What did God originally intend Christianity to be?

[Jesse Stone]

Douglas Summers,

Part 2

The term Christianity isn't mentioned in the NT simply because Christianity wouldn't exist for another 300 years. The ekklesia described in the NT and "the Church(es)" of Christianity have nothing in common. And I see the distinction. The former are of the Spirit, the latter is natural being a historical development out of the flesh of man. Division in the NT referred to division within an ekklesia (1 Cor 1-3), and is the result of the flesh (1 Cor 3:1-4). Christianity and Christian denominational divisions goes way beyond this simple division within an ekklesia. Each Christian denomination (division) being an expression in and of itself, each with its own Lord, Creed, and organization. While in many cases following a man is involved, the Christian denominations go beyond division in ekklesia in their being separatist and institutional. Bypassing the ekklesia entirely. The denominations of Christianity are the ultimate conclusion of what Paul was speaking against in 1 Corinthians.

The use of a derivative of the term Christian, a word mentioned in passing in the NT all of 3 times (Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16), as a self-denotation (the term Christian was originally used by non-believers to denote believers), does not make a man-made religion more than a man-made religion.

There's no such thing as "the Church" in the NT. If there were, especially coupled with the perceived validity of Christian history (as most Christians do) and historically developed revelation (which Protestants generally do not), there would be very good ground for the claims of the RCC. But there isn't. The one true Church and the practical expression of that idea belongs only to the denominations of a man-made religion commonly called Christianity.

As I responded regarding the original post on this thread, God didn't intend Christianity to be anything. It has nothing to do with God. Christianity is not according to the original purpose or economy of God for his sons in Christ. The NT describes something else entirely. The matter of the ekklesia in the NT, the denominational character of Christianity, as well as the universal nature of each Christian denomination show beyond a shadow of a doubt (to me at least) that Christianity isn't founded on anything Biblical. Rather on Biblical interpretation.

In Christianity, no matter the denomination, to deny the authority of their claims of universality, authority, and legitimacy as a separate institution is heresy. But then heresy in Christianity depends on one's point of view. One's denominational point of view. Because each denomination not only regards itself as "the Church", it also has as its reason for existence that in a practical sense it regards itself alone as the true expression of Christianity. Or at the very least the best expression. And they will practice closed communion or some other form of punitive action against anyone who disagrees.

So yes,God did already know about the Church. It was a mystery hidden in times past (Eph. 3:1-12).

Paul said he already spoke of the mystery previously (Eph 3:3-4). The mystery has to do with the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile with God and with each other in Christ (Eph 2). Not to the existence of a mysterious universal Church.

Predestination and the prior knowledge of God has specifically to do with the Son of God (Eph 1:3-6). Those who are predestined are predestined in Christ, not in and of themselves (note the phrases "in him" vs. 4, "by Jesus Christ" vs. 5, "in the beloved" vs. 6). Those not in Christ continue to be judged in Adam (John 3:18; note the word "already", a word with a clear meaning and unaffected by the Byzantine/Alexandrian controversy). No mention of a universal Church or "the Church" according to the denominational thinking of Christianity in any of this.

Keep in mind that the context of Eph 3:10 (where ekklesia - or "the Church" in common Christian estimation - is mentioned) has to do with a local ekklesia (Eph 1:1-2). That what is said in Rev 2:1-7 through John is a continuation of that which is written to the ekklesia in Ephesus through Paul. And what is written to Ephesus is an expansion of the explanation of the pattern that began in the ekklesia in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42-47).

It's my opinion that any Protestant influenced individual who thinks in terms of the existence of a universal Church should become Catholic and get it over with. For any thinking in terms of "the Church" outside of the context of the historicity (and the authoritative revelation developed therein according to the RCC) and visibility of the Church (of which Protestantism can only boast a history of half a millennium at most) as perceived by the RCC (in keeping with the idea of the Historic Christian Faith in its strictest sense) is inconsistent with itself. And especially inconsistent with that which is the Biblical Faith. Which Protestants claim to follow, while actually following interpretations of the Bible.

The idea of a universal Church is a historical development that went beyond the NT concept of gathering. That began in a practical sense with the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. It's an idea that was given form three hundred years too late to be included in the NT. Even though there are indications of the tendency before that Council among those who began to have Lords over multiple ekklesia in certain areas. The documentation of which many Catholic apologists will be more than happy to lead any interested party as proof of their contention that their denomination is not a denomination, but rather a legitimate expression of that which existed since the beginning.

Personally, I was converted to ideas Biblical apart from the influence of the development of ideas in Christian history. My experience of Christianity has only served to clarify in my own mind the truth of the Bible unembellished by Christian interpretations.

Consequently, I don't hold to the various Ecclesiological and Eschatological ideas of Christianity. Including the various interpretive ideas regarding the "true" nature of the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God refers to whom the kingdom belongs and is the same thing as the kingdom of heaven that refers to where the kingdom of God originates (Gospels). The kingdom of the Son refers to something else that specifically has to do with the Son and especially to his Lordship among his people on earth (Isa 9:6-7; Col 1:13). That the kingdom of the Son is indeed something else is seen by the claim that in the end the Son will give it to God (1 Cor 15:24). An impossibility if the kingdom is already the kingdom of God. It doesn't say that the Son will give the kingdom BACK to God.

This in no way means there's no connection between the two kingdoms. The two letters to the ekklesia in Corinth never mentions the kingdom of the Son. Nor the kingdom of heaven. But there is mention of the kingdom of God (1 Cor 4:20, 6:9-10, 15:24 & 50). Note that Paul doesn't just call this ekklesia the ekklesia in Corinth. He call it the ekklesia of God in Corinth (1 Cor 1:1-2). That Paul refers to this ekklesia as the ekklesia of God does not mean that it is not the ekklesia of Christ.

Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within, and is likened to the Son being seen everywhere in his time (Luke 17:20-24). Is this only true as some future event? Ethereal with no practical expression? Not at all. As God dwelt within the Son (Col 2:9), so also after his resurrection God dwells within each ekklesia over whom the Son is Lord (Eph 2:18-22; see Eph 1:22-23 in this context). A very practical - local - expression.

And in closing:

17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. (1 Cor 4:17 KJV)

"As I teach every where in every church". Even if the English word "church" were actually an equivalent for the Greek word ekklesia, does that sound like Christianity in all its denominational glory to you?

 

[Douglas Summers]

Douglas Summers,



I mean Christianity when I refer to the Church.

Each denomination of Christianity thinks it's "the Church". Acknowledged outright (e.g., RCC) or covertly by a continued separate existence. Each denomination equates its own interpretation of "the Church" with that which is described in the Bible. Christianity misses the mark because inevitably Christian Biblical interpretations boil down to the perpetuation of denominational thinking.

Christians not only interpret what the Bible means (a myriad of commentaries), they interpret what the Bible says by interpretive translation (a myriad of English translations). Even the most literal of English translations aren't entirely literal. Wherever interpretive translation is found, it isn't a literal translation. There are several instances where translations translate according to a Tradition. The JW's aren't the only ones guilty of translating the Bible interpretively to make it agree with their own Tradition. The following is a case in point.

In the KJV and in most modern translations, the NT Greek word "ekklesia" is translated by the English word "church". The two words are NOT equivalent.

The English word "Church" has as its root the Greek word "kyrios" meaning "lord". It was originally used to refer to "the Lord's house". The word became more inclusive with time. Both the Oxford and Mirriam-Webster dictionaries refer to the root and developmental history of the English word in their definitions.

The Greek word "ekklesia" has as its roots two Greek words, "ek" meaning "out of" and "kaleo" meaning "to call". Thus the literal meaning of the word "that which is called out of".

Ekklesia was originally a secular term that referred to a group of people called out of a city population to take care of the affairs of the city. Much like a City Council today. I don't remember the source for the term's secular use. I only remember reading about it a few years back in more than one source. Secondarily it refers to any association of people that are called out of a population for a certain purpose (Acts 7:38, a reference to the Jews called out of Egypt by God, and by extension out of the world for his purpose; Acts 19:32, 39, 41 -- where in the KJV and most modern translations, the word assembly translates the same Greek word usually translated as church, since it obviously isn't a reference to a those who are in Christ).

The NT writers, when referring to the gathering of those who are in Christ, use the word ekklesia in basically the same way as the secular usage. People within a city being called out by God in Christ through the Spirit to take care of his own affairs in that city. It's a necessary variation of the OT economy in Israel wherein one city, Jerusalem, was the center of gathering. Because the Tabernacle/Temple was in Jerusalem. It's the OT economy that Christianity imitates with their universal Church institutions. Since the new economy includes both Jew and Gentile believers, the center of gathering changed. The new center of gathering became individual cities wherein those in Christ reside.

Each ekklesia is autonomous, named for the city in which it exists (e.g., Rev 1:11). Each with his Son as head (Eph, Col, Rev). When more than one ekklesia is referred to, ekklesia is plural (Acts 9:31; Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1;2, 22). There's no such thing as a universal Church (i.e, the Church) in the NT. Only local ekklesia.

In Ephesians, the context is that of a local ekklesia (Eph 1:1). Each ekklesia (specifically in this context of the one in Ephesus) is intended to be expressions of that which is universal. The body of Christ of which he is the head (Eph 1:19-23, 4:5; see with reference to the ekklesia in Corinth - 1 Cor 12:12-26). The temple or residence of God through the Spirit (Eph 2:18-22; see with reference to the ekklesia in Corinth - 1 Cor 3:16-17). The kingdom of the Son of which he is Lord (Eph 3:5-13; see also Col 1:13 & 2 Pet 1:5-11).

In Catholicism, "the Church" on earth is only universal (i.e., world wide.). Locality is usually defined as a parish in subjection to the whole. When Catholics say they're going to Church, it's a reference to more than just a local congregation. The universal Church according to Catholicism is visible in part and invisible in part. That which is on earth is fully visible in its universality.

Key verses the RCC uses as a foundation for its own claim to be "the Church" are Matt 16:13-20 and 18:15-20. Which they have interpreted to refer to a universal Church. Universal even historically. These verses are in actuality a reference to the ekklesia in Jerusalem and was a prophecy about Peter in relation to that ekkesia. A prophecy that was clearly fulfilled as recorded in Acts 1-15. There is also the obvious implication of the keys given to Peter that must of necessity be passed on, according to the RCC, if ekklesia in Matt 16 & 18 refer to universality instead of locality.

In Protestantism, the "Church" is generally defined as two-fold. As having two aspects -- Universal and local. In its universality it's invisible. In its locality it's visible.

Protestantism, being more like the RCC than they care to admit, having perpetuated the idea of a universal Church; must of necessity interpret Matt 16 & 18 in such a way so as to not affect their own idea of the Church as referring to themselves. While simultaneously giving no ground to the interpretation of the RCC. Thus they emphasize the rock as having to do with anything except that to which it refers. Not considering Peter's eventual function in the ekklesia in Jerusalem. A function for which Peter was specially chosen by the Son. Because the Ekklesia in Jerusalem would be the pattern for all ekklesia to come (Acts 2:42-47).

So in answer to your question, we no doubt think of different things when "the Church" and Christianity is mentioned. When I refer to Christianity, I'm thinking of the man-made religion that is composed of denominations that it calls Churches. In contradiction to the desire of the one who is supposedly their Lord (John 17:17-23). When I refer to Churches or what to me is the mythical idea of "the Church", I'm not thinking of anything that has to do with the Biblical kingdoms of God or of his Son. Only to the denominations of Christianity and their local expressions that they call "churches".

Hi Jesse, I understand. The Scriptures speak of the Church in four ways: To designate the whole body of the redeemed during this present age of Grace; To designate a local church; To designate a group or groups of local churches ( when used in the plural ) and to designate the visible church or body of professed believers without locality or numbers, in which is assembled true and false (wheat and tares). You are right about ekklesia ek; out from among) kaleo; (to call) As you said ekklesia is translated assembly from a very early date meaning: a gathering of citizens called out of their home to into some public place. In Acts 19: 32, 39, 41 ekklesia is translated assembly, and in Acts 7: 38 the word is used of Israel called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness. However, while Israel in the wilderness is a true ekklesia does not warrant confusing Israel with the NT Church, or the town meeting of Ephesian in Acts 19: 39 with the NT Church. Both are true ekklesia. But in the NT the the word is used 111 times of the NT Church. That is the doctrinal sense I use for the NT Scriptures. In this age we live today I would agree that the majority of churches are just an assembly today. Especially our Government ( In God We Trust ) has just become art work on our government buildings. And they are trying to even get rid of that as not to offend sinners?

In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[Douglas Summers]

Douglas Summers,

Part 2

The term Christianity isn't mentioned in the NT simply because Christianity wouldn't exist for another 300 years. The ekklesia described in the NT and "the Church(es)" of Christianity have nothing in common. And I see the distinction. The former are of the Spirit, the latter is natural being a historical development out of the flesh of man. Division in the NT referred to division within an ekklesia (1 Cor 1-3), and is the result of the flesh (1 Cor 3:1-4). Christianity and Christian denominational divisions goes way beyond this simple division within an ekklesia. Each Christian denomination (division) being an expression in and of itself, each with its own Lord, Creed, and organization. While in many cases following a man is involved, the Christian denominations go beyond division in ekklesia in their being separatist and institutional. Bypassing the ekklesia entirely. The denominations of Christianity are the ultimate conclusion of what Paul was speaking against in 1 Corinthians.

The use of a derivative of the term Christian, a word mentioned in passing in the NT all of 3 times (Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16), as a self-denotation (the term Christian was originally used by non-believers to denote believers), does not make a man-made religion more than a man-made religion.

There's no such thing as "the Church" in the NT. If there were, especially coupled with the perceived validity of Christian history (as most Christians do) and historically developed revelation (which Protestants generally do not), there would be very good ground for the claims of the RCC. But there isn't. The one true Church and the practical expression of that idea belongs only to the denominations of a man-made religion commonly called Christianity.

As I responded regarding the original post on this thread, God didn't intend Christianity to be anything. It has nothing to do with God. Christianity is not according to the original purpose or economy of God for his sons in Christ. The NT describes something else entirely. The matter of the ekklesia in the NT, the denominational character of Christianity, as well as the universal nature of each Christian denomination show beyond a shadow of a doubt (to me at least) that Christianity isn't founded on anything Biblical. Rather on Biblical interpretation.

In Christianity, no matter the denomination, to deny the authority of their claims of universality, authority, and legitimacy as a separate institution is heresy. But then heresy in Christianity depends on one's point of view. One's denominational point of view. Because each denomination not only regards itself as "the Church", it also has as its reason for existence that in a practical sense it regards itself alone as the true expression of Christianity. Or at the very least the best expression. And they will practice closed communion or some other form of punitive action against anyone who disagrees.



Paul said he already spoke of the mystery previously (Eph 3:3-4). The mystery has to do with the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile with God and with each other in Christ (Eph 2). Not to the existence of a mysterious universal Church.

Predestination and the prior knowledge of God has specifically to do with the Son of God (Eph 1:3-6). Those who are predestined are predestined in Christ, not in and of themselves (note the phrases "in him" vs. 4, "by Jesus Christ" vs. 5, "in the beloved" vs. 6). Those not in Christ continue to be judged in Adam (John 3:18; note the word "already", a word with a clear meaning and unaffected by the Byzantine/Alexandrian controversy). No mention of a universal Church or "the Church" according to the denominational thinking of Christianity in any of this.

Keep in mind that the context of Eph 3:10 (where ekklesia - or "the Church" in common Christian estimation - is mentioned) has to do with a local ekklesia (Eph 1:1-2). That what is said in Rev 2:1-7 through John is a continuation of that which is written to the ekklesia in Ephesus through Paul. And what is written to Ephesus is an expansion of the explanation of the pattern that began in the ekklesia in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42-47).

It's my opinion that any Protestant influenced individual who thinks in terms of the existence of a universal Church should become Catholic and get it over with. For any thinking in terms of "the Church" outside of the context of the historicity (and the authoritative revelation developed therein according to the RCC) and visibility of the Church (of which Protestantism can only boast a history of half a millennium at most) as perceived by the RCC (in keeping with the idea of the Historic Christian Faith in its strictest sense) is inconsistent with itself. And especially inconsistent with that which is the Biblical Faith. Which Protestants claim to follow, while actually following interpretations of the Bible.

The idea of a universal Church is a historical development that went beyond the NT concept of gathering. That began in a practical sense with the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. It's an idea that was given form three hundred years too late to be included in the NT. Even though there are indications of the tendency before that Council among those who began to have Lords over multiple ekklesia in certain areas. The documentation of which many Catholic apologists will be more than happy to lead any interested party as proof of their contention that their denomination is not a denomination, but rather a legitimate expression of that which existed since the beginning.

Personally, I was converted to ideas Biblical apart from the influence of the development of ideas in Christian history. My experience of Christianity has only served to clarify in my own mind the truth of the Bible unembellished by Christian interpretations.

Consequently, I don't hold to the various Ecclesiological and Eschatological ideas of Christianity. Including the various interpretive ideas regarding the "true" nature of the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God refers to whom the kingdom belongs and is the same thing as the kingdom of heaven that refers to where the kingdom of God originates (Gospels). The kingdom of the Son refers to something else that specifically has to do with the Son and especially to his Lordship among his people on earth (Isa 9:6-7; Col 1:13). That the kingdom of the Son is indeed something else is seen by the claim that in the end the Son will give it to God (1 Cor 15:24). An impossibility if the kingdom is already the kingdom of God. It doesn't say that the Son will give the kingdom BACK to God.

This in no way means there's no connection between the two kingdoms. The two letters to the ekklesia in Corinth never mentions the kingdom of the Son. Nor the kingdom of heaven. But there is mention of the kingdom of God (1 Cor 4:20, 6:9-10, 15:24 & 50). Note that Paul doesn't just call this ekklesia the ekklesia in Corinth. He call it the ekklesia of God in Corinth (1 Cor 1:1-2). That Paul refers to this ekklesia as the ekklesia of God does not mean that it is not the ekklesia of Christ.

Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within, and is likened to the Son being seen everywhere in his time (Luke 17:20-24). Is this only true as some future event? Ethereal with no practical expression? Not at all. As God dwelt within the Son (Col 2:9), so also after his resurrection God dwells within each ekklesia over whom the Son is Lord (Eph 2:18-22; see Eph 1:22-23 in this context). A very practical - local - expression.

And in closing:



"As I teach every where in every church". Even if the English word "church" were actually an equivalent for the Greek word ekklesia, does that sound like Christianity in all its denominational glory to you?

No, it does not. But The Lord warned us about this very thing in Matthew Chapter 13 along with the Apostles in there letters to the Churches.

 

[Obadiah]

Directed to all participants:

Thanks for being here, but from here on out in this thread as well as other A&T threads you are being asked politely to read, consider, and follow the Terms of Service (which can be read here) and the specific guidelines for this forum, (which can be read here as well as posted below.) Thank you for your cooperation.

Apologetics and Theology Forum specific guidelines:

Christian Theology is by definition the study of God through His word, the Bible. Apologetics goes hand in hand with theology as it is the branch of Christian theology which attempts to give a rational defense of the Christian faith. That makes the Apologetics and Theology forum unique from many of our other forums in that this is a place specifically for these types of discussions.

With this in mind, the following guidelines should be followed.

• Original posts should reference specific scripture and what it is the member wants to say or ask about that scripture.
• Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies. (Note: Citing entire chapters or books doesn't fulfill this guideline unless you can specifically show that each verse directly supports your point. And don't forget to also cite the version reference to all copyrighted versions. It's a matter of law as well as the ToS!)
• Opinions are plenty and have little value so please do not state positions that have no basis in scripture.
• Do not use phrases such as, “You’re wrong.” This is insulting and inappropriate and there are nicer ways to disagree without being insulting.
• Once you have made a point, refrain from flooding the forum with numerous posts making the same point over and over with nothing new to support it.
• You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer.
• Failing to answer someone’s question doesn’t necessarily amount to an admission of error or surrender but keep in mind that in any debate if you refuse to or can not answer a reasonable question, it may weaken your position.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Douglas Summers,

The Scriptures speak of the Church in four ways: To designate the whole body of the redeemed during this present age of Grace; To designate a local church; To designate a group or groups of local churches ( when used in the plural ) and to designate the visible church or body of professed believers without locality or numbers, in which is assembled true and false (wheat and tares).

Two out of four.

Please specify which Scriptures you think refer to a universal Church.

in which is assembled true and false (wheat and tares

A reference to Matthew 13. A common Christian interpretation of the wheat and tares, and I think one of convenience, is that the Church is made up of believers and non-believers. An idea which was practically implemented in Christianity after the Council of Nicaea. During a time when non-believers were joining "the Church" for political reasons. Monasticism started around the same time as a reaction, an attempt to combat the trend through an interpretation of "come out from among them" (2 Cor 6:17).

And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude....And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables. 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mark 4:1, 11-12 KJV)

The purpose of parables as used by Jesus is to hide the mystery of the Kingdom of God from the multitude in Israel.

Eccl 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven (KJV)

The mystery of Christ in the Gentiles was to be revealed later through the apostles, especially Paul (Col 1:27).

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. (Matt 13:10-16 KJV)

Jesus was speaking to a multitude (Matt 13:1-3). Among them were those who were persuaded in an interpretation that wasn't according to the intent of the Scriptures they had. A Tradition of men that Jesus consistently countered. Even the Disciples didn't understand the parables until they heard Jesus' explanation of their meaning. And so it should be today, a listening to Jesus' explanation, but generally is not. Instead of hearing and understanding according to the one they claim to follow, Christians generally would rather believe in the interpretations of the Creeds of their Tradition, following the men who created them (1 Cor 2:14-3:4).

The parable of the wheat and the tares is clearly explained by Jesus (Matt 13:36-43). Due to the reference to the "end of the world", it has been surmised to be a reference to the entire existence of the universal Church, the end of which ends all. But the Greek word used isn't "kosmos". Rather it's "aion".

An aion is a reference to an era, an epoch in time. The harvest is at the end of an era. Most Christians, even if they know that, still think that the end refers to the end of the Christian (Church) era. But Jesus was speaking in the context of an era then present. An era that ended at the death and resurrection of Christ. Fulfilled, as seen in such Scriptures as Acts 2:41. The harvest of Jewish believers in Jesus Christ in the 1st century.

However, while Israel in the wilderness is a true ekklesia does not warrant confusing Israel with the NT Church, or the town meeting of Ephesian in Acts 19: 39 with the NT Church.

Physical Israel and Spiritual Israel should not be confused. The RCC in following historic Christianity has made that mistake. And their connection to Physical Israel as it existed in the 1st century manifests itself in many ways. Indeed, it manifests itself in many ways in Protestantism (that has the same historic root) as well. The idea of a universal Church among them.

Having said that, there is a connection. The Spiritual is the fulfillment and in that way the continuation of the physical. As seen in many places in the NT, the physical is the type of the Spiritual (e.g., Hebrews) by which it continues.

In saying that, I do not imply a different or "new covenant" Law that can only be of human derivation should be our guide. The efficacy of the Law of God is not tied to covenants. God doesn't arbitrarily change his Law. Certain rituals incorporated into the old covenant was changed to conform to its fulfillment in Christ (e.g., Heb 9:1-10:1). Hebrews was written to Hebrews, who emphasized the Law above even God himself. As does modern Judaism.

15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:15-16 ESV)

Spiritual Israel has nothing to do with that nation that calls itself Israel today. Or they would understand and believe the idea of being in Christ and made near by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13). The Israel of God mentioned in the above quote has nothing to do with circumcision. Baptism into Christ having replaced circumcision (Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:10-12). Spiritual Israel is a manifestation of the new creation that is in Christ (2 Cor 5:16-21). The Israel of God today is Spiritual Israel, as Paul intimated earlier (Gal 5:25).

1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Rom 11:1-5 KJV)

The remnant exists today in Christ. Not apart from Christ. There is a new covenant in the blood of Christ (Matt 26:28). A new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Heb 8:6-12). The old covenant with physical Israel passed away (Heb 8:13). The new covenant is the true connection between physical Israel described in the OT and the current Spiritual Israel. If the ones who are in Christ are not Israel, then neither is the blood of the new covenant for them. And the OT is in the "Christian" Bible for no reason. Within the new covenant Israel are the remnant of physical Israel. That remnant doesn't exist outside of the Israel of God that is in Christ. The remnant has always referred to those who follow God according the spirit of his currently available revelation, whether before or after Christ.

Especially our Government ( In God We Trust ) has just become art work on our government buildings. And they are trying to even get rid of that as not to offend sinners?

That would be a matter for another thread. And while I agree with your statement, we might disagree as to whether or not America was ever intended to be a Christian nation. Or an Atheist nation for that matter. The first Amendment of the American Constitution precludes such an idea. Agendas to the contrary notwithstanding.

"In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, which was adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782. (Wikipedia)

E pluribus unum means "Out of many, one". An apt motto that describes the reality of America as a whole. Then and now. At least two non-Christians (Deists) are numbered among the founding fathers of America. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

No, it does not. But The Lord warned us about this very thing in Matthew Chapter 13 along with the Apostles in there letters to the Churches.

As he did in all the Gospels and Revelation. And as you say, through the apostles, especially through Paul in many places. Not a manifestation of the end (a common Christian understanding). But as a manifestation of the continuing fight between the flesh and the Spirit that's already been going on for two millennia (e.g., Gal 5:19-26).

A fight regarding which Martin Luther had a great deal of sensitivity. Too bad he insinuated his own fight into Protestantism, ruining it for the purpose of God thereby.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Obadiah,

What do you think of the idea that the contrast between the ekklesia clearly presented in Scripture vs. the various ideas of the Church clearly presented in Christianity is one reason why the answer to the question "What did God originally intend Christianity to be" must be "Christianity is a man-made religion that is not a part of God's intention for those who are in Christ"?

I wonder what happened to the person who originally posed the question?

 

[Douglas Summers]

The term Christianity isn't mentioned in the NT simply because Christianity wouldn't exist for another 300 years.

Hi Jesse, I agree, But neither is the word Bible in the Bible or trinity in the Bible. But God does not judge by sight or words. (Gen. 4:1-7) You are right about the meaning of the "end of the world'. It means the end of that age". An age is a stewardship in which God gives man the responsibility and a certain way to deal with sin. When judged for their performance, They always fail. So what is the purpose if they always fail their stewardship? That we have always needed The Lord, for without Him, we are all Cain. I will study your post some more and comment later..

In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[Obadiah]

Obadiah,

What do you think of the idea that the contrast between the ekklesia clearly presented in Scripture vs. the various ideas of the Church clearly presented in Christianity is one reason why the answer to the question "What did God originally intend Christianity to be" must be "Christianity is a man-made religion that is not a part of God's intention for those who are in Christ"?

I wonder what happened to the person who originally posed the question?

As a personal policy and to be fair to everyone I try not to give my opinions in threads in which I'm a moderator.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Douglas Summers

But neither is the word Bible in the Bible or trinity in the Bible.

Good argument for a contemporary extra-Biblical human authority that defines "the Faith" extra-Biblically. As practiced openly by the RCC, wherein the Pope is the Vicar (earthly representative) of Christ on earth. Interpreter of the Bible and Tradition as head of the Magisterium. Regarded as the contemporary authority in the Church.

As practiced covertly in Protestantism, wherein the Bible alone is the purported ultimate authority. Even though the Pastor (or whoever's in charge) as the interpreter of the Bible (and of Tradition) is the actual and contemporary authority in each Protestant denomination.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. (attributed to Alphonse Karr - 1808-90, a French writer and critic)

or as Solomon put it:

Eccl 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. (KJV)

Wrong authority from my perspective. As well as from the acclaimed Bible alone authority perspective of Protestantism (which this venue claims to follow). And certainly from the NT perspective that Jesus Christ, the resurrected and living only begotten Son of God, is the only authority (Lord) through the Holy Spirit among those who are in Christ (Matt 28:18; Rom 8; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Pet 5:1-4; Revelations).

In the Gospels, an interpretation of Scripture that Jesus deemed the Tradition of men had more authority than God himself among the Jewish leaders. Leading those who adhered to the Tradition to not recognize their own Messiah. A cart before the horse way of looking at things that too many Christians are currently determined to follow with regard to the Son of God and their own interpretations of the Bible.

The word Trinity is indeed NOT found in the Bible. Nor is there any term or phrase comparable to such a word unless interpreted to be so. I presume because Trinitarianism is not a Biblical idea. Rather an idea the source of which is a human interpretation first promulgated with authority by the 4th century Council of Nicaea. A not so glorious mistake to which Christianity has subjugated itself for so long as to become an accepted and acceptable Tradition.

Nevertheless, the word Bible IS found in the Bible. The Greek word "graphe", of which "Scripture" is the translation in most English translations. It means "writings". Referring to sacred writings when appropriate, as used by Jesus (Matt 21:42, Mark 14:49), Matthew (Matt 26:56), Paul (2 Timothy 3:14-17), Peter (2 Pet 3:16), etc. And Bible as used in the sense that Christians use the term means a collection of sacred writings. Which is why the words Bible and Scripture are used interchangeably as synonyms for the same thing. Not only by myself, but also by most Christians (to their credit) who use the English language.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Obadiah,

As a personal policy and to be fair to everyone I try not to give my opinions in threads in which I'm a moderator.

Commendable. A personal opinion is simply imagination revealed and reality concealed.

However, if you quote Scripture as the by-laws of this venue suggests, allowing Scripture to say what it actually says without the accoutrements of interpretation, how much of your opinion can it be?

Unless one wishes to regard as fact the theory that everyone by nature interprets Scripture. An idea that makes the Scripture, that must of necessity be interpretively understood, in reality nothing more than a part of a human opinion. Regardless of who quotes it or how much it's quoted. A reality that isn't reality at all. And certainly not a supernatural reality.

Indeed, if that theory is fact, wouldn't that make venues such as this simply a place for those who wish to argue simply to argue? For if that theory is fact, then everyone's fact is simply a meaningless opinion to anyone other than the one who adheres to it. Which in turn makes the existence of this sub-venue under the name of "Apologetics & Theology" ludicrous to say the least. For it would be a waste of time to offer an apology for that which is nothing more than an opinion.

If I thought I was merely presenting one of many opinions, I would have to concede that you are more commendable and wiser than I.

Prov 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Prov 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Prov 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. (KJV)

Prov 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes. (NASB)

The fool would be me responding to a lot of other fools. And as the author of the comic strip "Non Sequitur" once noted, "Arguing with idiots makes you an idiot" (Non Sequitur January 17, 2010).

I don't know Hebrew. But if I did, I might think that the NASB translation of Prov 26:4-5 is the better translation. It doesn't present a contradiction as do the translations that follow the traditional example of the KJV.

Jesus often answered his opponents in a way that seemed at first glance to have nothing to do with anything they said. But in the end it could be seen that he had not answered them according to their folly. But as their folly deserved. Often with a simple truth that countered their opposition. Sometimes with parables that they couldn't understand, because their folly deserved no understanding on their part. (Gospels)

 

[Douglas Summers]

Douglas Summers



Good argument for a contemporary extra-Biblical human authority that defines "the Faith" extra-Biblically. As practiced openly by the RCC, wherein the Pope is the Vicar (earthly representative) of Christ on earth. Interpreter of the Bible and Tradition as head of the Magisterium. Regarded as the contemporary authority in the Church.

As practiced covertly in Protestantism, wherein the Bible alone is the purported ultimate authority. Even though the Pastor (or whoever's in charge) as the interpreter of the Bible (and of Tradition) is the actual and contemporary authority in each Protestant denomination.



Wrong authority from my perspective. As well as from the acclaimed Bible alone authority perspective of Protestantism (which this venue claims to follow). And certainly from the NT perspective that Jesus Christ, the resurrected and living only begotten Son of God, is the only authority (Lord) through the Holy Spirit among those who are in Christ (Matt 28:18; Rom 8; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Pet 5:1-4; Revelations).

In the Gospels, an interpretation of Scripture that Jesus deemed the Tradition of men had more authority than God himself among the Jewish leaders. Leading those who adhered to the Tradition to not recognize their own Messiah. A cart before the horse way of looking at things that too many Christians are currently determined to follow with regard to the Son of God and their own interpretations of the Bible.

The word Trinity is indeed NOT found in the Bible. Nor is there any term or phrase comparable to such a word unless interpreted to be so. I presume because Trinitarianism is not a Biblical idea. Rather an idea the source of which is a human interpretation first promulgated with authority by the 4th century Council of Nicaea. A not so glorious mistake to which Christianity has subjugated itself for so long as to become an accepted and acceptable Tradition.

Nevertheless, the word Bible IS found in the Bible. The Greek word "graphe", of which "Scripture" is the translation in most English translations. It means "writings". Referring to sacred writings when appropriate, as used by Jesus (Matt 21:42, Mark 14:49), Matthew (Matt 26:56), Paul (2 Timothy 3:14-17), Peter (2 Pet 3:16), etc. And Bible as used in the sense that Christians use the term means a collection of sacred writings. Which is why the words Bible and Scripture are used interchangeably as synonyms for the same thing. Not only by myself, but also by most Christians (to their credit) who use the English language.

Hi Jesse,
The Church is an equal brotherhood. A kingdom of priest and kings of God. (Book of Revelation) The Apostles were unlearned fishermen preaching the gospel and the religious leaders of Israel were astonished at there knowledge. God teaches His own., "come, I will make you fishers of men".(Acts 4:5-14) (Matt. 4:15-17).
The Bible does not have the word trinity...But it testifies to a trinity. (Gen. 1:24-27). The word Bible not being in the Bible is a mute subject. I just mentioned it to show how people can make a mute subject an argument.

In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[Randy]

God is not finished with the Jews.

But a cursory reading of scripture reveals God intended Christianity to be of the Jews first then of the Gentiles but the Jews (by and large) rejected Christ because their leadership was infiltrated and corrupted.

This is a thread to discuss the implications of this. And what God may eventually intend Christianity to be...

Do you dare participate?

Well the NT was written for future generations and Gods plan of salvation is stated. As in a new covenant with Jesus as the mediator of that new covenant. The mystery that was revealed at the beginning was that God would bring the gentiles into those He called His own through Christ Jesus. No one gets to the Father except by the Son. That is the Fathers will. Gods promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ as mortal flesh and blood can't inherit forever. The new bodies received at the 1st Res. can.

he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."

Rev 11 is a sign that can't be mistaken. 1260 days of testimony before the great tribulation comes into the world through the angel of the abyss. He is the beast that kills the two witnesses. If anyone has even a shred of faith in those days they will believe such signs ad give glory to God. The rest who take joy in the killing of the two who serve the Lord of all the earth will be deceived by the beast. Those who willfully worship that beast will earn the 2nd death.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Well the NT was written for future generations and Gods plan of salvation is stated. As in a new covenant with Jesus as the mediator of that new covenant. The mystery that was revealed at the beginning was that God would bring the gentiles into those He called His own through Christ Jesus. No one gets to the Father except by the Son. That is the Fathers will. Gods promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ as mortal flesh and blood can't inherit forever. The new bodies received at the 1st Res. can.

he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."

Rev 11 is a sign that can't be mistaken. 1260 days of testimony before the great tribulation comes into the world through the angel of the abyss. He is the beast that kills the two witnesses. If anyone has even a shred of faith in those days they will believe such signs ad give glory to God. The rest who take joy in the killing of the two who serve the Lord of all the earth will be deceived by the beast. Those who willfully worship that beast will earn the 2nd death.

Amen Randy.

 

[Jim Parker]

God is not finished with the Jews.

But a cursory reading of scripture reveals God intended Christianity to be of the Jews first then of the Gentiles but the Jews (by and large) rejected Christ because their leadership was infiltrated and corrupted.

This is a thread to discuss the implications of this. And what God may eventually intend Christianity to be...

Do you dare participate?

Christianity is essentially a sect of Judaism.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

 

[Douglas Summers]

Christianity is essentially a part of Judaism .

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

That statement is too broad. Can you clarify what you mean?

 

[Jim Parker]

That statement is too broad. Can you clarify what you mean?

OOPS! I meant "sect" not "part." (They are similar)

Note that all the original believers were Jews who still went to the local synagogue on the Sabbath.

Jeremiah prophesied the new covenant. (Jer 31:31)

Jesus fulfilled the Law; he did not do away with it.

Christians accept the Old Testament as an authoritative part of the word of God. It is not seen as having been replaced by the New Testament. (However, Gentiles are not required to keep the Law of Moses or be circumcised.) So we use the same scriptures as the Jews plus the NT and we worship the same God.

Paul said that the church (including Gentiles) was "grafted in" to the people of God; Israel.

help?

iakov the fool

 

[Douglas Summers]

OOPS! I meant "sect" not "part." (They are similar)

Note that all the original believers were Jews who still went to the local synagogue on the Sabbath.

Jeremiah prophesied the new covenant. (Jer 31:31)

Jesus fulfilled the Law; he did not do away with it.

Christians accept the Old Testament as an authoritative part of the word of God. It is not seen as having been replaced by the New Testament. (However, Gentiles are not required to keep the Law of Moses or be circumcised.) So we use the same scriptures as the Jews plus the NT and we worship the same God.

Paul said that the church (including Gentiles) was "grafted in" to the people of God; Israel.

help?

iakov the fool

True, The mystery of the church that Israel was not aware of was that the Gentiles would be part of the body of Christ, making one new man out of the two. (The Epistle to the Ephesians)

 

[Jim Parker]

Douglas Summers,
The term Christianity isn't mentioned in the NT simply because Christianity wouldn't exist for another 300 years.

That argument is meaningless. The term "trinity" isn't found anywhere in the Bible either, but it is an essential belief of Christianity. You are conflating the term with the religion; a logical fallacy.

Christianity is, quite simply, the the teaching of the apostles. While the term, "Christianity" was not applied until much later, the essential religious system existed from the 2nd half of the first century as a uniform teaching wherever Christian communities were found from northern Europe to India.

Refinements in doctrine were made in response to teachings which were at odds with the standard of "that which was taught everywhere and at all times." The debates of the 7 great councils of the 4th through 8th centuries were decided using that standard.

"As I teach every where in every church". Even if the English word "church" were actually an equivalent for the Greek word ekklesia, does that sound like Christianity in all its denominational glory to you?

And that argument is an anachronism; another logical fallacy.

That "denominational glory" didn't bud until the 16th century in Europe with the rebellion of Protestant princes against the political authority which the popes of that age wielded, and the subsequent "reforming" of the teachings of the church which had remained essentially uniform for the previous 1500 years. (Earlier deviations from the original teachings being the Filioque and the primacy of the pope of Rome.) Denominations are a modern (post-16th century) invention of northern Europeans and later Americans.


my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

 

[WIP]

Actually, according to Acts 11:26 (NKJV) the term Christian was used rather soon after Christ's resurrection.

 

[Corn Pop]

Because everythings so crooked i might just be an "Anoitian" from now on.

Christ = Anointed


Christ+ian = Christian
Anoint + ian = Anointian