A good church is hard to find.... - Worthy Christian Forums

There has been much confusion caused by the word "church" where it appears in scripture. Why? Because it doesn't actually appear in the scriptures!
The word "church" is an addition of translation which implies something that wasn't actually in the original language or in the original assemblies. In other words, if you read the word "church" to be "a specifically christian institution separate from Israel" then you have been influenced by a theological device and don't have an accurate interpretation. This might seem like a nit-picking detail at first but once you are aware of it, there comes a revelation that breaks down denominational and cultural barriers put between the saints artificially through the use of a theological device. In other words, we have become a people separated by "a" church
This might be my longest post ever...but it's full of info worth a discussion so hop in!
========================================================================

*Copernicus Syndrome - reflects a circumstance where all the world “knew” without any question- because it was so obvious to anyone and everyone, that the universe revolved around the earth. In other words, the “earth” was at the center (we can relate this readily to humanity and vanity) and the sun, moon, and stars revolved around us. However, there were numerous difficulties with what people saw in the skies that created overwhelming difficulties with the “known” truth that the earth was at the center. Many realized that what they saw made the supposition of the earth being the center impossible, but no one could, or would, take a stand against the “obvious” truth of the day. The Roman Church perpetuated the myth by declaring it so, thus to even think the earth was not the center was heresy.
Yet, the earth is not the center of the solar system, nor the universe. We have no idea where the center of the universe is, and we factually are now aware that the Sun is at the “center” of the solar system. We factually know that the stars do not revolve around the planet earth. It was not until Copernicus, that the truth that was error began to be undone.
Similarly, because we all know that the “church” is what it is, it surely cannot be something different than what we have been taught, or something different than what the “establishment” of today (which includes “our” ‘true’ church’s teaching) teaches it is? (This is neither rhetorical nor interrogative, but thought provoking sarcasm) The point being- that anything read, seen, or heard is viewed from a perspective that it must fit into our present understanding- that we are at the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. Thus, our filter will alter what we hear or read by how we already “know” it must be. Unfortunately, that approach seldom works, but it is also seldom realized, and as a result, many continue blithely with their beliefs, certain that they are right and that they are “in” the true church, and that those others and other churches are less fortunate, after all, we must be right, simply look up to the sky and we can see it so plainly- the sun revolves around us!
======================================================================

From Dan Gruber's book: "Copernicus and the Jews - The Separation of Church and Faith"

The vast majority of Theologians, virtually without exception, do not realize, nor even consider, that the Messianic writings (New Testament) were written in a “Jewish” Greek, similar or even identical to the Greek found in the Septuagint, where many words were created by the Jews in Greek for the purpose of sustaining a Hebrew idiom that would be lost in the Classic or Koine Greek, while at other times the Greek words were used with normal Greek meanings. This point cannot be overstated.

Without this understanding, one will always assume that the apparent Greek word will always carry with it a meaning peculiar to Greek, when in fact, many words were actually coined by the Jews, who literally created new Greek words based solely on a Hebrew usage and meaning particularly not peculiar to the Greeks of that day. They, the Greeks, would have no comprehension at all of what the new "Greek” word meant, or even what it was, or why or how it came to be. In a number of cases, a normal Greek word was used, but by comparing it to the Septuagint, which is then compared to the Tanakh, we can readily see that it, too, is Jewish-Greek because the meaning will reflect a purely Hebrew or Jewish usage and meaning. Thus, the writings of what is commonly known as the New Testament can only be fully understood from the perspective of the Jewish culture of the day and the Hebrew meanings behind these new “Jewish Greek” words.

The HEBREW words used for the COMMUNITY of Israel are almost always ---
EDAH and KAHAL – translated: Congregation, Assembly, meeting, gathering, community, group


Prov 5:14 both Kahal and Edah used in same sentence
Proverbs 5:14 I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation6951 and assembly.5712
Kahal 6951 Edah 5712


The Septuagint translated the Hebrew word Kahal as Ekklesia and the Hebrew word Edah= as Sunagoge. Edah is almost always translated as Sunagoge.
Guess what word we get the English word Synagogue from? Yes Sunagoge!
However, let’s remember that words change meanings over time. What did (the word) GAY mean to my dad? (Compared to what it might mean to the average person of today.) “Disk” to a farmer is not the same thing as it is to a computer expert. In the first century SUNAGOGE did not mean a Jewish religious meeting place! It was just a common word for a GATHERING.

Gen 1:9 Let the waters of heaven be GATHERED …..
EDAH=Hebrew SUNAGOGE= Greek in the Septuagint.


Exodus 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation5712 of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
KAHAL in the TANAKH is a: COMMUNITY, AN ASSEMBLY OR AN ASSOCIATION OF DIFFERENT COMMUITIES.


GEN49:5 ¶ Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.
6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly6951, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
NUM19:20 Cut off from the CONGREGATION….KAHAL=Hebrew


Numbers 19:20
20 But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation6951, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.
In the Septuagint KAHAL is translated alternately to both Greek words. SUGAGOGE AND EKKLESIA and the word simply means: MEETING, GATHERING, COMMUNITY OR ASSEMBLY. NEITHER WORD, IN ITSELF, CONTAINED ANY RELIGIOUS MEANING OR CONNOTATION- IT WAS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY SPECIFIC GROUP.

In standard Greek EKKLESIA is simply an ASSEMBLY…..PERIOD. The Classic Greek used the word as: AN ASSEMBLY CALLED OUT BY THE MAGISTRATE OR LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY.

In JEWISH/GREEK the word EKKLESIA did not signify an institution.

EZRA 10:8 And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away.

Today- EKKLESIA is translated as CHURCH. The word “Church was not the first century definition, nor a “Christian” word. At the time of the Septuagint nothing christian existed yet EKKLESIA was everywhere in the GREEK world. They all had their meeting places.- Remember, in the SEPTUAGINT- at its writing, neither Sunagoge or Ekklesia, by itself, had any religious meaning at all. This same NON-RELIGIOUS usage was carried over to the messianic writings (aka the New Testament).



Gathering together (SUNAGOGON) 4863 sunago: Collect, gather, accompany, assemble, come together.

Matthew 2:4
4 And when he had gathered 4863 all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
MATT 13:47 Gathered (Sunagogouse) all kind of fish.
Matthew 13:47
47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered4863 of every kind:
Sunagoge is used over 50 times in the Messianic writings and always means: meeting, assembly, or meeting place.


What about: “The Synagogue of the Jews”? The Expression “Synagogue of the Jews” What else could it mean? Isn’t Synagogue automatically Jewish? NO- Not in the first century usage of the word. It just meant a meeting place.

ACTS 17:10 Luke just tells us what kind (whose) of a synagogue it was.

Acts 17:10 ¶ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue4864 of the Jews.
LUKE 21:12 Deliver you up to the SYNAGOGUES (Sunagogai)

This verse (and Rev 3:20) are simply saying a gathering of people and not speaking exclusively about jewish religious services as is implied by the way it is translated into english. SUNAGOGAI does not mean Jewish at all. The ROMANS established Sunagogai for their own purposes, and it was Roman, or non-Jewish, gatherings or meetings, that Jesus warning referred to.

REMEMBER: HEBREW “KAHAL”= GREEK “EKKLESIA” in the messianic writings.
The word is used 100 of times and means meeting or assembly. It has no religious connotation, neither Jewish nor Christian.



Ps 22:22 Congregation=Kahal=Ekklesia
Psalms 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation 6951 will I praise thee.
Hebrews 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church 1577 will I sing praise unto thee.

But what about Strong’s Lexicon? Ekklesia, #1577= calling out, a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation, (Jewish Synagogue or a Christian community of members on earth or Saints in heaven or both) assembly, church. 116 times, 77=church 36=churches 3=assembly
Heb 2:12 in the King James Ekklesia is CHURCH


Acts 7:38
38 This is he, that was in the church 1577 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: He (Moses) was in the Ekklesia in the desert (Kahal=church)

Peter was not speaking Greek, he did not use the word Ekklesia but Kahal (Assembly) Why was the word translated CHURCH? Stephen and Moses knew nothing of a “church”.




Matthew 16:16-18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church 1577; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I will build my EKKLESIA (CHURCH)? NO, only 2 possible words could have been used since Jesus didn't speak greek, He said either KAHAL or EDAH. GOD’s Kahal or EDAH, is HIS congregation, HIS assembly is what? ISRAEL, and not just JUDAH, but- all Israel. Yeshua (Jesus) came to fulfill God’s promise, not annul it. God had promised to make ISRAEL HIS Community-Kahal-ekklesia of nations. It’s what the promises are all about.




Matthew 18:15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church 1577: but if he neglect to hear the church1577, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Tell it unto the CHURCH—Kahal- Ekklesia… From what we have been learning, does this make sense? There was NO church at the time Messiah spoke these words. Not even a concept of A or THE Church. Yeshua spoke Hebrew. There was not even a word in the language that meant church. There was no such thing as a church in the Greek world. To be treated as a gentile, meant that you had no standing in Israel, you were treated as an outcast. So the instruction is, if he would not listen- treat him as an outcast of Israel.
The new English Bible and the Jerusalem bible use Community not church. The Disciples knew exactly what God meant by the Kahal of Israel. That is exactly what much of the entire BIBLE was pointing to. There was no new religious institution being established. The Father had promised that the Gentiles would be restored to him by including them in the Commonwealth of Israel. The EKKLESIA of Israel


Acts 19:32
32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly 1577 was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.

Ekklesia does not have a religious meaning, just an assembly.




James 5:14
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church 1577; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Call for the Elders of the Ekklesia = assembly or congregation. There is no connection, nor implication to any “body” or organization, or denomination, or sect, or even religion in this verse. The use of “elder” does not even refer to an “office”, but simply to the “older” responsible persons in the community. As an aside, when Paul instructed Timothy to “ordain” elders in the “churches”, it did not mean to “ordain” men to the “rank” or office of “elder”, but simply to have elder men take on responsibilities of service to, and in, their own local community, and they were selected by voting in each respective community. The word “elder” meant to these believers in Christ precisely what it meant to these same believers in Christ before they became believers in Christ- older people. The word Ekklesia did not take on the meaning of church until centuries later.




William Tyndale translated the new testament in 1525. Ekklesia was translated COMMUNITY. No “church” is in his translation. The “Church” had him burned at the stake for his good work. Some say 90% of the King James bible came from the works of Tyndale.

But what about Ekklesia? There were rules given to the translators by the King Of England. Rule #3 “The old ‘Ecclesiastical’ words were to be kept. The word Church— was not to be translated Congregation.” The Church of England and The King of England-The head of the “church,” needed the word church in the bible even though it was not there. May we assume the reason for this is readily apparent?

The Puritan’s translated the word as congregation. Luther’s German bible 1535 translated it as community - Not church. The Geneva bible was the first English bible to use the word “Church” in 1560.

Is it possible that the word CHURCH could distort your view. If you think not then, just for fun, put the word MOSQUE EVERYWHERE YOU CURRENTLY READ THE WORD CHURCH. JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

If there is no CHURCH, Then there is no Church Age, NO True Church, NO Church RANK. AND IF THERE IS NO CHURCH, Then Jesus the Christ (Yeshua) IS NOT BUILDING A BODY CALLED THE CHURCH, but something else.
Yeshua is building a commonwealth of Israel, which God promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets of old. The Scriptures speak of the Body of Messiah, and they speak of the commonwealth of Israel, but they do not speak of a separate CHURCH. .


Jeremiah 31:31-34
(31) Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, (32) not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah). (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (34) And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.
================================================================


Addendum: A commentary
While many there be who arrive at the above understanding through whatever route their journey has taken, many others will read this article, or even the book, which is very explicit, and come away thinking nothing is different. This, in large part, or totally, has to do with the natural “filter” through which new information is always and without exception, viewed- The Copernicus Syndrome!* Thus, the mind will only allow an individual who has been up until now operating in the traditional “church” mindset, at least on the first glance or reading, to automatically categorize the various points, especially those concerning the use of ekklesia and its relationship to the Hebrew words and their usage- as well as the demonstrated connection of the Hebrew and Greek through the Septuagint, would immediately put forth the argument that the word Church, congregation, assembly, are all one and the same. Therefore, we can indeed be the “True Church”, whomever we are (Church of Christ, Church of God, Baptist’s, etc.), and the ekklesia of Israel can be physical Israel, and the four books of what we call the “gospel” uses and appearances of ekklesia can still be the true, uh, oh, hmmm, ah, well, actually they cannot be “the church”, can they?! (rhetorical, not interrogative)

Hmmm, that’s right, the “I will build my ‘church’” can’t refer to the “church” that did not even exist yet. Likewise, the “if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican”, also cannot possibly be a reference or instruction to a non-existent “church”. But surely the 7 “churches” of Revelation 2 & 3 are to the true “church”? Well, they are to the ekklesia, true enough, but there is no biblical, nor logical reason that creates an ekklesia any different than the one in Matthew, which already existed long before Pentecost 30, 31, 33, or whenever AD.

I've always understood "church" to mean the body of Christ. When I think church I think congregation and not the building they are in. I'm not sure what word would be best in describing the building in which prayer services are held. A hall? No. Compound?

and as long as you understand that it is an extension of Israel....and isn't a body (or Bride) separate from Israel, superceding Israel, or replacing Israel you have a correct concept. We, the nations, have a distinction within the kahal or ecclessia, or whatever you want to call it....but we are a sub-set part grafted into the natural olive tree, Israel, joined to a subset part of them, the faithful remnant of Israel who have not been broken off. Even though many of the natural branches have been broken off, they can (and will) be grafted back in at some time to their own tree.

The point is this:

The concept of a specifically "christian church" being separate from Israel isn't in the original culture or language. Yet it became that post-biblically. God is sovereign but I don't believe this was accomplished according to His will. Now the natural branches are being restored in front of our eyes...and the land is doing exactly what the Prophets said...yet who knows it in the "separated from Israel" church?







I wanted to post a thread on this for reference in other future discussions...

i understand you want to use this as reference for future discussions yet it surely pertains to past discussions as well. i understand your problem with separation theology. i have a problem with it as well. but i also have a problem with anything that promotes divisiveness in the body of Christ, i.e. the church.

your point about words is well-taken, as far as what gay used to mean and the disk to a farmer or a programmer. same with the word church. if it didn't use to exist, i guess it sure does now.

What Fun!

Church!

Revelation 21:1-7

Ain't She Betty!

Revelation 21:22-27

Thanks Yod

#1. draw a picture of 2 circles side by side...

make one of them very large and the other quite small but put a lot of space between them


#2. draw another picture with that same small circle inside the big circle.

I'll wait while you do that......




===================================



What you have in picture #1 is what is being taught to christians and in seminaries since the 3rd century. This is the concept of the church that most of have been given. The small circle is Israel and we are completely superior and outside of it

This is the theological view

==========


What you have in picture #2 is what Paul taught. Israel is the large circle and the faithful remnant of Israel is the small circle. Where are the gentiles? We are in that small circle with the faithful remnant of Israel and at "the end of days" it will burst through the large circle until there is only one circle left.

This is the biblical definition of "kahal" (assembly) which has been perverted by devices of language and theology




In the big picture, we have been joined to something the Lord began long before the day of Pentecost. We have come into a work He began since the foundations of time. He has given us the future in the end of the book. All Israel will be saved and people of every tribe, tongue, and nation will be joined to that. We are One with distinctions even as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one yet distinct

Very interesting and thought provoking!!

Interesting, and I will address the more specific points when I come back from CHURCH, but two things jumped out at me....

The first is this statement....The vast majority of Theologians, virtually without exception, do not realize, nor even consider,

my first thought is "Yea, ok, sure and somehow you got it right, while all those others, without exception got it wrong." Everything that is said after these words is looked at with suspicion by me because of them. Too many times people have said "I have it right and everyone else has it wrong" only to be the ones that have it wrong. I don’t know for sure if this is the case, but this is not a good way to start off something when you are trying to get a new view across.

The last thing is his closing statement about The Copernicus Syndrome, this is a win/win situation for this guy. Either you take what he says as the gospel (forgive the pun) or you are closed minded and suffering from The Copernicus Syndrome. I hate to tell this guy, but there is another alternative, he might be the one that is wrong.

all very fair assessments! Yet weren't the vast majority of scientists wrong about the shape of the earth in Copernicus' day? It's not impossible that one man can be right and everyone else wrong. It happens quite often actually.

It is also true that the vast majority of theologians throughout european history were not jewish, didn't think hebraicly, rejected Old Testament, were reading latin translations of greek translation of people who spoke hebrew/aramaic, and a verrrrrry large percentage of them were anti-semitic according to their own writings. Do you see that there might be some problem with interpreting the hebrew scriptures if that is so?

So....now that we know you are suspicious and have opinions about the author...why don't you address the substance instead of making an easy accusation?



I met the author of the book and spent 3 hours "debating" with him when I first heard this. After this time, he told me that there are so many details of history that need to laid down as a foundation for understanding and explaining 2,000 years of history that it was hard to do in a conversational dialogue and gave me his book.

I read it to about page 80 before I had to admit that he was right on almost everything I had argued against. I certainly didn't want to just accept what he said; just as you are also being skeptical. It's a good thing to be skeptical only if you willing to be honest once a matter is investigated.

And I challenge you to investigate this completely before implying that he wrong again.



I have investigated it thoroughly and found that I was the one who was wrong and this man is speaking the truth about where the concept of a christian religious institution was separated from Israel, not by God, but rather by theological devices from men who were prejudiced against the jews.

The word "church" is a Teutonic word and has no connection with the word "ekklesia" in Greek, which refers to those who are "called out," or the Hebrew word "Kehilah" which means "congregation."

The word church come from a word still in use in some parts of Europe. It is the word "kirke" (prounced like "Kirk" in Star Trek). It means "circle" and was in Druidic times in England and Ireland, a reference to the worship of the sun on the first day of every week. The Druids would stand in a circle (kirke) and worship the sun by imitating the circle of the sun and chanting and so forth.

In some parts of northern Europe like Norway, there are cathedrals and chapels that will bear signs that say "Haf kirke" which simply means it is the "only church" in that town.

In New Testament times, the first believers were Jews. "Christianity" was originally a Jewish sect within Israel. The concept we have a of "church" separate from Israel is, as Yod pointed out, a post biblical concept.

That is why there tends to be varying understandings of the Olive Tree metaphor put forth by Paul in Romans 11. Our current arrangement did not exist in Paul's day. Christianity was a Jewish sect and Gentiles were being grafted into Israel by joining the congregation of Yeshua/Jesus.