Restoration of the Church

[~Shalhevet~]

So "Israel" does not mean "us", correct? Just trying to get a better understanding.

It doesn't mean "us" (the church) but it does INCLUDE "us" (the nations joined to Israel through the remnant)

Ephesians 2:11-17

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Rick-Parker]

I think I'll stick with the King James Version. And I don't take "church" in the strictest sense of the word. "Community," "gathering" and/or "congregation" are easily interchanged with "church." After all, the "Church" is a community of Christians, and a gathering of Christians, and a congregation of Christians. It has nothing to do with Catholicism, as you claim. Statements like that, IMO, are what divide the "Church."

It has eveything to do with Catholicism. Beginning in the 4rd century, "the church" found anything to do with Jews and Israel so distatsteful that they set about expunging anything to do with Israel from 'the church.' At that point, 'the church' was seperated from it's Jewish roots and heritage, but it didn't start out that way. From this period we get an allegorical translation of scripture that means you can interpret the Bible in ways that will make it say anything you want. We get replacement theology beginning in this period. We get anti-semitism. We ge the beginnings of preterism. Most deeply-ingrained errors in doctrine and theology can be traced to this period and the beginning of the Catholic church. Sorry, but those are historical facts.

That may be. I'll take your word for it and the Catholic church, but the words you choose to trade for the word "church" doesn't change the fact that Paul was sent by Christ to build a gentile church because the Jews rejected their Messiah (I'm not talking replacement theory here as I reject that.)

Choose error if you'd like.

The division came a long time ago by way of translation. All I want is the pure Word.

What error am I choosing? Where do you find the "true word" that discredits the KJV?

We seem to have hijacked this thread, so I won't reply further on this matter.

[Guest shiloh357]

The word "church" comes from an old gaelic/teutonic term, "kirke" and means "circle." It is still used in parts of Europe today. The ancient Druids would stand in a circle to worship the sun, which is of course shaped like a circle.

The word "church" has no connection etymologically with the Bible. It is not a translation of the word Ekklesia or the Hebrew word "Kehilah." The first congregations established by Paul would have had more in common with the synagogues than with what we call "churches" today.

but the words you choose to trade for the word "church" doesn't change the fact that Paul was sent by Christ to build a gentile church because the Jews rejected their Messiah (I'm not talking replacement theory here as I reject that.)

The problem is that not a fact at all. Paul was sent to the Gentiles, but not to start a Gentile church. There really is no such thing, from a biblical standpoint.

We really fail to understand that the apostles had no frame of reference for what we experience today. They saw the Gentiles as being included in the covenants with Israel. They did not picture a scenario where Israel is on one side and something called "the Church" is on the other.

One of the reasons that Paul's olive tree metaphor has been so hard for people to understand is that we are trying to interpret it within a frame of reference that did not exist at that time. There was no separate instutution called "the church" in Paul's day. Paul taught that Gentiles are included by faith as the spiritual seed of Abraham in the blessings of the covenants.

It was the Gentiles who cut themselves off from Israel and declared themselves to be "the church." For over 17,00 years people have been trying to interpret the Bible through that lense and it has made a mess of things, theologically.

[Guest yod]

What error am I choosing? Where do you find the "true word" that discredits the KJV?

The bible was not written in English. It wasn't written in Latin or originally spoken in Greek for that matter. None of those are as accurate as the original language would be.

2/3 of the bible is in hebrew and the last 1/3 of it is a translation of the original language into a form of greek and done by jewish men who were trying to find greek words they could interject new meaning into. For example: Which Greek god had unconditional (agape) love? What was the greek word for "anointing" since this wasn't a greek concept or practise? What is the greek word for Messiah?

The point is that there are hundreds of words in every language that don't have an equivalent translation into another language. So there will always be some small distortion no matter what language you translate from or into whenever it has as many words as the Bible has. However, in this case we're talking about word that did have an equivalent but the translators chose to use another word altogether. They chose a word that has an implied meaning (specifically christian religious institution separate from Israel) which is not intended by the speakers, writers, and audience in the original language when they translate these words as "church". Again...all I'm asking for is accuracy in translation so we can determine the exact message/intent of the One speaking.

You can get the overall gist of a story translated from another language but projecting one's own culture over the details will always color the way you would perceive it. For example: The famous painting of "The Last Supper" has billowy loaves of bread on a table with men who all look European....except for the evil Judas Iscariot, holding the money bag.

While it is accurate that there were people at His last Passover, they would have resembled jews and using unleavened bread while sitting at something resembling a triclinium, rather than a horizontal table with chairs. Again, the point is that you can understand the gist of what happened at Passover but the details have painted a different picture.

[nebula]

That may be. I'll take your word for it and the Catholic church, but the words you choose to trade for the word "church" doesn't change the fact that Paul was sent by Christ to build a gentile church because the Jews rejected their Messiah (I'm not talking replacement theory here as I reject that.)

Parker, by what Scripture do you make this claim?

Consider:

Ephesians 2:

11 Wherefore remember , that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Where do you get that Paul was sent "to build a Gentile church"? This is not what Paul is claiming of the Christians he wrote to.

[Rick-Parker]

What error am I choosing? Where do you find the "true word" that discredits the KJV?

The bible was not written in English. It wasn't written in Latin or originally spoken in Greek for that matter. None of those are as accurate as the original language would be.

2/3 of the bible is in hebrew and the last 1/3 of it is a translation of the original language into a form of greek and done by jewish men who were trying to find greek words they could interject new meaning into. For example: Which Greek god had unconditional (agape) love? What was the greek word for "anointing" since this wasn't a greek concept or practise? What is the greek word for Messiah?

The point is that there are hundreds of words in every language that don't have an equivalent translation into another language. So there will always be some small distortion no matter what language you translate from or into whenever it has as many words as the Bible has. However, in this case we're talking about word that did have an equivalent but the translators chose to use another word altogether. They chose a word that has an implied meaning (specifically christian religious institution separate from Israel) which is not intended by the speakers, writers, and audience in the original language when they translate these words as "church". Again...all I'm asking for is accuracy in translation so we can determine the exact message/intent of the One speaking.

You can get the overall gist of a story translated from another language but projecting one's own culture over the details will always color the way you would perceive it. For example: The famous painting of "The Last Supper" has billowy loaves of bread on a table with men who all look European....except for the evil Judas Iscariot, holding the money bag.

While it is accurate that there were people at His last Passover, they would have resembled jews and using unleavened bread while sitting at something resembling a triclinium, rather than a horizontal table with chairs. Again, the point is that you can understand the gist of what happened at Passover but the details have painted a different picture.

So where is my "error"? We're talking about doctrine of which I am being accused of being in error.

That may be. I'll take your word for it and the Catholic church, but the words you choose to trade for the word "church" doesn't change the fact that Paul was sent by Christ to build a gentile church because the Jews rejected their Messiah (I'm not talking replacement theory here as I reject that.)

Parker, by what Scripture do you make this claim?

Consider:

Ephesians 2:

11 Wherefore remember , that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Where do you get that Paul was sent "to build a Gentile church"? This is not what Paul is claiming of the Christians he wrote to.

The New Testament.

[nebula]

Where do you get that Paul was sent "to build a Gentile church"? This is not what Paul is claiming of the Christians he wrote to.

The New Testament.

Parker!!!!!!!

Please quote where in the New Testament Paul states this, or someone else states this?

I posted one verse to present my case.

Where is yours?

[Rick-Parker]

Where do you get that Paul was sent "to build a Gentile church"? This is not what Paul is claiming of the Christians he wrote to.

The New Testament.

Parker!!!!!!!

Please quote where in the New Testament Paul states this, or someone else states this?

I posted one verse to present my case.

Where is yours?

Acts 26:13-17 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.

Good enough for you?

[Rick-Parker]

And Romans 15:15-16 "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."

And 1 Timothy 2:5-7 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity."

Or how about 2 Timothy 1:11 "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

Do you need some more?

edit: And just because you will quibble about the words I used "to build the gentile "church" I could have used community, following, gathering or some other word. The word church is only semantics, the idea is that Paul's ministry was for the Gentiles.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Parker1

[nebula]

Thank-you!

OK -

edit: And just because you will quibble about the words I used "to build the gentile "church" I could have used community, following, gathering or some other word. The word church is only semantics, the idea is that Paul's ministry was for the Gentiles.

Yes indeed Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles.

The question is what he was building them into - a separate building than the one started in Israel, or the same?