Authority

[JimParker]

And your explanation confirms my conclusion.

I was not referring to the cannon of Scripture. But we can refer to Mary of Egypt being venerated...these "scriptures" of the service are of the tradition.

I somewhat agree, yet this would depend on which ECF you hold more to. As it is we know not all the interpretations agree through the ECFs and some interpretations widely vary. Some interpretations are more of a literal while others allegorical. In this we do know that all of Scripture adheres to a literal interpretation without invalidating the use of metaphors, figures of speech, and the like, yet the allegorical interpretation has no such bounds. In this the text can mean almost whatever someone wants it to mean, hence sacramental theology.

So then to say the Orthodox holds to the teaching of the early Church is to say they agree with some of the ECFs in varying degrees and not all. To say those teachings are the deposit of what Christ taught is to understand those teachings have been redefined through time through the interpretations of the ECFs the Orthodox church holds to.

Firstly there is no error in that statement. This is the Protestant perspective.

Secondly this entire issue is summed up in my OP. "From that position interpretation must be understood to be relevant, thereby the individual interpreting is the authority,"

And here I will quote again, "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church." John Wesley
I do agree in the perspicuity of the Scriptures. It is not sola scriptura that is in error, it is man.

This is the conundrum. Truly respected men and women are to be found in any denomination whose interpretation of the Scriptures is valid. If we concede it is the responsibility of the Church to interpret Scripture (which I believe we all do), the Church is only made up of individual believers. Church membership is not to be considered names on any organization's roster, rather names in the Lamb's Book of Life. Apostolic claim is to be had through the Spirit of God working within the life of the individual. These individuals corporately make up the Body of Christ, the Church.

Any individual can claim the Spirt dwells within, yet that does not validate the truth of the claim. It is God who validates while the life of the individual bares witness through the exemplification of love.


How about every ecumenical council for starters...then we can move to the many Protestant denominations choosing doctrine.
This is not to say every decision made or doctrine formed must be considered incorrect, yet an honest look through history proves political activity motivated doctrinal decisions. Without question every organization man is involved with has political activity.


And the history behind this very issue proves my point of politics within the Church. Even the seventh council is an overturning of a different council that proved not to have enough political clout.

<<And your explanation confirms my conclusion.>>

Please explain that comment. It tells me absolutely nothing of your thoughts.

<< I was not referring to the cannon of Scripture. But we can refer to Mary of Egypt being venerated...these "scriptures" of the service are of the tradition.>>

The Orthodox Church does not consider the stories of the saints to be scriptures. The story of Mary of Egypt provide an example of repentance and piety for all of us. Her story is not considered scripture. She is venerated as a hero of the faith.

<< As it is we know not all the interpretations agree through the ECFs and some interpretations widely vary.>>

That is true. Some of the ECFs were heretics and were expelled from the church. Others held less variant views which did not become church doctrine.

What did become doctrine is “That which was taught everywhere and at all times” by the apostles and their disciples, from the beginning.

<< To say those teachings are the deposit of what Christ taught is to understand those teachings have been redefined through time through the interpretations of the ECFs the Orthodox church holds to.>>

To my knowledge, none of the teachings of the apostles have been redefined.

Can you cite an example?

<< "From that position interpretation must be understood to be relevant, thereby the individual interpreting is the authority," >>

That is what has given us 50,000 denominations, sects, and schisms in the Protestant church, all claiming to be right and all claiming the “Sola Scriptura” as their “inerrant” source. Something is amiss there. Part of the problem is the popular (not scholarly) notion of what the word "inerrant" means.

<< How about every ecumenical council for starters...>>

What about the councils? What do you find problematic about them?

Please be specific. “Every ecumenical council” is far too nebulous a subject.

<< Even the seventh council is an overturning of a different council that proved not to have enough political clout.>>

The 7th council was not in response to a previous council. It was Byzantine emperor Leo III who, in 726 took a public stand against icons and in 730 their use was officially prohibited.

But I certainly would not argue that politics was not an issue in the theological debates of the church. Athanasius, the champion of the Trinity, was exiled 5 times by emperors who preferred the teaching of Arius over the orthodox Nicene cannons. He died in exile.

But the Church has managed to prevail over the attempts emperors to exert their great political powers in order to meddle in the doctrines of the church where they have no business poking their imperial noses. The result is that the doctrines of today's Orthodox Church are essentially unchanged since the days of the primitive church. At very least, Orthodoxy is the best representation of the original faith that exists today. IMO That's why I became Orthodox and why there is a steady flow of evangelicals into the Orthodox church. It happens repeatedly when people decide to seriously determine what the early church was like and to follow its pattern.

 

[zeke25]

My concern is on the question of authority. The Orthodox Church claims to be the authority over Scripture whereas they organized the cannon, they decide what Scripture is, and revelation has not ceased thereby Scripture can be added (as seen in their services). Ultimately the Church is the authority.

I know the majority Protestant perspective is Scripture itself is the authority, the cannon is closed, and new revelation has ceased. From that position interpretation must be understood to be relevant, thereby the individual interpreting is the authority, hence the splintering of denominations. No one can argue the Scriptures "speak for themselves" else there would be no variance in interpretation.

Now before proceed I would like to proclaim God as the authority, but for a practical discussion on the issue of authority we must concede that man/woman is the agent God uses as implementing His authority.



As moderator and originator of this topic I will not tolerate any defacing of individuals or their religious affiliations!

justaname,

I hesitate to enter this discussion because the time needed to fully explain and share a multitude of teachings on this subject will leave me with no time for anything else. Yet, I must at least give an introduction, a challenge to your OP. I do not believe that a proper conclusion of the matter can be arrived at without a proper understanding of the "doctrine of church".

The doctrine of church does not exist in the Bible. The word church does not exist in the Bible. This is a manmade doctrine and Greek words had to be tampered with in order to bring it about. Not just one Greek word, but several.

I'm sure that most of you know that the Greek word ekklesia does not translate into the English word church. Christians are the ekklesia, church is not.

It goes back to the days when Israel wanted a king. God was against it, but He allowed it.

Today, men want a church. God is against it, but has allowed it to happen.

Kings and churches are our enemies and enslavers. Christ brings freedom.

With multiple teachings on this subject, I cannot give them all to you, or even one of them all at once. But to give you a further introduction to that which I am saying, I must share at least this excerpt from one of those teachings.

Kings and Churches


Part I -Understanding the Heart of God


1. 1 Timothy 2:5 KJV, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ [Yahoshua][.]” The heart of Yahowah is that all men would be saved and look to the One, Yahoshua the Messiah, Who is their mediator, intercessor, savior, Lord, and God.

Hebrews 12:2 KJV, “Looking unto [Yahoshua] the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the [stake], despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

2. Matthew 16:18 KJV, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my [ekklesia]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” God did not call men who would believe in Him, only to turn them back over into the hands of men. He wants to be your God, your resource, your mediator, your intercessor, your savior, and your Lord.

3.a. Yahoshua came to set us free from sin, and from oppression by the enemy of our souls, and from men who desire to enslave and rule over us. Centuries before that, even then, it was His desire for us.

1 Samuel 8:4-22 KJV, “4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto [Yahowah]. 7 And [Yahowah] said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10 And Samuel told all the words of [Yahowah] unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of [Yahowah]. 22 And [Yahowah] said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.”

3.b. But men rebelled against God (verse 7) and desired to be enslaved by men. They trusted a man (a king), someone whom they have not known, instead of God Who had been their caretaker for their entire lives.

They could have requested that Samuel seek God and give them a righteous prophet to replace Samuel, but they did not. Instead, they wanted to be as the nations around them, they wanted a king.

Even when they were told how a king would enslave them, it did not deter them and the evil in their hearts. But this was judgment upon them (verse 8).

4.a. So it is today. Men do not want to approach God and seek His face. They do not want Yahoshua the Christ to be their mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). They are not satisfied that the Holy Ghost will teach them all things.

John 14:26 KJV, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

They are not content with having apostles and shepherds work from among their ranks. No, they want a church. They want men to rule over them...

Zeke25

 

[justaname]

<<And your explanation confirms my conclusion.>>

Please explain that comment. It tells me absolutely nothing of your thoughts.

<< I was not referring to the cannon of Scripture. But we can refer to Mary of Egypt being venerated...these "scriptures" of the service are of the tradition.>>

The Orthodox Church does not consider the stories of the saints to be scriptures. The story of Mary of Egypt provide an example of repentance and piety for all of us. Her story is not considered scripture. She is venerated as a hero of the faith.

<< As it is we know not all the interpretations agree through the ECFs and some interpretations widely vary.>>

That is true. Some of the ECFs were heretics and were expelled from the church. Others held less variant views which did not become church doctrine.

What did become doctrine is “That which was taught everywhere and at all times” by the apostles and their disciples, from the beginning.

<< To say those teachings are the deposit of what Christ taught is to understand those teachings have been redefined through time through the interpretations of the ECFs the Orthodox church holds to.>>

To my knowledge, none of the teachings of the apostles have been redefined.

Can you cite an example?

<< "From that position interpretation must be understood to be relevant, thereby the individual interpreting is the authority," >>

That is what has given us 50,000 denominations, sects, and schisms in the Protestant church, all claiming to be right and all claiming the “Sola Scriptura” as their “inerrant” source. Something is amiss there. Part of the problem is the popular (not scholarly) notion of what the word "inerrant" means.

<< How about every ecumenical council for starters...>>

What about the councils? What do you find problematic about them?

Please be specific. “Every ecumenical council” is far too nebulous a subject.

<< Even the seventh council is an overturning of a different council that proved not to have enough political clout.>>

The 7th council was not in response to a previous council. It was Byzantine emperor Leo III who, in 726 took a public stand against icons and in 730 their use was officially prohibited.

But I certainly would not argue that politics was not an issue in the theological debates of the church. Athanasius, the champion of the Trinity, was exiled 5 times by emperors who preferred the teaching of Arius over the orthodox Nicene cannons. He died in exile.

But the Church has managed to prevail over the attempts emperors to exert their great political powers in order to meddle in the doctrines of the church where they have no business poking their imperial noses. The result is that the doctrines of today's Orthodox Church are essentially unchanged since the days of the primitive church. At very least, Orthodoxy is the best representation of the original faith that exists today. IMO That's why I became Orthodox and why there is a steady flow of evangelicals into the Orthodox church. It happens repeatedly when people decide to seriously determine what the early church was like and to follow its pattern.

Rather than going through a point by point debate due to time constraints on my behalf, some of these warrant a thread of their own, let me pose a question.

If Jesus were to come to the RCC and Orthodox churches not in glory and without holding to sacramental theology, the perpetual virgin doctrin, veneration of icons
doctrine...would He be made Head? Would He even be accepted by the bishops in Orthodox to enter into Orthodoxy?

Again where is the authority?

 

[JimParker]

Rather than going through a point by point debate due to time constraints on my behalf, some of these warrant a thread of their own, let me pose a question.

If Jesus were to come to the RCC and Orthodox churches not in glory and without holding to sacramental theology, the perpetual virgin doctrin, veneration of icons
doctrine...would He be made Head? Would He even be accepted by the bishops in Orthodox to enter into Orthodoxy?

Again where is the authority?

(1) Jesus establish the "sacrament" of the Eucharist. Luke 22:19 1Co 11:24-25
(2) Paul describes the "sacrament" of baptism as dieing and being "born again" to new life (Rom 6:3-4) and Peter stated that baptism was necessary to be saved and to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
(3) There is no sound basis on which to challenge the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary and acceptance of that teaching is not necessary for salvation. It is commonly based on the reference to Jesus' "Brothers" by people who are ignorant of the fact that the words "brother" and "sister" refer to all relatives in a tribe other than parents. That usage remains normative today as it was 2000 years ago. So the presence in scripture of reference to Jesus brothers does not require that Mary had other children.

Plus, it is my experience that Protestants most often totally ignore the fact of Mary being dedicated to God as expressed by her conceiving a child by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture says that all generations will call her blessed. (Luke 1:48) Yet, in my experience, Protestants refuse to recognize her position as described by God in that "sola Scriptura" thingy. She was addressed by the angel Gabriel saying; " Hail, thou, highly favored of the Lord." That form of address is one that expresses an exalted position in God's eyes. Yet it seems to be reconstructed in the Protestant mind as, "Hey, Mary, how ya doin'?"

God calls her "Highly Favored" in His eyes.

(4) The veneration of icons is simply the expression of reverence for the heroes of the faith and the encouragement to emulate their piety.

(5) Would He be made head? He IS the head. Would He be recognized as head? He'd be recognized just as quickly as in any Protestant church and accepted by Protestant leadership just as quickly as well.

<< Again where is the authority? >>

The authority is exactly where Jesus put it, in the Church leadership, until He returns. (Mat 16:19)

The idea that scripture is the sole authority has produced tens of thousands of divisions in direct opposition to Jesus' stated will.

John 17:20-23 I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

What the existence of 50,000 different denominations suggests to the pagan world is; that the church can't agree on who God is or what (S)He said and that God probably didn't send Jesus and may not love them. That's pretty much the manner in which the Church and Christians are portrayed in the dominant media. (News, movies, TV programs) The position that scripture is the sole authority for the church is soundly refuted by the fact that the Protestant branch of the Church apparently has about 50,000 variant versions of that Sola Scriptura.

Since I have not heard of a single church, anywhere in the world, at any time since the Lord's ascension, in which Jesus was leading any church by His personal, physical, presence, I'll assume that nearly all churches are led in person, by created human beings, who have been designated as pastors or elders of bishops or whatever other designation is popular. (There are a few which have no leadership at all.)

Also, there was no "New Testament" when the church started. "The authority" was vested in the apostles who vested it in the bishops (overseers) whom they appointed and who were the next generation of authority. No one had a copy of the "New Testament". They might have copies of the "Memoirs of the apostles" and the letters of Paul which are commentary on scripture and the Oral teaching of Christ. It has always been the responsibility of the Bishops to insure the purity of the faith was preserved and passed on to the next generation. So, until the Council of Nicaea, (325 AD) there was no collection of writings called, "The New Testament" and the authority of the Bishops was a well established fact dating from those who were designated Bishops (Timothy and Titus, for example) by the apostles.

The idea that scripture alone is the authority is an artifact of the Protestant rebellion against the authority of the Church. (Fueled by the avarice of princes and kings who wanted the threat of excommunication to be removed as a restraint on their behavior.) But from the beginning of the church, the authority was vested in the Bishops of the Church. The proclamation that "scripture alone is authoritative" is a cover for the will of men and women to interpret scripture any way they like and use the defense that "it's right there in the Bible." So we get the doctrines of "soul sleep" and "annihilation" and "salvation without obedience to Jesus commandments because that would be salvation by works" and "you're not saved unless you speak in tongues" and...and...and...

That mess is NOT from God. IMHO

 

[zeke25]

In post #22 I entered the discussion showing that "church" is not a biblical doctrine and that the word "church" is not in the Bible. The obvious inference is that no church business, be it Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, or whatever has the authority to establish dogma regarding interpretations of the Scriptures. Sure, they can proffer their ideas (who can stop them?) and give opinions, but none has any Biblical authority to establish dogma that overrides an individual's right to study, pray, and by the Holy Ghost make valid determinations about the meaning of the Scriptures.

John 14:26 KJV, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

1 Timothy 2:5 KJV, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus[.]"

Romans 14:1-10 KJV, " Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."


But only those who are indwelt by the Holy Ghost, saved, and born again have this God given ability.

Proverbs 25:2 KJV, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

And who are these kings?

Revelation 1:6 KJV, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."


Kings and Churches


Part I -Understanding the Heart of God


4.b. Men today, are the same as yesterday. They wanted Moses to go to the mountain and intercede for them. They did not want to go themselves. And even when Moses went for them, they quickly forgot Moses and God and made a molten calf to worship.

Exodus 20:19 KJV, “And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”

Exodus 32:1-7 KJV, “1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. 2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. 3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. 4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to [Yahowah]. 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. 7 And [Yahowah] said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves[.]”

Today, men are no different. They do not want to wait on God to rule over them. They want men to rule over them. If you have a worthless idol as your focus of worship, then there will be men in charge, priests, who will be your superiors and direct your worship. They will know the rules and enforce them. A king is an idol. Church is an idol.

Zeke25

 

[StanJ]

I hesitate to enter this discussion because the time needed to fully explain and share a multitude of teachings on this subject will leave me with no time for anything else. Yet, I must at least give an introduction, a challenge to your OP. I do not believe that a proper conclusion of the matter can be arrived at without a proper understanding of the "doctrine of church".

The doctrine of church does not exist in the Bible. The word church does not exist in the Bible. This is a manmade doctrine and Greek words had to be tampered with in order to bring it about. Not just one Greek word, but several.

I'm sure that most of you know that the Greek word ekklesia does not translate into the English word church. Christians are the ekklesia, church is not.

I can understand your reticence if THIS is your POV.

There are over 100 examples of ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) being used in the NT, and it connotes;
a popular assembly, Acts 19:32, 39, 41; in NT the congregation of the children of Israel, Acts 7:38; transferred to the Christian body, of which the congregation of Israel was a figure, the Church, 1 Cor. 12:28; Col. 1:18; a local portion of the Church, a local church, Rom. 16:1; a Christian congregation, 1 Cor. 14:4

The fact that English has a few added connotations such as; a religious institution, place of worship, or group of worshipers, usually Christian, does NOT mean it is translated incorrectly. I prefer to use the BOC, but church is accurate enough as long as people use and understand it in the way it is used in the NT. The RCC is NOT the church, but there are those IN the RCC that ARE part of the church.

 

[zeke25]

I can understand your reticence if THIS is your POV.

There are over 100 examples of ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) being used in the NT, and it connotes;
a popular assembly, Acts 19:32, 39, 41; in NT the congregation of the children of Israel, Acts 7:38; transferred to the Christian body, of which the congregation of Israel was a figure, the Church, 1 Cor. 12:28; Col. 1:18; a local portion of the Church, a local church, Rom. 16:1; a Christian congregation, 1 Cor. 14:4

The fact that English has a few added connotations such as; a religious institution, place of worship, or group of worshipers, usually Christian, does NOT mean it is translated incorrectly. I prefer to use the BOC, but church is accurate enough as long as people use and understand it in the way it is used in the NT. The RCC is NOT the church, but there are those IN the RCC that ARE part of the church.

Hi StanJ,

Are you willing to see a full explanation that proves that the Lexicons are not giving a satisfactory full explanation? The lexicographers, after years and centuries of use, will give the vulgar definitions that have been added to a word, even if the word did not originally mean what it has now come to mean. So, as with most all language, a word that had a different meaning in the beginning has now morphed into a new meaning. That new meaning does not bring clarity to the original meaning, often it perverts the original meaning and sometimes even reverses it.

Here is an excerpt from a teaching I wrote that explains more fully what I'm trying to say here.


Ekklesia Versus Church and Assembly


Part I - Ekklesia Defined


3.d. *NOTE on guardians of the dictionaries from the preceding paragraph. Due to my study of the dictionaries and lexicons it is apparent that the philologians, grammerians, etymologists, and lexicographers, do not consider themselves to be guardians of word meanings. It is important to them to know where a word came from and what its original meaning was, and that they normally will give to you, but not always. However, they will also give you the vulgar meanings that have arisen through common usage. Even if these vulgar meanings have strayed so far from the original meaning of the word so as to make it unrecognizable it makes no difference. They will affirm the new and vulgar meaning of the word as being just as valid as the original meaning. Sometimes it will take centuries or just decades for an altered meaning to take full hold in society so that it is accepted with its new definition. This situation is not only unfortunate, but it is devastating to any language, and destroys the very fabric of that language. Following are just four examples of a plethora that could have been used to explain that which I mean.

(1) We just spoke about Easter in the previous paragraph. How did the name of a pagan fertility deity come to mean the resurrection of the God of the Universe? It cannot, in all common sense and logic, and in all that is godly and good, possibly have these two opposing meanings. This is beyond a travesty, this is blasphemy.

(2) We just spoke about being born again in the previous paragraph. Being born again is a one time spiritual change in the total makeup and character of a person. They have moved from death to life, from antichrist to being embraced in the very bosom of God. It is an inward spiritual change that cannot be observed with the eyes of the average soul on the street. Yet some church businesses define it as something that is not permanent; some define it as something that must occur over and over again; and some believe that it is only a temporary and euphoric and emotional state of mind - similar to a chemical (illegal drug) high - that wears off and has nothing to do with one’s spirit. In the secular world, born again is sometimes used to describe a person who had a close brush with death and survived. It is even used in filthy and violent movies to mean even less savory altered states. Born again, in all common sense and logic, and in all that is godly and good, cannot possibly have this duplicity of opposing meanings. This is a travesty and even blasphemous against the one true God who spiritually changed you when you became born again.

(3) Gay is yet another word that has been manipulated and destroyed. Gay originally meant happy, even gleeful. Now it is used by the homosexual agenda in our society to mean a homosexual man. Gay cannot, in all common sense and logic, and in all that is godly and good, possibly have these two completely different meanings. This is a travesty. Those who read novels and other literature from the twentieth century and earlier could forever be confused where the proper usage of the word gay is frequently employed.

(4) Ekklesia εκκλησια is another word that has been corrupted from its original meaning. The explanation of this corruption is exactly that which this treatise addresses.

It is wise to note that I have not even addressed those words whose definitions have been purposefully changed by those with an agenda. That agenda is hidden and its purpose is to confuse the language and prevent people from being able to dialogue or even think freely. The purposeful and deceitful changing of word meanings is designed to manipulate and control others. All one has to do to verify this is read a little history or even current events. Look at how many different ways the words freedom or democracy are used not only in this country but around the world. These are highly propagandized words. And then there is the hidden spiritual world (that I will not address in detail) that is pulling the strings of their human puppets to manipulate even more devastating changes in word definitions.


Now this is only one paragraph from Part I (13 ½ thousand words). As you can see I've now mentioned 2 different teachings I have on this subject and they are not the only ones. If you're not interested, that's up to you. But I have the info available for any who are interested.

Zeke25

 

[StanJ]

Hi StanJ,

Are you willing to see a full explanation that proves that the Lexicons are not giving a satisfactory full explanation? The lexicographers, after years and centuries of use, will give the vulgar definitions that have been added to a word, even if the word did not originally mean what it has now come to mean. So, as with most all language, a word that had a different meaning in the beginning has now morphed into a new meaning. That new meaning does not bring clarity to the original meaning, often it perverts the original meaning and sometimes even reverses it.

Here is an excerpt from a teaching I wrote that explains more fully what I'm trying to say here.

I'm willing to discuss individual issues Zeke, not address sermons. Sermons are for congregations who are submitted to a pastor and KNOW him and trust his teaching.
I am neither of those people and this is not a pulpit.

Address my post with reciprocal exegesis and brevity, and we will have no problem. Did you not agree with what I posted from Mounce and Teknia.com?
Are you advocating that only your explanation is sufficient to explain and counter ALL the translations from credentialed scholars that now exist?
What are your qualifications and credentials please?

 

[zeke25]

I'm willing to discuss individual issues Zeke, not address sermons. Sermons are for congregations who are submitted to a pastor and KNOW him and trust his teaching.
I am neither of those people and this is not a pulpit.

Address my post with reciprocal exegesis and brevity, and we will have no problem. Did you not agree with what I posted from Mounce and Teknia.com?
Are you advocating that only your explanation is sufficient to explain and counter ALL the translations from credentialed scholars that now exist?
What are your qualifications and credentials please?

Stan shared: “a popular assembly, Acts 19:32, 39, 41; in NT the congregation of the children of Israel”

Zeke replies: These three usages of ekklesia are in agreement and it does mean assembly. However, these are secular usages of the word ekklesia and not to be confused with the way or Lord and Savior used and set the standard for the term ekklesia in Mt. 16:18. I have this explained my treatise.



Stan: "Acts 7:38; transferred to the Christian body, of which the congregation of Israel was a figure"

Z: Acts 7:38 KJV, “This is he, that was in the [ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us[.]”

A direct correlation between Acts 7:38 and its use of ekklesia in the OT can be made if one understands what ekklesia means. Unfortunately, Acts 7:38 does not use ekklesia it uses the word church. This destroys a proper comparison, because the Israelites did not have a church in the wilderness at all. Instead it was as assembly or a congregation, but it was never a church and was never referred to as a church. I would say that the translators are trying to program us (the readers) into believing that “church” has a life of its own, when it does not. Acts 7:38 is translated incorrectly by the insertion of the word “church” into the verse.

There’s more that can be said, but you would not understand it because you are not interested in a thorough understanding of the subject, you only are interested in “brevity” which will never lead you to a knowledge of the truth.



Stan: “the Church, 1 Cor. 12:28;”

Z: 1 Corinthians 12:28 KJV, “And God hath set some in the [ekklesia], first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” Using the word church in this verse is a great travesty. People have become conditioned to the idea that saints of God, His ekklesia εκκλησια, somehow cannot function in these gifts outside of a man ordained church setting. This is so far from the truth that it perverts the Scriptures.




Stan: “Col. 1:18; a local portion of the Church”

Zeke: Colossians 1:18 KJV, “And he is the head of the body, the [ekklesias]: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” This verse makes it very clear exactly who the ekklesia are. They are those who make up the body; i.e., the Body of Christ. Christ Yahoshua is the head of this Body and those of us who are the ekklesia are individually part of the Body and collectively we are the Body. We are not a church, nor is Christ the head of a church. Churches are made by men and are answerable to men.




Stan: “a local church, Rom. 16:1;”

Zeke: Romans 16:1 KJV, “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the [ekklesias] which is at Cenchrea[.]” As usual, there is no justification for ekklesia to be translated into the word church. Cenchrea did not have a “church”. The saints gathered there and Phebe was a part of that group, but there was not a church there. The ekklesia meet together there.




Stan: “a Christian congregation, 1 Cor. 14:4”

Zeke: 1 Corinthians 14:4 KJV, “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the [ekklesian].” This verse means exactly what it says. The ekklesia are edified. There is no church or church congregation that needs edifying.



Stan: “but church is accurate enough as long as people use and understand it in the way it is used in the NT.”

Z: This is the point, “church” is not accurate at all, nor should it be used, no matter how many people agree to it. If you knew where the word “church” came from you would be against its usage as well.



Stan: “I'm willing to discuss individual issues Zeke, not address sermons.”

Z: These are not sermons, although I understand if you think they are. They are teachings and doctrines that need to be understood by the Body of Christ. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink.




Stan: “Address my post with reciprocal exegesis and brevity, and we will have no problem. “

Z: This cannot be done and I am unwilling to water down vital information. So, it appears we can go no further in our dialog.





Stan: “Are you advocating that only your explanation is sufficient to explain and counter ALL the translations from credentialed scholars that now exist?”

Z: My research on ekklesia and church is the most extensive and complete that I’ve seen. I’ve searched for 15 years or more for another that would adequately address this issue. There are some good article available in some places, but I haven’t seen anything as thorough as I have put together. Also, I am sure we would have a great disagreement on the definition of “credentialed scholars”.





Stan: “What are your qualifications and credentials please?”

Z: Yahoshua said in John 5:43-44 “43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”

I do not see the evidence that you seek the honor that comes from God only. What I perceive is that you would like to make this a contest to see who has the most DD’s behind their name, and who has the biggest cadre of scholars gathered around them. This will not motivate you to desire the truth which you have already rejected (by limiting how much time you are willing to devote to a dialog). It would be more humbling if you enquired of the LORD as to how much time He would like you to spend in pursuit of the truth. His answer to you might be different than you expect, or it might be for you to walk away and go back to your books and scholars that make you so comfortable. Dialoging with me about Biblical doctrines will never make anyone comfortable. If it does, then I have compromised that which I am assigned to do and become a man pleaser instead of striving to please my Heavenly Father.

If I had the education of Paul or Luke would that make you more receptive to the truth? If I had the education of Peter or John (Acts 4:13 KJV, Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Yahoshua) would that make you more receptive to the truth? Judge a man by the words he speaks. But, you cannot do that, because you won’t sit still long enough to listen.

Have a nice day.


Zeke25

 

[StanJ]

This is the point, “church” is not accurate at all, nor should it be used, no matter how many people agree to it. If you knew where the word “church” came from you would be against its usage as well.

These are not sermons, although I understand if you think they are. They are teachings and doctrines that need to be understood by the Body of Christ. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink.

My research on ekklesia and church is the most extensive and complete that I’ve seen. I’ve searched for 15 years or more for another that would adequately address this issue. There are some good article available in some places, but I haven’t seen anything as thorough as I have put together. Also, I am sure we would have a great disagreement on the definition of “credentialed scholars”.

It is as far as I am concerned based on what the vast majority of Greek scholars KNOW and teach. As you can't qualify your assertions they are but that, assertions and carry no weight with me or I assume anyone here who knows anything about this issue.

Again your opinion, NOT fact. You're not even showing any resemblance to water.

Yes, well YOUR research is flawed and defective based on what I do see by known scholars so the fact that you discount these scholars in favor of your own fallacious assertions is normal from ALL false teachers.

Yahoshua said in John 5:43-44 “43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”

I do not see the evidence that you seek the honor that comes from God only. What I perceive is that you would like to make this a contest to see who has the most DD’s behind their name, and who has the biggest cadre of scholars gathered around them. This will not motivate you to desire the truth which you have already rejected (by limiting how much time you are willing to devote to a dialog). It would be more humbling if you enquired of the LORD as to how much time He would like you to spend in pursuit of the truth. His answer to you might be different than you expect, or it might be for you to walk away and go back to your books and scholars that make you so comfortable. Dialoging with me about Biblical doctrines will never make anyone comfortable. If it does, then I have compromised that which I am assigned to do and become a man pleaser instead of striving to please my Heavenly Father.

If I had the education of Paul or Luke would that make you more receptive to the truth? If I had the education of Peter or John (Acts 4:13 KJV, Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Yahoshua) would that make you more receptive to the truth? Judge a man by the words he speaks. But, you cannot do that, because you won’t sit still long enough to listen.

So you're comparing yourself to Jesus and your so-called knowledge to His? How supercilious of you.

I don't seek any honour...I study to show myself approved so that God will be honoured by His written Word being RIGHTLY divided, not fallaciously so.

What I want to make this, is a place where false teaching cannot endure without going challenged, and it won't if I have anything to do with it. 2 Tim 3:16 and my signature.

My relationship with God is between me and God, and anyone who thinks he knows better means he thinks he knows God and THAT is a huge red flag in most peoples books.

Why yes, it would, but you don't AND that has already been proven by the assertions you have already made on this forum let alone in this thread. I would even be pleased with you conforming to how posts are to be replied to here which you can't or won't do so how can I accept what I know, based on scripture and the little studying I do, to be wrong?

As Paul writes in Rom 3;

Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

God IS, and so is His word, RIGHTLY divided.

 

[zeke25]

It is as far as I am concerned based on what the vast majority of Greek scholars KNOW and teach. As you can't qualify your assertions they are but that, assertions and carry no weight with me or I assume anyone here who knows anything about this issue.

Again your opinion, NOT fact. You're not even showing any resemblance to water.

Yes, well YOUR research is flawed and defective based on what I do see by known scholars so the fact that you discount these scholars in favor of your own fallacious assertions is normal from ALL false teachers.

So you're comparing yourself to Jesus and your so-called knowledge to His? How supercilious of you.

I don't seek any honour...I study to show myself approved so that God will be honoured by His written Word being RIGHTLY divided, not fallaciously so.

What I want to make this, is a place where false teaching cannot endure without going challenged, and it won't if I have anything to do with it. 2 Tim 3:16 and my signature.

My relationship with God is between me and God, and anyone who thinks he knows better means he thinks he knows God and THAT is a huge red flag in most peoples books.

Why yes, it would, but you don't AND that has already been proven by the assertions you have already made on this forum let alone in this thread. I would even be pleased with you conforming to how posts are to be replied to here which you can't or won't do so how can I accept what I know, based on scripture and the little studying I do, to be wrong?

As Paul writes in Rom 3;

Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

God IS, and so is His word, RIGHTLY divided.

StanJ,

After I had written you off, what, ½ year ago or more, I thought why not give you another chance. So, I gave you the courtesy of a lengthy reply. I see you haven't changed. May God bless you with wisdom. Don't expect to hear from me again.

In your 3 posts to me you have had nothing of substance to say. You have been inept and unable to discuss even one single Scripture. Instead, you engage in personal attacks and because you have disdain for the Scriptures that I use you quote the writings of men. But you never quote God. You reveal yourself to be biblically illiterate.

Proverbs 30:12-15 KJV, "12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.
15 The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough:"


Zeke25

 

[FHII]

Got a few short statements to make after reading this thread. I'm responding by cell phone, which is tedious. So I imagine I'll have to clarify when I get to a desktop.

1. The Bible is the final authority. It is God's Word. It is the scripture and should be the only source for doctrine.

2. The absolute worst bible version is Strongs and Thayers concordance. I know they aren't bible translations or versions, but people often run to them to correct the bible when they don't like what the bible says.

3. While the bible is the final authority, people often overlook that it actually does point to a church structure. I'll even be so bold as to say a church government.

4. People (many of them) don't like church. It requires them to do many things. Give. Attend. Humble themselves to someone else. It completely destroys and kills their independence and freedom. My response is that's what happens when you become a Christian.

5. The RCC has it right when we look at the concept of leadership. They have it wrong whrn it comes to how they built on that framework as well as doctrine.

6. Protestants are no better. In many cases, they are worse.

7. The belief that sola scriptura is the cause of "50,000" denominations is wrong. There aren't many churches that will say they don't follow the whole bible. But few actually do. What happens is they latch onto one verse (or a few) and build an entire - overall - movement around it. The RCC is also guilty. The many lies about Mary (being a perpetual virgin, praying to her, that she was sinless) are an example.

8. Speaking of the RCC, if you believe they are without splits, cliques, and divisions (in other words) denominations) well then.... you are pretty blind!

 

[StanJ]

After I had written you off, what, ½ year ago or more, I thought why not give you another chance. So, I gave you the courtesy of a lengthy reply. I see you haven't changed. May God bless you with wisdom. Don't expect to hear from me again.

In your 3 posts to me you have had nothing of substance to say. You have been inept and unable to discuss even one single Scripture. Instead, you engage in personal attacks and because you have disdain for the Scriptures that I use you quote the writings of men. But you never quote God. You reveal yourself to be biblically illiterate.

promises, promises.

Sorry Zeke but there's nothing to change...you're still wrong most of the time when you post and if I don't address you it's because it's not worth it. This post is typical of how reactive people like you get when they aren't agreed with. Scratch a wolf in sheep's clothing and see him growl.

Got a few short statements to make after reading this thread. I'm responding by cell phone, which is tedious. So I imagine I'll have to clarify when I get to a desktop.

1. The Bible is the final authority. It is God's Word. It is the scripture and should be the only source for doctrine.

2. The absolute worst bible version is Strongs and Thayers concordance. I know they aren't bible translations or versions, but people often run to them to correct the bible when they don't like what the bible says.

3. While the bible is the final authority, people often overlook that it actually does point to a church structure. I'll even be so bold as to say a church government.

4. People (many of them) don't like church. It requires them to do many things. Give. Attend. Humble themselves to someone else. It completely destroys and kills their independence and freedom. My response is that's what happens when you become a Christian.

5. The RCC has it right when we look at the concept of leadership. They have it wrong whrn it comes to how they built on that framework as well as doctrine.

6. Protestants are no better. In many cases, they are worse.

7. The belief that sola scriptura is the cause of "50,000" denominations is wrong. There aren't many churches that will say they don't follow the whole bible. But few actually do. What happens is they latch onto one verse (or a few) and build an entire - overall - movement around it. The RCC is also guilty. The many lies about Mary (being a perpetual virgin, praying to her, that she was sinless) are an example.

8. Speaking of the RCC, if you believe they are without splits, cliques, and divisions (in other words) denominations) well then.... you are pretty blind!

1. Correct
2. Wrong
3. Wrong
4. Wrong
5. Wrong
6. Wrong
7. Correct
8. Correct

I'd have to say, 3 out of 8 in your post is a FAIL overall.

 

[FHII]

Oh, gee. StanJ says I'm wrong on points 2-6. Woe is me. I'm so heartbroken.

 

[zeke25]

nada

 

[StanJ]

Oh, gee. StanJ says I'm wrong on points 2-6. Woe is me. I'm so heartbroken.

Posting like a child doesn't surprise me.

 

[FHII]

Posting like a child doesn't surprise me.

Ya think alot if yourself, don't ya, bub?

Just bringing it down to your level... that's all.

 

[StanJ]

Ya think alot if yourself, don't ya, bub?

Just bringing it down to your level... that's all.

No FH, just don't think as lot about people like you that end up resorting to who they really are and call themselves Christian.

 

[FHII]

No FH, just don't think as lot about people like you that end up resorting to who they really are and call themselves Christian.

Whatever....

 

[aspen]

Not sure about the difference between the interpretation of scripture of a large church and one nutty pastor...... Seems to me that each entity carryings its own inherent pitfalls