familiar with Yeshua in person as his followers. It was a body of Hebraic believers, they were all Jewish and had their Jewish observances. Yeshua brought back the name of Yahweh to speak that among his followers, and they observed to do that originally. Being fully compassionate beyond other people, Yeshua was not eating flesh of killed animals. Many followers then after that observed to not eat any flesh of animals, and there really was the tradition passed down that they learned this from Christ their Lord who did not eat of that, while this was still not a requirement for coming to saving faith which is with repentance. There were many other distinctions. But well after the gentiles were accepted to join the body of believers with coming to Christ in faith with repentance, there came to be many churches exclusively of those who were gentiles, and there grew to be intolerance of Jewish ways. After several generations, there was persecution and the descendants of the Jewish believers, who were there in the church first, disappeared from known history. There were Jewish believers since then known to history, but there is nothing certain to connect those ones with the early believers by descent.