Healing

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

Who is this church in the wilderness and why was it translated such?

Ac 7:38 This is he, that was in the church 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

The word in the Greek simply means "assembly" and that is what they were. It is not meant to be understood as "The Church" as we know it. That was not Stephen's point. It was an assembly, a redeemed community called out of the wilderness. It is an unfortunate translation on the part of the English translators. Most likely an attempt to be uniform in their handling of Ekklesia.

It is important that we avoid the tendancy to read our concepts and our expression of the Christian faith all which exist within the framework of modern Christianity, into 1st Century. Our "Christianity" would bear almost no resemblance, at least from a cultural context to what Christianity was like in the 1st Century.

[BlindSeeker]

Shiloh,

Who is this church in the wilderness and why was it translated such?

Ac 7:38 This is he, that was in the church 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

The word in the Greek simply means "assembly" and that is what they were. It is not meant to be understood as "The Church" as we know it. That was not Stephen's point. It was an assembly, a redeemed community called out of the wilderness. It is an unfortunate translation on the part of the English translators. Most likely an attempt to be uniform in their handling of Ekklesia.

It is important that we avoid the tendancy to read our concepts and our expression of the Christian faith all which exist within the framework of modern Christianity, into 1st Century. Our "Christianity" would bear almost no resemblance, at least from a cultural context to what Christianity was like in the 1st Century.

So it is an incorrect translation? How about the other 114 other times the Greek word is used . . . should we trust them?

[Guest shiloh357]

So it is an incorrect translation? How about the other 114 other times the Greek word is used . . . should we trust them?

It's always on a case by case basis.

In the book of Acts, the Greek word "Paskha" is translated "Easter." Yet Paskha is the Greek word for Passover and answers to its Hebrew equivalent, "Pesakh." Easter is the wrong translation as Easter has absolutely nothing to do with Passover. One is a pagan fertility holiday and the other is a Festival of the Lord.

Word usage and the intent of the author should be the overriding issues we concern ourselves with in dealing with the text of Scripture.

[BlindSeeker]

So it is an incorrect translation? How about the other 114 other times the Greek word is used . . . should we trust them?

It's always on a case by case basis.

In the book of Acts, the Greek word "Paskha" is translated "Easter." Yet Paskha is the Greek word for Passover and answers to its Hebrew equivalent, "Pesakh." Easter is the wrong translation as Easter has absolutely nothing to do with Passover. One is a pagan fertility holiday and the other is a Festival of the Lord.

Word usage and the intent of the author should be the overriding issues we concern ourselves with in dealing with the text of Scripture.

So . . . are you saying it is an incorrect translation?

[Guest shiloh357]

So it is an incorrect translation? How about the other 114 other times the Greek word is used . . . should we trust them?

It's always on a case by case basis.

In the book of Acts, the Greek word "Paskha" is translated "Easter." Yet Paskha is the Greek word for Passover and answers to its Hebrew equivalent, "Pesakh." Easter is the wrong translation as Easter has absolutely nothing to do with Passover. One is a pagan fertility holiday and the other is a Festival of the Lord.

Word usage and the intent of the author should be the overriding issues we concern ourselves with in dealing with the text of Scripture.

So . . . are you saying it is an incorrect translation?

Not so much "incorrect," but those who simply stop at a face-value approach will draw wrong conclusions. Word usage determines what a word means in a given passage. The face value reader could potentially read our modern concept of "church" into the passage when such a concept is actually foreign to both Stephen and Luke, the human author of Acts.

This is how it reads in the NIV:

He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us. (Acts 7:38)

Also the English Standard Version:

This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.

(Acts 7:38)

Another place where Greek scholars admit that the better English word would be "congregation" or "assembly" is in Hebrews 2:12, as that gives a better sense of what the author was thinking.

[BlindSeeker]

Not so much "incorrect," but those who simply stop at a face-value approach will draw wrong conclusions. Word usage determines what a word means in a given passage. The face value reader could potentially read our modern concept of "church" into the passage when such a concept is actually foreign to both Stephen and Luke, the human author of Acts.

This is how it reads in the NIV:

He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us. (Acts 7:38)

Also the English Standard Version:

This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.

(Acts 7:38)

Another place where Greek scholars admit that the better English word would be "congregation" or "assembly" is in Hebrews 2:12, as that gives a better sense of what the author was thinking.

Shiloh,

How would you explain the biblical concept of the church . . . ignoring any modern concept tainted by tradition of men.

Also, here is a link to the online International Standard Bible Encyclopedia regarding the "church" for everyone's consideration.

[Guest shiloh357]

How would you explain the biblical concept of the church . . . ignoring any modern concept tainted by tradition of men.

Well for starters, the biblical concept of the church would be absent the word "church" as it has no basis in either Greek or Hebrew.

Jesus said "upon this rock I will build, 'Kehilati'" (my congregation). We are part of His congregation.

I use "Church" simply because it is a normal mode of communication and I don't like have to explain and reexplain myself over and over.

One important biblical concept is that the Church is a redeemed community that has as its common denominator a living and and dynamic faith in a living redeemer, Jesus Christ. I am sure I could come up with a more exhaustive definition if I had the time to.

[Guest shiloh357]

So it is an incorrect translation? How about the other 114 other times the Greek word is used . . . should we trust them?

It's always on a case by case basis.

In the book of Acts, the Greek word "Paskha" is translated "Easter." Yet Paskha is the Greek word for Passover and answers to its Hebrew equivalent, "Pesakh." Easter is the wrong translation as Easter has absolutely nothing to do with Passover. One is a pagan fertility holiday and the other is a Festival of the Lord.

Word usage and the intent of the author should be the overriding issues we concern ourselves with in dealing with the text of Scripture.

So . . . are you saying it is an incorrect translation?

Anytime he disagrees with scripture it is because the scripture is incorrect not because he might be.

So are you going to follow me around from thread to thread???

[BlindSeeker]

How would you explain the biblical concept of the church . . . ignoring any modern concept tainted by tradition of men.

Well for starters, the biblical concept of the church would be absent the word "church" as it has no basis in either Greek or Hebrew.

Jesus said "upon this rock I will build, 'Kehilati'" (my congregation). We are part of His congregation.

I use "Church" simply because it is a normal mode of communication and I don't like have to explain and reexplain myself over and over.

One important biblical concept is that the Church is a redeemed community that has as its common denominator a living and and dynamic faith in a living redeemer, Jesus Christ. I am sure I could come up with a more exhaustive definition if I had the time to.

Shiloh,

I am not trying to get you to do meaningless exercises, I am truly looking to understand your position. I know we have had some difficulties communicating in the past, but I am sincere in my discourse here.

IF the biblical concept of the Church is that we are "part of His congregation," would not Israel and the patriarchs before her be "part of His congregation?"

Also, Was not Israel redeemed?

Ex 6:6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:

De 21:8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

2Sa 7:23 And what one nation in the earth is like Thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to Himself, and to make Him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for Thy land, before HThy people, which Thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

1Ch 17:21 And what one nation in the earth is like Thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be His own people, to make Thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?

Ps 25:22 Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles.

Ps 130:8 And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Ne 1:10 Now these are Thy servants and thy people, whom thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by thy strong hand.

Isa 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine.

Isa 44:23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified Himself in Israel.

[Guest shiloh357]

IF the biblical concept of the Church is that we are "part of His congregation," would not Israel and the patriarchs before her be "part of His congregation?"

No. If that were the case, then the church would simply be a continuation of Israel, which is not what the New Testament teaches. Jesus' "Church" or "congregation" is a distinct entity within Israel. It is not separate from Israel, nor does it replace Israel. It is most certainly not a continuation of Israel.

Jesus said, "upon this rock I will (future tense) build my church. Jesus did not say, "upon this rock I have built my church." He did not say, "upon this rock I am building my church." So, from the vantage point of that specific event in time when Jesus made this declaration, the church was still something in the future yet to come onto the world's stage.

Also, Was not Israel redeemed?

Yes, but Israel at that time was redeemed was from natural circumstances, such as slavry, oppression not from sin. The one verse you cite above that refers to Israel being redeemed from her iniquities is future tense looking to coming of the Messiah.

What we have unique to anything Israel had prior.