David Miller wrote: >> Have you ever considered that the word "church" >> as you use it here is not in the Bible? The Greek >> word "ekklesia" which is often translated as "church" >> simply means congregation or assembly. When >> Jesus said he would build his "church," he did not >> use the more ecclesiastical word "synagoge,"
DAVEH: > How do you define "synagoge"? I must have hit the wrong key there. The word should be "sunagoge." This is either a religious assembly, or the place where the religious assemble. It is much closer to our English word "church." James uses this word to speak of the Christian assembly in James 2:2, and it is translated congregation in Acts 13:43. In most place it refers to what we call in English a Jewish synagogue. DAVEH: > Is there another (perhaps better) term than "synagoge"? > My thinking on "synagoge" doesn't seem right to me, but > I really don't have a good understanding of how it should > be defined. So.....I'll wait for your definition to see how it > fits the LDS perspective. If your perception of the church is something institutional to replace the Jewish synagogue, then I think "sunagoge" would be the correct word. The word "ekklesia" was used in secular speech, especially with regard to Greek political assemblies. Other words would be less definite and more like our words crowd, throng, multitude, etc. David Miller wrote: >> Jesus never pitted HIS TRUE synagogue >> against the Jewish synagogue. DAVEH wrote: > I probably shouldn't comment without understanding "synagoge" > a bit better. But as I see it, the "True Church" is represented > by the priesthood authority. Without the proper authority (priesthood) > of God, you can't have a "True Church". And I think in that sense, > Jesus did pit "HIS TRUE synagogue against the Jewish synagogue". Your thinking is identical to how Roman Catholicism developed. They came up with the idea of "apostolic succession" and denied the priesthood of all believers, as taught by Jesus Christ. Joe Smith likewise denied this teaching of Christ and instead favored an ecclesiology that would give him more power and authority with the people by establishing himself as their head prophet and seer. I think that history has proven that God does not work through established institutions of religion, at least not in the sense that they are "HIS" church with the proper authority to act in his behalf. Rather, they are like the Pharisees, that sat in Moses seat. Jesus said to hear what they say and teach, but do not do as they do. In like manner, we can hear what institutional Christianity teaches, but we should beware of the leaven of the clergy. They bring all power and authority unto themselves, but Jesus teaches that we are all brothers, priests unto him. DaveH wrote: > From my perspective, there are many 'churches', but > there is only one "True Church" that is recognized by > God as having the proper authority to act in his name. > That is why Jesus spoke as he did in Mt 7:21-23. Authority is not the reason mentioned in Mat. 7. The reason mentioned for their rejection is that they worked iniquity. They never knew Jesus, for had they known him, they would not have worked iniquity. DaveH wrote: >> Rather, he built a congregation up within the >> Jewish synagogue, around the Jewish synagogue, >> beside the Jewish synagogue, and in spite of the Jewish >> synagogue. Even today, the congregation of Jesus Christ >> is established within Christian churches, around Christian >> churches, beside Christian churches, and in spite of >> Christian churches. If you are looking for the "TRUE >> CHURCH," or if you think you have already found the >> "TRUE CHURCH," then you are going to miss recognizing >> the congregation of Jesus Christ. DAVEH: > I respectfully disagree. When one finds the proper authority > to act in the name of the Lord, one will find the "True Church". > That's how I believe. I have the proper authority to act in the name of the Lord. Yet you do not believe that I am part of the "True Church." It appears to me that there is more to your belief than what you are admitting to yourself. Is it possible that you simply start with the premise that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? Have you ever questioned this premise? Have you ever seriously considered that he might have been a false prophet? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
