"I will build my church"

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
But the Catholic Church wants to take common sense and out of it make nonsense,

Purely opinion.

Originally posted by DHK:
for which they have no defense, and their only offence is to offer ridicule or "It is your interpretation and not ours." Pitiful!
DHK

Purely opinion, and a false one at that. Our "only" defense? I may be Catholic, but I'm not stupid.

</font>[/QUOTE]Is it purely opinion? I have just proved my point. When you have no defence, nothing to offer, nothing to contribute--you ridicule. That is exactly what you just did GraceSaves. You proved my point exactly.

The Topic is I will build my Church

Your answer: "I may be Catholic but I'm not stupid."
That's really classic. Adds a lot to the discussion doesn't it?
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

Is there a reason you are making a public spectacle? That serves no purpose except to shift negative attention to others. Also, what or who did I ridicule? You have "proven" that the Catholic Church makes non-sense out of sense? What? You haven't proven that, and that cannot be obejctively proven. Therefore, it is purely opinion.

The last line was a joke, by the way. And it made fun of me, not anyone else.

Now, can we stop with the pointing fingers game? I believe it was Jesus Christ who said to take the log out of our own eyes before we worry about another. Your posts DHK are hardly loving and caring; their really very harsh.

But, this makes me tired and sad. This board, except for a few exceptional posters, seems to not have much Christian love. Intellectual pride is reigning, and all that does it kill whatever grace God is giving us.

And, before someone jumps on me (which would just be ironic after reading this post), I'm fully guilty of the behavior I describe. It's why I'm so tired of it. I can't imagine the number of non-Christians who have left this board in disgust, because here's so little Christ here sometimes. All the answers in the world about God are useless if He's not shining through all our human egos.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Jude:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:

You decide...

My point is that your system of belief is largely based on your personal opinion of what the Bible says.

You deny this everytime you declare your personal opinion to actually be the Bible.

I agree. And that is why Anglicanism has the 'three-legged stool' of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. </font>[/QUOTE]I have read some commentaries written by Anglicans and have never heard that before from them.

But Jesus dealt with that that three legged stool you are talking about when he dealt with the Pharisees.

Certainly some of the new discoveries ofg manuscripts and extrabiblical manuscripts help us to interpret better. But if we went along the lines of tradition one would soon discpover the various schools of interpretation such as allegorical, etc.

Reason is the very thing that almost lead the the murder of Keil and Delitzsch. They barely escaped with their lives from Germany because they believed and taught creation by God. Perhaps you might know that it was the Christians who initially supported Hitler on an economic platform. Look at how realism and rationalism has played a significant part in the life of the believer today.

I believe there is only a one legegd stool. The interpretation of scripture is right or its wrong. The corerct interpretation is solely based not on what we think but what actually was. We must seek to understand the historical background and social context and any other context that comes into play to correctly interpret. We must understand the context based on the time the scripture was written and not on how we would think it might be based on the American culture today. It is not what does it mean to me, but what does it mean period. If you read the Early Church Fathers you will notice disagreements amongh them.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

Is there a reason you are making a public spectacle? That serves no purpose except to shift negative attention to others. Also, what or who did I ridicule? You have "proven" that the Catholic Church makes non-sense out of sense? What? You haven't proven that, and that cannot be obejctively proven. Therefore, it is purely opinion.

The last line was a joke, by the way. And it made fun of me, not anyone else.

Now, can we stop with the pointing fingers game? I believe it was Jesus Christ who said to take the log out of our own eyes before we worry about another. Your posts DHK are hardly loving and caring; their really very harsh.

Read carefully the last few posts of mine. For your sake I will say it again:
The topic is:
I will build my Church
NOT
DHK'S personal interpretations

You, as well as the others that I have recently addressed seem obssessed with the latter instead of the former. Why don't you address the issues at hand instead of attitudes, opinions, what you believe to be "opinions," etc. You avoid the very crux of this thread. Why?
Are you afraid of your position, that it may on a Biblical basis be defeated?
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
Are you afraid of your position, that it may on a Biblical basis be defeated?
DHK

There is always the possibility that I have not read all of the thread and do not wish to post on the topic. I only posted because you made an opinion statement, supported or not, that remains opinion. "Non-sense" is subjective, especially when dealing with theology. What makes no sense to one man may make perfect sense to another.

I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions as to what I'm afraid of, as if to belittle me. This is exactly what you said there is too much of. I'm going to go pray right now.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
You are at a loss when it comes to the definition of the word ekklesia, translated "church," but the meaning thereof is "assembly." This is not opinion; it is not "my interpretation," and has nothing to do with interpretation. Look it up in a Greek dictionary or lexicon. That is the meaning of the word. It refers to a local assembly such as it is used in Acts 19 when all the crowd was in an uproar and "assembled" in the theater, because of the preaching of Paul. The mayor had to dismiss the "assembly." It is a group that is assembled together in one place, and can never be applied to an organization worldwide, that cannot be assembled. It is not my interpretation. It is the definition of the word that you have to deal with.

Following are some definitions that I found in an online Greek lexicon (it said that it was a KVJ lexicon)

- a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place

- an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

- the assembly of the Israelites

- any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

- an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

- a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

- those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

- the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

- the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven


Now, DHK, you will notice that the lexicon gives many more meanings to the word "ekklesia" than the one and only thing that you claim it to mean.

Notice especially the last two, which are in direct contradiction to what you claim.

As with Scripture, you pick and choose what words mean and try to incorrectly assert that it can only mean what you say.

So yes, it is your interpretation

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
There is always the possibility that I have not read all of the thread and do not wish to post on the topic. I only posted because you made an opinion statement, supported or not, that remains opinion. "Non-sense" is subjective, especially when dealing with theology. What makes no sense to one man may make perfect sense to another.

I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions as to what I'm afraid of, as if to belittle me. This is exactly what you said there is too much of. I'm going to go pray right now.

It is my opinion, based on the last two pages of posts, that the Catholics on this board would rather attack with ridicule than with Scripture. How many times in these last posts have I asked for the topic to be addressed? How many times has the topic been addressed?
The answer speaks for itself.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

Thank you for your input, DHK. I am done.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
You are at a loss when it comes to the definition of the word ekklesia, translated "church," but the meaning thereof is "assembly." This is not opinion; it is not "my interpretation," and has nothing to do with interpretation. Look it up in a Greek dictionary or lexicon. That is the meaning of the word. It refers to a local assembly such as it is used in Acts 19 when all the crowd was in an uproar and "assembled" in the theater, because of the preaching of Paul. The mayor had to dismiss the "assembly." It is a group that is assembled together in one place, and can never be applied to an organization worldwide, that cannot be assembled. It is not my interpretation. It is the definition of the word that you have to deal with.

Following are some definitions that I found in an online Greek lexicon (it said that it was a KVJ lexicon)

- a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place

- an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

- the assembly of the Israelites

- any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

- an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

- a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

- those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

- the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

- the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven


Now, DHK, you will notice that the lexicon gives many more meanings to the word "ekklesia" than the one and only thing that you claim it to mean.

Notice especially the last two, which are in direct contradiction to what you claim.

As with Scripture, you pick and choose what words mean and try to incorrectly assert that it can only mean what you say.

So yes, it is your interpretation </font>[/QUOTE]I have consistently said that the word means "assembly." There is only one out of those nine meanings that you gave that can be construed as a worldwide church--the second last one. And that definition is: a) a more recent definition, and b) one of the last defintions given, thus not a primary definition. It is obscure. Every other definition speaks of an assembly. The word means assembly. It is not a matter of interpretation. When 8 out of 9 definitions say that the word means assembly, don't you think you have a bit of consensus on what the word means. Use a little common sense here. The obscure definition is not the one to be used as the primary definition of the word.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
The obscure definition is not the one to be used as the primary definition of the word.
DHK

Obscure, why because it is last on the list?

In terms of historic Christianity, Church has meant all members of the Body of Christ, both in this world and the next.

It is only in recent times that church came to also mean your little local called out assembly to the exclusion of all other Christians.

[ October 02, 2003, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[neal4christ]

It is only in recent times that church came to also mean your little local called out assembly to the exclusion of all other Christians.

I would agree that the local church is in fact a church, i.e. called out believers, or an assembly, if you will. However, I very much affirm that church refers to all believers in Christ, not just the local, physically assembled believers in Christ.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
The obscure definition is not the one to be used as the primary definition of the word.
DHK

Obscure, why because it is last on the list?

In terms of historic Christianity, Church has meant all members of the Body of Christ, both in this world and the next.

It is only in recent times that church came to also mean your little local called out assembly to the exclusion of all other Christians. </font>[/QUOTE]You are not being honest with yourself. 8 out of 9 definitions of the word ekklesia define it as an assembly that must be assembled in one place. Only one definition, the definition that is second from the last (#8) is the one that you choose. We all know that definitions are listed in order of importance, with primary meanings listed first, and the more obscure and archaic meanings listed last. You choose the more obscure meaning of the word and insist on using it as the primary meaning. The other 8 definitions define it as assembly. What kind of sense is this?
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
You are not being honest with yourself. 8 out of 9 definitions of the word ekklesia define it as an assembly that must be assembled in one place. Only one definition, the definition that is second from the last (#8) is the one that you choose. We all know that definitions are listed in order of importance, with primary meanings listed first, and the more obscure and archaic meanings listed last. You choose the more obscure meaning of the word and insist on using it as the primary meaning. The other 8 definitions define it as assembly. What kind of sense is this?
DHK

I use the word as historic Christianity has used the word.

You and I and the Church are not ancient Greeks.

Prior to Christ, there was no Church on earth. That is why Jesus said He will build a Church.

The word took on a new meaning, which has been accepted and used by historic Christianity, once Jesus started His Church.

Do you deny the authority of Jesus to do this?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

I use the word as historic Christianity has used the word.

You and I and the Church are not ancient Greeks.

Prior to Christ, there was no Church on earth. That is why Jesus said He will build a Church.

The word took on a new meaning, which has been accepted and used by historic Christianity, once Jesus started His Church.

Do you deny the authority of Jesus to do this?

I can ask the same questions of you, perhaps a bit more bluntly.
No, you do not use the word as historic Christianity has used it; you use it as historic Catholicism has used it. That is heresy from the word go. It pays no attention to much of the Bible, nor Biblical meanings of words in the Bible.

No, we are not ancient Greeks. The Bible is preserved for us in Greek manuscripts as God intended it to be. It is not preserved in the Latin Vulgate, the Dhouay-Reims, the American Standard, the KVV, or in any other translation. It is preserved for us in the Greek. If you want to know the meaning of word or phrase you must go the Greek. Sorry, but that is the truth.

Jesus did not say "He will build a Church." He said: "I will build MY church." There is a difference. The Catholic Church does not belong to Him. It is not based on the Bible. It does not have Christ as its head. Every local Bible-believing church that has Christ as its head is what Christ had in mind. Just as Christ indwells every beliver, Christ is the head of every church that follows his teachings.

The word never took on a new meaning in the Bible, or in common Greek usage. It only took on this new meaning in the English language. It was part of the heresies of the Catholic Church that they introduced. Paul did not start denomoninations. He started independent local churches--over 100 of them on three different missionary journeys.
The word has never taken on a new meaning. You are trying to force a new meaning into it.
DHK