Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with the Ephesians reference is that some people think that the different callings and/or ministries have to be organized into a political structure instead of just operating as occasion offers. and regardless of whether Jesus used a specific word or not, THAT word said NOTHING of a structure, but of membership. Assigning a meaning that evolved within that membership to the original term is an error.
A better reference would be 1 Cor 14 in which a meeting is described as obviously random contributions by all of the members. No kind of "liturgy" is indicated whatsoever.
I accept that I seem to be talking down to people since so many people say so and for the record, I AM a kind old grandfather.
Yeah, but I'm not a six-year-old.
Quote:
The problem is in the phrase "believe IN" Jesus because it includes a bunch of beliefs ABOUT Him that are necessary to qualify for membership in a Church which is irrelevant to being a follower of Christ.
Have I ever once implied that membership in a church is a prerequisite to being a follower of Christ? Nope. Not once in the 11,000+ posts I've made on the Religion-Spirituality/Christianity forums.
The problem with the Ephesians reference is that some people think that the different callings and/or ministries have to be organized into a political structure instead of just operating as occasion offers. and regardless of whether Jesus used a specific word or not, THAT word said NOTHING of a structure, but of membership. Assigning a meaning that evolved within that membership to the original term is an error.
A better reference would be 1 Cor 14 in which a meeting is described as obviously random contributions by all of the members. No kind of "liturgy" is indicated whatsoever.
Hmmm. Well, I disagree. I do believe in the necessity of the integral involvement of all of the members, which is why I am comfortable with the idea of a lay clergy as it exists in my church and contributions of virtually everyone in the congregation who wishes to be involved. I don't believe Jesus ever intended that congregations of His followers have no structure, though or that there was no organizational hierarchy of any kind. Jesus Apostles obviously held a position of authority over the bishops they ordained, for instance, which is how I believe He wanted His Church to function -- so that the integrity of the doctrines He'd taught would be more likely to remain intact, for one thing. I'm afraid I just can't buy into the idea of a free-for-all, completely unstructured means of worship. I also believe that it didn't take long for the structure He intended to exist to fall apart. As to what He meant by "I will build my Church," though, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
As a Jew, if Jesus meant to establish what He knew as a "church" He would have used synagōgē NOT ekklēsia . I know how and why we differ on this issue, Katz, but it is not a significant enough issue to warrant our exploring the reasons, IMO.
Did it ever occur to you that the word there originally WAS synagogue? Peace
Have I ever once implied that membership in a church is a prerequisite to being a follower of Christ? Nope. Not once in the 11,000+ posts I've made on the Religion-Spirituality/Christianity forums.
Okay, but the premise of Church membership and recruitment TENDS to be based on that wouldn't you agree? You are NOT your average Mormon after all!
Okay, but the premise of Church membership and recruitment TENDS to be based on that wouldn't you agree? You are NOT your average Mormon after all!
True, I'm not. But I think the "average Mormon" would agree with me on that particular point, since we're essentially universalists. As far as what the average Catholic or Protestant thinks, I'll leave that to them to say.
Did it ever occur to you that the word there originally WAS synagogue? Peace
That might have been awkward. The term synagogue of course appears in the gospels, so if Jesus had used it why change it?
Because the meaning is different. A Synagogue is a temple like a church in that it is a place of religious assembly (though it is not itself supposed ti be a Holy building) but the way the term is used by Matthew implies a different sect of Judaism, if not a different religion From Judaism.
Yep. That's what our Darwinist religion really is - an Organization, and there are no sectarian power struggles at all between the Darwin -founded Orthodoxy and the Dawkinist based radicals and certainly not turf wars between UU atheist churches and Zombie -marching fundy -atheists. And I can't remember the last time we dragged away the bloodstained corpses of one of those Darwin -dammned Harrisonite-Tysonist "call -us -something -else-ist" heretics. Not that anything like that ever happened, of course.
I think the question is whether the modern idea of "church" as an organized structure was intended or just a group of people who follow Jesus. I think it significant that the emphasis was on membership rather than organization.
^That is my take also. Not even "membership", really, but a following.
I really do feel at regular intervals, that I am a teacher explaining something to a lot of shop window mannequins.
Perhaps I am too bought in to my own Theory that the gospel Jesus never exited and the actual Jesus (a Pharisee Jew and a messianist if not a zealot) said nothing of what is in the gospels. The sayings and a majority of the doings attributed to him in the gospels are reflecting the views of the Greek Christians who wrote them.
So of course it is going to talk of founding a church - because that church was already in existence. Matthew look almost as late as Luke and later than John to me. And that 'Church' reference is just Matthew -not even original Synoptic material.
So why are we still getting 'Jesus said and meant what he said?' Am I the only one who can see the bleedin' obviiouis?
You ARE deeply bought into your own theory, of course, with no wiggle room. That's not a criticism, it's Transponderism, we understand that, and we wouldn't want you any other way. That's also bleedin' obvious (I guess yours is the Brit spelling.)
I don't believe anyone recorded Jesus word-for-word, and I've no doubt people slipped in what they needed to for their own agendas.
But neither do I think a bunch of people sat around a fire at midnight dreaming up some nefarious plot to elevate a local zealot to something more than he was. This guy influenced enough people that they completely changed their lives because of his teachings, the difference in what he said from what is our nature, and that's all that matters in the end.
I find your condescension entertaining, I truly do, but maybe if you realized you were talking to people who despite their intelligence have a sense of something beyond the bleedin' obvious, you might be less frustrated. You don't have to believe anything yourself, but accept the possibility that might be missing something that other people see, and it's not just because we are all morons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
