Church... A word of pagan origin -

[amadeois]

Words have meaning to communicate human beings around the world.

They have been originated from different sources. The several languages were created after the problems created by humans attitude when constructing the tower of Babel.

Is their origin pagan?
I believe not.

The ideas expressed by using them is what could be called pagan or Christian or Jew or Mosley or whatever.

Jesus used "ekklesia" (from the Greek language) which word has a different meaning from the word "church" from german/Latin languages of old. (Already discussed)

There was a deceiving move in the translation of "ekklesia" done by humans and Jesus idea was changed.

Why? Who benefits?
None other that the enemy of Jesus, Satan. Derailing Jesus' messages.

WORDS ARE NOT BAD,
HOW YOU USE THEM IS WHAT MATTERS.

Somebody wanted an answer so here it is.

LOVING YOU BROTHERS.


Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Words have meaning to communicate human beings around the world.

They have been originated from different sources. The several languages were created after the problems created by humans attitude when constructing the tower of Babel.

Is their origin pagan?
I believe not.

Then you disagree with this thread: that "church" is a pagan word (and I guess that's 'bad' although for over 100 posts, you've REFUSE to indicate if its bad or good or whatever - and why)

Since you stand in opposition to this thread, why have you been SO very, very, very obscure, so argumentative, so flaming, so evasive toward those who have agreed with you? Why have you (and your associate) been SO extremely evasive (even to using "the shell game") in refusing to tell us why it matters if the word is pagan or not?

Jesus used "ekklesia" (from the Greek language) which word has a different meaning from the word "church" from german/Latin languages of old. (Already discussed)

Well, the Bible does. We have no way to know what word Jesus used; most scholars believe Jesus did His teaching/preaching in Aramaic and not Koine Greek. But yes, the NT was penned in Koine Greek.


No, the Greek word "ecclesia" and the modern English word "church" share definitions - although as everyone knows and NO ONE has debated or rejected, the modern English words has some additional meanings which the Greek word did not have. NO ONE has challenged that or disagreed with that or debated that. NO ONE - including NONE posting in this thread. Now..... how does that make it "bad" (or "good" - you refused, over and over and over to say which) to use words with non-Christian origins, such as all the words you use and likely all the words Jesus used?

HOW YOU USE THEM IS WHAT MATTERS

Perhaps you didn't read the title of the thread?
The whole premise of the thread is that the modern English word "church" - the WORD - is pagan. Why this matters - all refused, persistently - to say.


I know of NO ONE..... I've never met or heard of ANYONE.... who has ever stated (dogmatically or even as just stupid personal opinion) that when Jesus used whatever word He did that is in our NT as "ecclesia" that He meant a building. NEVER in my life have I heard ANYONE make that point - even as ignorant silly opinion. The word means "assembly, gathering, congregating, the body of" and I've never heard ANY minister, teacher, preacher or even buddhist or atheist suggest Jesus meant otherwise. CERTAINLY no one here at CH has remotely suggested that. Which makes me wonder..... why 13 pages of your posts to rebuke us, flame us, show anger to us? Why 13 pages of you SHOUTING to us? Why 13 pages of posts to evade the point as stated in the title? Why 13 pages of your posts to evade every question, ignore every point? Why 13 pages of your posts to say how unloving we at CH are, how ignorant we here at CH are, how "stuck" in error we are? Did you ever have a point? Did you ever read the title of the thread?


I highly recommend that you contact Lammchen, Tango, George or Mark. I KNOW they want to help you be a more effective poster. I'm SURE you have things of value to contribute here - and I hope you do. They are extremely helpful people, eager to be helpful. They are embracing, kind and welcoming. I strongly recommend that you PM them and request their help. If you don't know how to do that, ask and I will help you contact them.






.

 

[amadeois]

Thank you btother.

I got what I was looking for.

So I believe I'm done with this thread.

Peace be with you.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[Alithis]

this happens to almost any one who disagrees with that posters lutheranism

floods the thread with reams of repetitive questions completely misses the point ' doesnt seem to be able to have a conversation about anything .

MODS - I request the thread be closed

 

[MoreCoffee]

It would be good if we'd managed to reach a fact compliant consensus that "church" is neither pagan nor ungodly. Facts can be convincing.

 

[Alithis]

It would be good if we'd managed to reach a fact compliant consensus that "church" is neither pagan nor ungodly. Facts can be convincing.

So it appeases you ?

But it is the origin of the english word "church" that is not from the word ecclessia.
.its quite Simple.
It doesnt bother me when things i thought were one thing turn out be another. Because my faith is not in that thing.
It is in Jesus..

so we have an ancient word which was used for a gathering around an object or a house of a lord of some kind. And was used pre christianity im told.
and is not the word in the original text .

again. This does not bother me.because my faith is not in the present man made system many refer to as "church" .but is Christ Jesus..who changes not.

 

[Josiah]

this happens to almost any one who disagrees with that posters lutheranism

This thread has NOTHING to do with Lutheranism. Lutheranism isn't even so much as MENTIONED (even in meaningless passing) in the title, OP (or even in that WEIRD website referenced for reasons never explained). Lutheranism has no position on the appropriateness of using words that have non-Christian origins, and Lutheran theologians and pastors don't use translations in the formation and evaluation of anything and so what words may or may not appear in one of the thousands of translations is irrelevant in Lutheran theology and praxis. I think we have another odd attempt at "the shell game."




.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No words have specifically Christian origins. Some words are widely used by Christians.

 

[Cassia]

Christians (little christs) is a pagen word

 

[Alithis]

Christians (little christs) is a pagen word

Lol..yes thats true enough. After all, neither the lord jesus,nor the apostles nor any subsequent deciples called themselves christians. It was a term given to them by the unconverted (pagan) people at antioch. .i think it was antioch.

The refered to themselves as belieivrs,saints.redeemed,follwers of the way. Etc.

 

[Alithis]

This thread has NOTHING to do with Lutheranism. Lutheranism isn't even so much as MENTIONED (even in meaningless passing) in the title, OP (or even in that WEIRD website referenced for reasons never explained). Lutheranism has no position on the appropriateness of using words that have non-Christian origins, and Lutheran theologians and pastors don't use translations in the formation and evaluation of anything and so what words may or may not appear in one of the thousands of translations is irrelevant in Lutheran theology and praxis. I think we have another odd attempt at "the shell game.

Your right,its not about lutheranism.
Glad to hear it.

 

[Alithis]

Then you disagree with this thread: that "church" is a pagan word (and I guess that's 'bad' although for over 100 posts, you've REFUSE to indicate if its bad or good or whatever - and why)

Since you stand in opposition to this thread, why have you been SO very, very, very obscure, so argumentative, so flaming, so evasive toward those who have agreed with you? Why have you (and your associate) been SO extremely evasive (even to using "the shell game") in refusing to tell us why it matters if the word is pagan or not?






Well, the Bible does. We have no way to know what word Jesus used; most scholars believe Jesus did His teaching/preaching in Aramaic and not Koine Greek. But yes, the NT was penned in Koine Greek.


No, the Greek word "ecclesia" and the modern English word "church" share definitions - although as everyone knows and NO ONE has debated or rejected, the modern English words has some additional meanings which the Greek word did not have. NO ONE has challenged that or disagreed with that or debated that. NO ONE - including NONE posting in this thread. Now..... how does that make it "bad" (or "good" - you refused, over and over and over to say which) to use words with non-Christian origins, such as all the words you use and likely all the words Jesus used?








Perhaps you didn't read the title of the thread?
The whole premise of the thread is that the modern English word "church" - the WORD - is pagan. Why this matters - all refused, persistently - to say.


I know of NO ONE..... I've never met or heard of ANYONE.... who has ever stated (dogmatically or even as just stupid personal opinion) that when Jesus used whatever word He did that is in our NT as "ecclesia" that He meant a building. NEVER in my life have I heard ANYONE make that point - even as ignorant silly opinion. The word means "assembly, gathering, congregating, the body of" and I've never heard ANY minister, teacher, preacher or even buddhist or atheist suggest Jesus meant otherwise. CERTAINLY no one here at CH has remotely suggested that. Which makes me wonder..... why 13 pages of your posts to rebuke us, flame us, show anger to us? Why 13 pages of you SHOUTING to us? Why 13 pages of posts to evade the point as stated in the title? Why 13 pages of your posts to evade every question, ignore every point? Why 13 pages of your posts to say how unloving we at CH are, how ignorant we here at CH are, how "stuck" in error we are? Did you ever have a point? Did you ever read the title of the thread?


I highly recommend that you contact Lammchen, Tango, George or Mark. I KNOW they want to help you be a more effective poster. I'm SURE you have things of value to contribute here - and I hope you do. They are extremely helpful people, eager to be helpful. They are embracing, kind and welcoming. I strongly recommend that you PM them and request their help. If you don't know how to do that, ask and I will help you contact them.






.

Thats odd..i dont feel rebuked. By him
Or shouted at
Or flammed etc

But i bet he feels that now..

 

[amadeois]

There is saying that I don't remember that well that has to do with some words and deaf ears.

With the loving oozing from around, I need to follow that saying advice.

I have been following the Word of God's Advice that when you encounter spiritual warfare, you better be using the whole armour of God.

1. The belt. Truth
2. Breastplate. Righteousness
3. Shoes. Gospel of peace
4. Shield. Faith
5. Helmet. Salvation
6. Sword. The most powerful

weapon: THE WORD OF GOD.

VERY POWERFUL STUFF THAT WILL PROTECT YOU SPIRITUALLY AGAINST THAT SECOND DEATH.

ARE YOU USING IT?

IS MADE IN HEAVEN.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[Alithis]

am ever being clothed in it .

words are the limited manner in which we communicate . thier meaning can change the course of a life .

everything to do with life is in "words"
JEsus himself being the Speaking (word) of God .
words are very important indeed .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Lol..yes thats true enough. After all, neither the lord jesus,nor the apostles nor any subsequent deciples called themselves christians. It was a term given to them by the unconverted (pagan) people at antioch. .i think it was antioch.

The refered to themselves as belieivrs,saints.redeemed,follwers of the way. Etc.

Have you read these passages?

[Acts 26:28] And Agrippa said to Paul, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?"

[1 Peter 4:16] Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

[Acts 11:26] and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

 

[Alithis]

Have you read these passages?

[Acts 26:28] And Agrippa said to Paul, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?"

[1 Peter 4:16] Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

[Acts 11:26] and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

umm yeah lol exactly .. agrippa was not a christian thus a pagan calling them christian . at antioch they were first called christians .. but the people at antioch not by the,selves .. and peter is writing to the believers scattered throughout Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia.. some years later -after the terminology had become more common place .

doesnt change cassia's point that the word "christian ' was coined by pagans about disciples .. thus it originated from pagan origin.

you dont need to get all precious about it lol . doesnt make me fall from faith .

 

[tango]

Who said it matters... ?
What is of interest is your reaction

You and your close rcc cousins appear somewhat threatened by it. Going on your response.

Do you think I feel threatened by it too, going on my responses? I'm anything but a close cousin of the RCC.

Having a sideswipe at the RCC does nothing to help the case. If there's a useful point underneath all this it seems to be getting lost and, as the one who started the thread, I'd rather hope you'd be keen for it to stay on topic and address whether the word "church" truly has a pagan origin and whether it matters.

Whether people feel threatened by something or not doesn't make the point any more or less true. If all you're trying to do is bait people and then use a reaction to claim that you must be onto something because they don't like it you're just going to line up one logical fallacy after another after another, then start spinning claiming people are dissecting your words and doing just about anything other than explaining the point you're trying to make.

Since you started a thread titled "church - a word of pagan origin" presumably you think the word does have a pagan origin and presumably think it matters enough to start a discussion on the topic. If you don't think it matters, why did you start the thread?

 

[tango]

Lol..yes thats true enough. After all, neither the lord jesus,nor the apostles nor any subsequent deciples called themselves christians. It was a term given to them by the unconverted (pagan) people at antioch. .i think it was antioch.

The refered to themselves as belieivrs,saints.redeemed,follwers of the way. Etc.

Why would Jesus refer to himself as a Christian? If Christ was a follower of Christ he'd have spent his life going round and round in ever decreasing circles. It's not even as if the term "Christian" could be used to refer to being "Christ-like" because it would have been hard for him to be anything other than "Christ-like", given he was the Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=61]Alithis[/MENTION] - Herod Agrippa was a Jew. While it is true that ancient Jews were not necessarily converts to Christ and Herod was not a convert he was also not a pagan.

The people that Peter wrote to were Christians in the areas mentioned at the beginning of his letter. The letters starts with these words:

1 Peter 1:1-2 [1] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, [2] Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.​

The passage in Acts implies that the name "christians" was given by divine providence. Some English translations note this in a footnote and some include it in the text of the verse.

Acts 11:22-26 [22] The report about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Bar′na·bas to Antioch. [23] When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all to continue in the Lord with steadfast resolve; [24] for he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and faith. And a large company were added to the Lord. [25]  So he went to Tarsus looked for Saul. [26]  After he found him, he took him to Antioch. So for a whole year they met with the church and taught a large company, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.​

The word used here, and translated “were called” - χρηματίζω chrēmatizō - means:

1. To transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers.
2. to be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25.
3. to be named, or called, in any way, without a divine communication, Rom 7:3, “She shall be called an adulteress.” It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I recline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach; and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to this effect; not simply that they “were called,” but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach, and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the frivolous, the licentious, and the ungodly.

 

[visionary]

There is saying that I don't remember that well that has to do with some words and deaf ears.

With the loving oozing from around, I need to follow that saying advice.

I have been following the Word of God's Advice that when you encounter spiritual warfare, you better be using the whole armour of God.

1. The belt. Truth
2. Breastplate. Righteousness
3. Shoes. Gospel of peace
4. Shield. Faith
5. Helmet. Salvation
6. Sword. The most powerful

weapon: THE WORD OF GOD.

VERY POWERFUL STUFF THAT WILL PROTECT YOU SPIRITUALLY AGAINST THAT SECOND DEATH.

ARE YOU USING IT?

IS MADE IN HEAVEN.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk