Gombs: ^^
Gracias

What's the difference between unity in voice and unity in faith as in Eph 4:13.

Thank you

We do have one voice because we have one faith. The issue is that the Church on earth has a lot of tag-alongs that are not of Christ and they do speak too in the Name of Christ. As such they help to give the appearance that we do not have one voice.

The important thing to remember is that Satan is interested in corrupting the Church with his own kind of Christians. And because we are on a learning curve we will sometimes make mistakes that make us look like Satan's kind and his kind will sometimes do the things that make them look like us so if we go out on a campaign to force everyone to speak one thing we will destroy many true Christians and give Satan room to really do damage in the Church.

The approach of the Word of God is that we are to accept that there will be differences and even contradictions until the Lord returns to cleanse everything with His Judgment. But in addition to this we are to make sure that the doctrines we accept and teach agree with the Doctrine of Christ. And if anyone denies the Doctrine of Christ we are to treat them in such a manner as to force them to reconsider their position.

Great job @ Ihedinobi2. Grace be multiplied unto you sir.

We await our 3 session teacher, BabaGnoni @ 6pm. God bless you all and Grace of God multiplied unto you. I believe we're all blessed by the ministration of teachers so far.

.

Following...... and I really enjoy what I'm seeing here. Will make contribution if any much later. Still very busy since this week. God bless the presenters. Amen.

@DrummaBoy, Goshen360 and presenters, are we free to post any of the prentations elsewhere or print it and share to people? That's my question for now.

[size=18pt](Church History): Where Did We Come From and Where are We Headed?[/size]

But if I tarry long,
that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} of the living God,
the pillar and base of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 3:15 Jubilee Bible 2000

Is it important to be familiar with "(Church History): Where Did We Come From and Where are We Headed?"

This a hot potato topic to deal with because as the post unfolds, it soon will be realised that "Church" history is full and riddled with persecutions, blood and guts, Crusades, share of violence and bloodshed, paradigm shifts (i.e. RCC/Galileo etc), controversies, misleads, misconceptions, pomp and pageantry, papal and Spanish inquisitions, scandals, denial of the truth, battles for the truth, denominational supremacy stakes or claims, deception etc but hey for all it's worth, it's necessary to be familiar with "(Church History): Where Did We Come From and Where are We Headed?" because as we start to read about or know things done in the past, we can begin to learn from them, learn a thing or two, would have become wiser and wise enough to make re-adjustments, where/if applicable, to our theology:

To start with and as a matter of fact, "ekklesia" (i.e.) is the proper and correct word for believers called out or gathering together, which the word "church", as it is, presently or currently represents.

"Ekklesia" actually, is a Greek word, which in Athens and in most Greek poleis (i.e. Greek cities or states) means an assembly of demo (i.e. demo is Greek for people, as like the demo in democracy)
- It's an assembly of summoned free people or gathering of those summoned. The word is derived from “ekkletos” meaning summoned and “ekkaleom” meaning to summon or call out.

"Ekklesia" in Strong's Greek Concordance, is defined as "an assembly, congregation, the whole body of Christian believers"
and says it’s formed from a compound of "ek" which means "out of or out from and to" and a derivative of "kaleo" which means "to call or a calling"

"Ekkletoi" refers to the called-out inhabitants or citizens of Athens or any of the Greek poleis, assembled together, as a result of a call out request done by a herald, announcer or town crier.

"Ekklesia" appears 114 times in the NT. It first appeared in Matthew 16:18, and that's where it was first mentioned and first used by none other by Jesus, now here's a sense of biblical déjà vu repeating itself , Eve out of Adam, Israelites out of Egypt etc and this is, God, again, in Jesus Christ doing a "call out from... and to assembly"

"Ekklesia" as far back in the Old Testament wilderness, has always been an assembly or congregation of called-out people (i.e. Acts 7:38 is referring to the congregation in Deuteronomy 9:10) and it's no different in the original Greek New Testament whether in non-secular and secular capacities (i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 7:38 non-secular and Acts 19:32, 39 and 41 for secular)
Notice in Acts 19:32, 39 and 41 that "ekklesia" is used three times for people not connected with religious or christian matters, assembling or gathering together.

This so far, is showing that, "ekklesia" represents something totally different to what we've commonly perceived what "church" is.
Also, the true meaning, import or connotation of "ekklesia" is lost or eroded when it is used or translated to/as "church"

"Ekklesia" isn't about physical structures, and the Greeks; originators of the word, never referred it, to be a building or place of worship.

At this juncture, some might say, all this etymology stuff is bunkum and time wasting, it's nitpicking over minute details, and that it's pedantic fault-finding or say whatever the noun used, it doesn't matter.
Others could say, church or ekklesia, no difference, it's much ado about nothing and so what's the big deal.

Well, in 1526 AD, William Tyndale's New Testament, was the first New Testament printed in the English Language and the fact about this translation, is that not a single occurrence of the word "church" is found used for congregation in it.

William Tyndale did however use the word "church" twice in Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 for something else. It was in reference to pagan Temples; "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those verses mentioned.

Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people
- Acts 14:13 William Tyndale.

Zeus' temple was at the entrance to the city. The priest of the god Zeus brought bulls with flowery wreaths around their necks to the temple gates. The priest and the crowd wanted to offer a sacrifice [to Paul and Barnabas].
- Acts 14:13 GOD'S WORD® Translation.

For you have brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
- Acts 19:37 King James 2000 Bible

For ye have brought hyther these me whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes.
- Acts 19:37 William Tyndale.

Tyndale recognised, "ecclesia or ekklesia" to be congregacion or congregation of "called out people" who are believers and churches were buildings for religious practices or purposes, and includes Jewish or pagan temples.

So, in this first English New Testament translation print, congregation originally was in the place where "church" is presently or currently found in most English translations.

In the beginning, building(s) was what "church" was original identified as, but now, it's obvious and no denying that, "church" is prevalently also called or known as the body of Christ.
Examples of other churches, we have, as of today are:
The Church of Scientology, Church of Wicca, The National Church of Bey (i.e. Beyonce), Church of Satan, The Sunday Assembly (i.e. an atheist church), The Church of Humanity etc.

1557 AD was the first time "ekklesia" was translated as "church" by William Whittingham in the Geneva New Testament produced, subsequent bible translations, KJV included, began having "church" used to describe people and their place of congregation or place of meetings too
From then to the present, the norm now is, "church" erroneously is the physical structure and people assembling together (i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 14:23, James 5:14)

In the New Testament, we are used to knowing synagogue also to be an equivalent name of the building used for assembling in or congregating in, but the Greek word "sunagogé" means "coming together" and could imply a meeting (i.e. gathering together) rather than a building (i.e. Acts 13:43, James 2:2); so synagogues were simply gatherings that took place outdoors or in people’s houses or courtyards (i.e. refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:1 or Hebrews 10:25 Greek Text Analysis for more details)
- TB Joshua’s set-up, calls itself synagogue, but then for good measure, appends the word "church", making it: The Synagogue, Church Of All Nations (i.e. SCOAN)

The English word "church" on it's self, actually has pagan origins. It's a derivation from the Old English word cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to the Anglo Saxon circay, kirk in Scottish, the Latin circus/circulous, Dutch kerk, or German Kirche. These words all have associations with "gathering in circles" and researches showed that most pagan religions meetings have worshippers/attendees gathered together round in prayer circles.

This information gives some insight into Tyndales' understanding and the reason why he selected the word "Church" to refer to buildings; pagan temple(s) included and used congregacion (i.e. congregation) to mean "ekklesia"

Why was a totally unrelated word to ekklesia, substituted for ekklesia? (i.e. like in Job 14:4)

As so far noticed, the word "Church" has varied origins and different meanings to what we're accustomed to, but the word in Latin for ekklesia is also ekklesia, so, if Latin in the absence of a proper word, managed to retain the word ekklesia, why couldn't the "called out ones" who translated, retain it too?
In light of all these information, why the word "church", is falsely used in place of Christ's ekklesia leaves one literally open-mouthed
No doubt, there are strong indications of foul-play somewhere down the history lanes of church, as "church" DOESN'T COME from the original Koine Greek word ekklesia.

As regards the chequered and real truth about ""Church" History; where did it come from and where is it headed?”, lack of space and time doesn't permit elaborating, hence these following bullet points:

• Adam & Eve in Eden fast forward to Matthew 16:18 and Acts 2:41
• Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all.
(i.e. a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire)
• Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• the sell-out and/or shady deal(s)(e.g. "Church" and State collaboration under Constantine)
• The regularisation and formation of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC)
• Roman Empire's adoption of RCC as "official" church during Constantine's reign
• The supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy) created/aided with the support of the Roman emperors (i.e. Constantine and his successors)
• Constantine calling the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose
(e.g. Arianism, doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D) and presiding over this first ecumenical church council
• the exploits of the apostles, all charged up in their faith, preaching the Gospel and like Jesus willing to die horrible deaths because of it.
• The apostolic period (i.e. including The "patristic writings'') - about contemporaries of the apostles like Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, and who became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred
• the ante-Nicene (i.e. before Nicaea) period - about the likes of Ignatius and his "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, he was a disciple of the apostle John
• the post-Nicene "church" period - about the likes of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine
• The term "Roman Catholic" defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code.
In that document, he referred to those who hold to the "religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter"
as "Roman Catholic Christians" and gave them the official sanction of the empire
• the first canon (i.e. Muratorian Canon), the progressive acceptance of other books as canonical and have them make up the 66 books of the bible
• The fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476 and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church
• the Pontifex Maximus; the highest office in the state religion of ancient Rome and at the collapse of the Roman Empire, RCC popes taking on this title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors
• the tragic compromise of believers with the introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences
(i.e. the Romanization and paganization of Christianity and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs)
• Apostolic succession and Pope Gregory in AD 590, upon assuming office denying any responsibility or support for any ambition to the throne of Peter
• "Church" and State fully merged as the Holy Roman Empire
• Subsequent popes exercising authority over kings and emperors, taking on imperial powers along with ecclesiastical authority (e.g. St Leo III)
• the Filioque clause/Filioque controversy and/or The Great Schism
• John Wycliffe of England, John Huss of Czechoslovakia, and John of Wessel in Germany
• Protestant Reformation; division between the Catholic Church and Protestantism over interpretation of Biblical Testaments.
• The Edict of Worms (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V and the Pope banning all writings of Martin Luther and labelling him a heretic and enemy of the state) etc
• Calvinism (i.e. named after French reformer and theologian John Calvin, he was Martin Luther's successor during the Protestant Reformation)
• The Edict of Nantes, The Edict of Restitution.
• King Henry VIII taking over jurisdiction of the Church, after kicking RCC out of England.
• Various political and ulterior motives
(e.g. translators forbidden by King James' official order from replacing the Greek word "ekklesia" with "congregation" (i.e. the true interpretation)
Compare Psalms 22:22 with Hebrews 2:12 for more details on this, bibles translated to fit the politics or traditions of men etc)
• Evangelicalism, Revivalism, Pentecostalism, Christian science, the Charismatic Movement, Mormonism/the Latter Day Saint movement, Word of Faith movement etc
• Institutional/organised church(es); licensed or incorporated as businesses/charities etc (i.e. to gain non-profit tax-exempt status)
• Church(es) under the jurisdiction of man (e.g. unincorporated charities/church(es), unregistered/registered church(es) etc)
• details of corrupted teachings or doctrines.
• Et cetera, et cetera

So, before we move on to EKKLESIA and maybe ECCLESIOLOGY, watch the below, less than 5 minutes video, for some history examples of paganism and un-biblical beliefs incorporated in "CHURCH" history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUoIu6Ygrl0

As for, "Church" History; where did it come from and where is it heading? Proper?
Well the word "Church", in letter and/or substance, clearly metamorphosed from "ekklesia" and as it currently stands, those/anyone called "Church" today are seemingly apostate(s) heading towards just deserts.
- "Church" will be getting its divine comeuppance some point at the end.

---

DrummaBoy: BabaGnoni

- edited-
... there is a little omission or maybe you didn't see it necessary,
in the well written bullet points on the church history, where we are coming from: you left out dates!
While you might not be able provide the exact date of when the events happened, you could provide a summary period.
Like the century (eg: 7th or 18th century) or period bracket (eg: 50-100AD).
This will help the readers a great deal. You may simply do an edit on the text.

Thank you for the effort in providing a historical perspective that hopefully will help theological discusses, especially the RCC/Protestants threads, a great deal.

Thank you.
- edited-

1st century AD - ekklēsia founded on the teachings of Jesus
2nd century AD - Christians already denouncing teachings seen as heresies, e.g Gnosticism, Montanism etc
4th century AD - ekklēsia transformed, church evolves, finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I as the state church of the Roman Empire
11th century AD - Church within the Roman Empire excommunicated each other - West (i.e. Rome) and the East (i.e. Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) officially excluded each other
16th century AD - Lutheran Church was founded by Martin Luther
16th century AD - Protestant Reformation
16th century AD - The Presbyterian denomination began by John Knox who was dissatisfied with Anglicanism
16th century AD - Anglicanism (i.e. Church of England) founded by King Henry VIII
17th century AD - The Baptist church launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam, Holland.
18th century AD - The Methodist church launched by John and Charles Wesley in England
18th century AD - The Salvation Army launched by William Booth, who quit the Anglicans, and then the Methodists to set up his own version of Christianity.
19th century AD - The Jehovah's Witness Church developed by Charles Russell.
19th century AD - The Christian Scientist religion began by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, centered around an outright denial of Original Sin and its effects
19th century AD - Ballinger Booth, the son of William Booth, quit The Salvation Army and started his own church
19th century AD to date - The Seventh-Day Adventists, Apostolic Faith, Foursquare Apostolic Church, K&C, CAC, CCC, RCCG, MFM, Winners Chapel, KICC, BLW/Christ Embassy, SCOAN,
and various other Pentecostal Churches etc are among the hundreds of new churches founded by men within the past 200 years or so.

Now that sin has been taken care of, we're heading to a New heaven and earth, heading to how it was in the beginning, back to Eden, back pre the Fall, to the fullness of how things were originally planned.

And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter,
and on this rock I will build my assembly,
and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
- Matthew 16:18 Darby Bible Translation

“Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha,
and upon this stone I shall build my church,
and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”
- Matthew 16:18 Aramaic Bible in Plain English

And I also say to you that you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build My church,
and the forces of Hades will not overpower it.
- Matthew 16:18 Holman Christian Standard Bible

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, a small rock
and upon the large rock I will build my congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones},
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her.
- Matthew 16:18 Jubilee Bible 2000

In the beginning, God set out an outpost of His Kingdom in Eden. He then created man and gave man power and control of the earth and all its inhabitants. He also gave man the right to make decisions from the outpost, then God brought Eve, for many reasons, but fundamentally for the institution of marriage, out from Adam.
Why, what for, where to from then on?

What was God's original pet idea for the first family and their offspring? Dominion - sovereignty and/or governance of territory
Has this changed? Has God changed? Has this changed, with God, in Christ?
No, and it's because of Luke 9:35 or Mark 9:7 and John 12:44 that one says no.

³ Blessed is he that reads and those that hear the words of this prophecy
and keep those things which are written therein, for the time is at hand.
⁴ John, to the seven congregations {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} which are in Asia:
Grace be unto you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come
and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne
⁵ and from Jesus, the Christ, who is the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead
and the prince of the kings of the earth.
Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins with his own blood
⁶ and has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father;
to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
- Revelation 1:3-4 Jubilee Bible 2000

and that the kingdom and the dominion,
and the majesty of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
be given to the holy people of the most High,
His kingdom shall be an eternal kingdom,
and all the dominions shall serve him and hear him
- Daniel 7:27 Jubilee Bible 2000

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, a people for God's own possession,
that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;"
- 1 Peter 2:9

and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
- Luke 22:29 ESV

The first time ekklesia was ever mentioned in the NT was in Matthew 16:19 and uttered by Jesus.
It was the first time out of the three times Jesus used the word (i.e. once in Matthew 16:19 and twice in Matthew 18:17)
No other place did Jesus use the word and no one else, except for Matthew recorded Jesus, using it the word.

Jesus could have easily used any other word for a gathering or assembly of called out people mentioned in Matthew 16:19
He could easily have used the above earlier discussed familiar word synagogue (i.e. as synagogue too means "coming together'' or "gathering together'')
Why didn't He? Maybe because synagogue didn't convey/carry the complete import or essence of His plan, vision or intention for believers as much/well as “ekklesia” does
We need to be accustomed with ekklesia in order to understand why Jesus chose and used the word
So what again is ekklesia?. What is special about ekklesia? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Ekklesia unlike synagogue, has a potent, deep, relevant, purposeful and meaningfulness about it
It encapsulates and expresses the framework of what the "calling out" is about

³⁵The Jews said to one another,
“Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him?
Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?
³⁶What did he mean when he said,
‘You will look for me, but you will not find me,’ and ‘Where I am, you cannot come’?”
- John 7:35-36 NIV

²⁰Some Greeks who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration
²¹paid a visit to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee. They said, “Sir, we want to meet Jesus.”
²²Philip told Andrew about it, and they went together to ask Jesus.
- John 12:20-22 NLT

Remember the Jews in John 7:35-36 and events in John 12:20-22 when the Greeks came to visit Jesus.
Well Israel was under Roman Rule, and Greek was in vogue then, hence the inevitable exposure to Greek language, culture, civilisation and governance style.

The Romans adopted the word ekklesia from the Greeks, and used ekklesia to refer to the summoning of people out to hear the messenger from Rome who had just blown his trumpet and "called people out" to hear the latest edicts from the emperor.

In classical Greek however, ekklesia originally means a political assembly in the ancient Greek states, at which all free citizens are summoned/invited to the town council
- summoned like called to serve in a jury service. The gathered citizens listen to, discuss, and vote on decrees that affected every aspect of their community whether public or private (e.g. from finance - religious ones - public festivals - war - treaties with foreign powers - regulations governing ferry boats) take part in the election of archons (chief magistrates) and confer special privileges on individuals.

"Ekklesia" is a lawful assembly of people in a free Greek city summoned for the transaction of civil matters/affairs
- summoned, like when called, to serve in a jury service.

Most bible translations have deliberately misinterpreted the Greek word ekklesia as “church”, when in actual fact; ekklesia has nothing to do with the word “church”!
Remember Acts 19:32, 39 and 41 above, where "ekklesia" is a town council: it was a civil body in Ephesus, and correctly translated so. There translators were forced to abandon their fakery "church" is "ekklesia" translation in those three verse and reluctantly settled for assembly. Nonetheless, they kept up the pretence, 112 other times, where "ekklesia" was changed to "church" instead of assembly.
- It's similar to today's pretense where agricultural tithe is "money"

Anyway, it's important to recognise that Jesus didn't die to create "church", denominations (i.e. 1 Corinthians 1:12, 31 and 1 Corinthians 3:21), "pastor" - pastor doesn’t occur at all in the NT (i.e. 1 Corinthians 12:28) but He died to build a body of believers, called out of the world system (e.g. Sanhedrin Council et al etc) to come together into a separate civil & community council.

When Jesus used this politically loaded word (i.e. ekklésia), was He giving descriptional hints about His people and their meetings?

Yes! Jesus was; He is indicating that His ekklesia is PATTERNED AFTER and intended to FOLLOW/FUNCTION same manner the BORROWED Greek ekklesia did.
Inclusiveness where everyone participates in discussions, deliberations, decision-making, general agreement processes or judgements that are binding on all members
However, when ekklesia is unable to resolve issues, elders-servants who are arbiters, step in and serve as tie breakers. In such instances of elders stepping in, any in opposition are expected to respect and "submit" to the elders’ leadership, decision and wisdom (i.e. Heb 13:17).

So ekklesia, essentially is a congregational consensus type governance, with elders-servants equipped with varied gifts for the benefit of each local called-out and assembled believers they’re watching over and shepherding (i.e. read Matthew 20:25-28 Ephesians 4:11-12, 1 Corinthians 12:28, & Romans 12:4-8 for more details)

²In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine.
³I the LORD do keep it; I will water it every moment:
lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day.
- Isaiah 27:2-3 KJ Bible

Bishops and deacons are titular titles of service (i.e. 1 Timothy 3:1-13, Philippians 1:1) they actually are elders-servants of elders-servants.
Their purpose is to maintain the ekklesia VINEYARD, in-conjunction with the elders-servants, with everyone's under the authority of God in Christ, guided by RED WINE and WATER.

(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house,
how shall he take care of the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} of God?)
- 1 Timothy 3:5 Jubilee Bible 2000

¹¹And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
¹²for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;…
- Ephesians 4:11-12

With "ekklesia", we are meant, in the gathering(s), to head towards fostering a "CROSS" universal and local relationship or fellowship.
- UNIVERSAL, as in having a "VERTICAL" relationship between God and all saints/believers (i.e. as in "our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" - 1 John 1:3)
- LOCAL, as with having a "HORIZONTAL" relationship between all individual saints (i.e. as like in "the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus," - 1 Corinthian 1:2)

Furthermore, we, also, are called out to go into the world and make disciples of all nations, unfortunately, "church(es)", more and more, has been heading into all sorts and any direction(s), continually opposing the plan, work, will and Word of God.

By GRACE, ekklesia, not "church(es)", is heading towards a new Heavens and a new Earth; Isaiah 11:6-9 & Isaiah 65:17-25

³³“This is what the Lord GOD says:
‘At the same time that I cleanse you from all of your guilt,
I’ll make your cities become inhabited again and the desolate wastelands will be rebuilt.
³⁴The desolate fields will be cultivated,
replacing the former wasteland that everyone who passed by in times past had noticed.
³⁵They will say, “This wasteland has become like the garden of Eden,
and what used to be desolate ruins are now fortified and inhabited.”
- Ezekiel 36:33-35 ISV

Good one Alwaystrue, ihedinobi2 and BabaGnoni.

@BabaG

I was hoping your research would touch a bit on the ancestory and lineage of the modern day Christian. As you may know already, I am a Catholic and we claim to be that Church founded by Christ. A claim that is rejected by our 'separated' brethren.

In your opinion:

1) Do you believe that the Church Jesus founded got lost some time in history?

2) If yes, why do believe that Jesus would go through the trouble of establishing a community here on Earth only to allow it go extinct?

3) If no, then where is that Church today?

PS: Not trying to lead you on. The questions are honest.

striktlymi: Good one Alwaystrue, ihedinobi2 and BabaGnoni.

@BabaG

I was hoping your research would touch a bit on the ancestory and lineage of the modern day Christian.
As you may know already, I am a Catholic and we claim to be that Church founded by Christ.
A claim that is rejected by our 'separated' brethren.

In your opinion:

1) Do you believe that the Church Jesus founded got lost some time in history?

2) If yes, why do believe that Jesus would go through the trouble of establishing a community here on Earth only to allow it go extinct?

3) If no, then where is that Church today?

PS: Not trying to lead you on. Just a honest question.

^^^
@striktlymi,

,
striktlymi, God is denomination agnostic,
furthermore that Ignatius' "ekklesia katholicos" phrase was hijacked for political and personal gains to mean something else.
- note even Ignatius didn't use "church" but rather assembly for to imply a universal vertical relationship/fellowship with God
- that phrase was first used and found in Chapter 8 of Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

The "ancestry and lineage of the modern day Christian" can be gleaned from the bullet points striktlymi
- I tried as much to fast forward and condensed the "ancestry and lineage"
- They are there and apparent in the bullet points
1) I do not believe Jesus ever founded a church, what I am 100% sure about is that, He said He will build is ekklesia (i.e. Matthew 16:18) and not "church"
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, a small rock
and upon the large rock I will build my congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones},
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her."
- Matthew 16:18 Jubilee Bible 2000
2) Refer to #1 above
3) Well the word "Church", in letter and/or substance, clearly metamorphosed from "ekklesia" striktlymi
- Someone assisted and aided RCC get prominence status
- Someone had strong vested interest and a lot to gain in changing the meaning of "ekklesia" from congregation to "church"
- Someone with accomplices made the transitions from "ekklesia" called out to assemble to "church" (i.e. go through the post again, as I already touch this question in the post)

I hope I answered your questions adequately enough striktlymi?

Blessings to all who have presented thus far.

Following quietly..

the christian and his environment

Social Issues 2

Am going to touch homosexuality in this second part of my presentation. I initially tried to ignore the topic due to its highly sensitive nature, but I changed my mind when some persons impressed to touch this topic.

Below is an excerpt from Jehovah's Witnesses official website about homosexuality, I chose it because it accurately reflects the bible's view point on homosexuality.

what does the bible say about homosexuality?

God created humans to engage in sex only within the arrangement of marriage between a male and a female. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 5:18, 19) The Bible condemns sexual activity that is not between a husband and wife, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual conduct. (1 Corinthians 6:18) This includes intercourse, handling another person’s genitals, and engaging in oral or anal sex.

While the Bible disapproves of homosexual acts, it does not condone hatred of homosexuals or homophobia. Instead, Christians are directed to “respect everyone.”—1 Peter 2:17, Good News Translation.

Can a person be born homosexual?

The Bible doesn’t comment directly on the biology of homosexual desires, though it acknowledges that we are all born with a tendency to go against what God commands. (Romans 7:21-25) Rather than focus on the cause of homosexual desires, however, the Bible prohibits homosexual acts.

How to please God despite having same-sex urges.

The Bible says: “Don’t be controlled by your body. Kill every desire for the wrong kind of sex.” (Colossians 3:5, Contemporary English Version) To kill wrong desires, which lead to wrong actions, you need to control your thinking. If you regularly fill your mind with wholesome thoughts, you can more readily dismiss wrong desires. (Philippians 4:8; James 1:14, 15) While you may struggle greatly at first, it can become easier. God promises to help you to “be made new in the force actuating your mind.”—Ephesians 4:22-24.

The same struggle is faced by millions with heterosexual desires who wish to conform to the Bible’s standards. For example, those who are single with little prospect of marriage or who are married to a partner who is unable to function sexually choose to control their sexual urges despite any temptations they might face. They are able to live happily, and those with same-sex urges can do so as well if they truly want to please God.—Deuteronomy 30:19.

http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-homosexuality/

Questions and contributions are welcomed.

BabaGnoni:

Is this the gospel

DrummaBoy:

Is this the gospel

That's when I was in my light-hearted mood mode
- I was loading the posts up "Oppan gangnam style"

alexleo: Following...... and I really enjoy what I'm seeing here. Will make contribution if any much later. Still very busy since this week. God bless the presenters. Amen.

@DrummaBoy, Goshen360 and presenters, are we free to post any of the prentations elsewhere or print it and share to people? That's my question for now.

I believe the answer should be yes.

Only that ethically you should provide the link from where you copied it from.

BabaGnoni:
^^^
@striktlymi,

,
striktlymi, God is denomination agnostic,
furthermore that Ignatius' "ekklesia katholicos" phrase was hijacked for political and personal gains to mean something else.
- note even Ignatius didn't use "church" but rather assembly for to imply a universal vertical relationship/fellowship with God
- that phrase was first used and found in Chapter 8 of Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

The "ancestry and lineage of the modern day Christian" can be gleaned from the bullet points striktlymi
- I tried as much to fast forward and condensed the "ancestry and lineage"
- They are there and apparent in the bullet points
1) I do not believe Jesus ever founded a church, what I am 100% sure about is that, He said He will build is ekklesia (i.e. Matthew 16:18) and not "church"
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, a small rock
and upon the large rock I will build my congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones},
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her."
- Matthew 16:18 Jubilee Bible 2000
2) Refer to #1 above
3) Well the word "Church", in letter and/or substance, clearly metamorphosed from "ekklesia" striktlymi
- Someone assisted and aided RCC get prominence status
- Someone had strong vested interest and a lot to gain in changing the meaning of "ekklesia" from congregation to "church"
- Someone with accomplices made the transitions from "ekklesia" called out to assemble to "church" (i.e. go through the post again, as I already touch this question in the post)

I hope I answered your questions adequately enough striktlymi?

Still trying to figure out whether I asked the right questions or I understood your answer. Anyways, it would do!

Thanks!

striktlymi:

Still trying to figure out whether I asked the right questions or I understood your answer. Anyways, it would do!

Thanks!

No probs bro...
and thanks to you too

BabaGnoni,
I had a busy day else I would have commented earlier.
That was a fantastic presentation given the topic and number of words constraint.
Well done!

Gombs:

*standing ovation

This got me thinking, what if those who really knew the word are let to teach it, not those favored by a select few, who then make erroneous teachings and still in the glare of scriptures refuse admitting?

If NL could have seasoned teachers as Alwaystrue, ola etc (folks might say I'm biased cos she's a tither, ignoring the fact that I and bidam and alexleo have had disagreement here)... if only we could.

Thank you ma, best presentation ever in the history of Grace convention, I hope the glory of the latter house shall surpass the former ie folks after her should do a proper study and please avoid plagiarism.

But ma, the gist too long o!

I just saw part 3!

thank you for making me to go back and re-read E-Grace Convention 2013, it was VERY VERY REFRESHING. Since that was the 1st ever, I really tot 2014 will be more graceful, well, we still have 2marrow's presentations. See u at convention ground.

Goshen360: Great job @ Ihedinobi2. Grace be multiplied unto you sir.

Amen sir. Peace be with you too.

striktlymi: Good one Alwaystrue, ihedinobi2 and BabaGnoni.

@BabaG

I was hoping your research would touch a bit on the ancestory and lineage of the modern day Christian. As you may know already, I am a Catholic and we claim to be that Church founded by Christ. A claim that is rejected by our 'separated' brethren.

In your opinion:

1) Do you believe that the Church Jesus founded got lost some time in history?

2) If yes, why do believe that Jesus would go through the trouble of establishing a community here on Earth only to allow it go extinct?

3) If no, then where is that Church today?

PS: Not trying to lead you on. The questions are honest.

Thanks bro

@presenters, una try sha! But it feels like PDP convention or stakeholders seminar, no prayers, no praise/worship, admonition or appeal to d sinner, abeg d thing too dry i trust d Spirit will compensate us in 2marow presentations. Grace n Peace be multiplied to all.

dandy00: www.myappsmsms.com

Myappsms is sold for as low as 1naira for resellers & 1.30kobo for users (1unit per SMS unit to nigeria networks ) our SMS unit never expire.
If you dont have an account with us, we would be glad to have you as one of our customer, its easy and simple.

Click on the register button and fill the form.
YOU GET 2FREE TEST SMS UNIT WHEN YOU REGISTER
Thank you for using myappsms
+2348069163502
E-mail Info@myappsms.com
www.myappsms.com

bros na church b dis o, whats wrong with u?

BabaGnoni

(I was going to send a PM but decided against it).

I only got to read your submission now. I was on the road much of yesterday.

That presentation up there, to say the least, is excellent. For some of us who took a step out in faith to form an "ekklesia" outside an established "church" system, we find great comfort in your words. We also see that there are pitfalls we should guard against lest the "ekklessia" becomes a "church" too. I believe the question Gombs asked me on a special thread as to whether a church should practice democracy is adequately answered in the share description of the true root meaning of the word "church".

However, there is a little omission or maybe you didn't see it necessary, in the well written bullet points on the church history, where we are coming from: you left out dates! While you might not be able provide the exact date of when the events happened, you could provide a summary period. Like the century (eg: 7th or 18th century) or period bracket (eg: 50-100AD). This will help the readers a great deal. You may simply do an edit on the text.

Thank you for the effort in providing a historical perspective that hopefully will help theological discusses, especially the RCC/Protestants threads, a great deal. The rest I will state in a PM.

Thank you.

PS: I cannot seem to get that song off my thoughts: ... gam gam style; heeey ...." lol!

ihedinobi2:

Toward A United Christian Voice?

How shall we gain a united Christian voice? Anywhere, for that matter? How shall Christians attain visible unity? Is it even possible with the cacophony out there? What can we do to get to expressing the unity of the Spirit?

Here’s what the Lord said: ‘"by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another"’. That is all the answer that I am happy to give. There is something that identifies Christians, a kind of badge. It is Love, the setting of someone else’s well-being as such a priority that you could inconvenience yourself in order to ensure its maintenance if need be. That was the example that the Lord set for us. This is the visible feature that unifies us.

You have very well conveyed the mind of the organizers of this convention in your paper.

My question:

If true Christian unity is displayed in the act of love: loving God and our neighbour, can it be said that many a Muslim, Agnostic, Buddhist, etc, shall be saved at the last day as they have fulfilled God's law of love (see Paul in Romans 2 about Gods law written on hearts); while a good number professing Christians shall be damned for holding the name Christ on lips alone but denied him in action? Shall men not professing Christ today be truly united with him because they walk in love?

trustman: BabaGnoni,

I had a busy day else I would have commented earlier.
That was a fantastic presentation given the topic and number of words constraint.
Well done!

We thank God for the grace etc etc.
thank you trustman, it was a duel keeping to 4000 words
and also thanks again to @FortresOfChrist(f), @MrAnony1(m), @flourishG(m) and @PastorKun(m) for the nomination

DrummaBoy: BabaGnoni

(I was going to send a PM but decided against it).

I only got to read your submission now. I was on the road much of yesterday.

That presentation up there, to say the least, is excellent. For some of us who took a step out in faith to form an "ekklesia" outside an established "church" system, we find great comfort in your words. We also see that there are pitfalls we should guard against lest the "ekklessia" becomes a "church" too. I believe the question Gombs asked me on a special thread as to whether a church should practice democracy is adequately answered in the share description of the true root meaning of the word "church".

However, there is a little omission or maybe you didn't see it necessary, in the well written bullet points on the church history, where we are coming from: you left out dates! While you might not be able provide the exact date of when the events happened, you could provide a summary period. Like the century (eg: 7th or 18th century) or period bracket (eg: 50-100AD). This will help the readers a great deal. You may simply do an edit on the text.

Thank you for the effort in providing a historical perspective that hopefully will help theological discusses, especially the RCC/Protestants threads, a great deal. The rest I will state in a PM.

Thank you.

PS: I cannot seem to get that song off my thoughts: ... gam gam style; heeey ...." lol!

Well the post, I think was 4000 words exactly, there wasn't enough space to accommodate or add everything, especially not exact details
Considering the word limit, I figured readers should be able to read between the lines
and/or look up the verses appended to sentences to discover meaning(s) that is implied rather than me explicitly stating it

Here is taking for example, some of these instances taken from the bullet points

• Adam & Eve in Eden fast forward to Matthew 16:18 and Acts 2:41

Details
- Matthew 16:18 is where/when the idea of ekklesia in God in Jesus Christ' mind was shared with the disciples
Verse:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, a small rock
and upon the large rock I will build my congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones},
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her.
- Matthew 16:18 Jubilee Bible 2000

And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter,
and on this rock I will build my assembly,
and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
- Matthew 16:18 Darby Bible Translation

- Acts 2:41 is where the appearance of ekklesia started giving shape or taking form (i.e. here Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled and ekklesia was building)
Verse:
Those, therefore, who joyfully welcomed his Message were baptized;
and on that one day about three thousand persons were added to them;
- Acts 2:41 Weymouth New Testament

Those who accepted what Peter said were baptized.
That day about 3,000 people were added [to the group].
- Acts 2:41 GOD'S WORD® Translation

• Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all.
(i.e. a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire)
• Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• The regularisation and formation of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC)
• Roman Empire's adoption of RCC as "official" church during Constantine's reign
• Constantine calling the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose
• The term "Roman Catholic" defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code.
In that document, he referred to those who hold to the "religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter"
as "Roman Catholic Christians" and gave them the official sanction of the empire
• The fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476 and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church

Details
- ekklesia was formed in AD (i.e. after the death of Jesus Christ)
- 313 AD was the year when the proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire
- Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire
- Church started evolving during the reign of Constantine and took hold more during King Henry VIII monarchy,
then King James' official order forbidding replacing the Greek word "ekklesia" with "congregation" (i.e. the true interpretation) was the final nail to the "ekklesia" coffin.

I also was under the illusion that anything requiring clarity or further details would be dealt with during Q&A session(s) that follows the posts.

I'll PM you later asap

PS: Edit now done

MrAnony1: Reserved for Reply to striktlymi


Thanks for your question.

When a person gives his life to Christ, he is now born into God's family. Christ talks about this in John 3 when He tells Nicodemus that one must be born again (of the Spirit) in order to enter God's kingdom. It is either you are born of God or you aren't. You cannot work your way into sonship. The rights of a son in God's family i.e. righteousness/justification whereby you can shout "Abba Father" are inherent from birth. We cannot attain them by our good works.

How then can we lose our inheritance via sin? This happens when through sin we reject God as our father hence effectively disowning ourselves as His sons and therefore losing the inheritance that comes with sonship.

P/s: I hope my explanation has been sufficient. We can always continue the discussion later but I will recommend a separate thread or wait until the convention has been concluded.

Okay, thanks!

In the discuss below, I wish to respond to three points raised by Alwaystrue in her presentation. My submission here is not as a moderator in this convention but in my personal capacity as a member of Nairaland. I will prefer that this is not taken as an 'attack' on the presenter but as my contribution to the discussion generally. Except for these three, I agree with virtually every other thing that is written in that presentation.

Alwaystrue:

Therefore, why did the law have to come in? The law was demanding of man what he wasn’t giving it. Why was there need for a systematic body of rules to govern behavior enforced in place of the wonderful loving relationship of hearing directly the word of God and in quiet and reverential obedience doing that which should come naturally?
Let us keep in mind that God gave commands and instructions right from creation and penalties were attached to disobeying them. However a formal structure was put in place by Moses to which a default usually led to a merciless punishment either by man/special atonement or often swiftly by God.

Galatians 3:19; 21; 23-24 tells us that the law came because of transgressions till the promised seed would come. The law was a school master that brought us to Christ when we acknowledge we cannot please God of ourselves only by His supernatural strength when we believe. And this law was not against the promise of God…At all.

The above scriptures capture the essence for why the law was given and written. The law was added due to sin & unrighteousness, a demand so stringent, it had been stripped of the grace that could have gone with it had it been it had been a communication between God and his people directly and the faithlessness that characterized not wanting to hear God directly, governed by unhealthy fear. No wonder something as basic as loving God and your neighbor as yourself had to be broken down to an endless list of rules and regulations as common with dealing with children and written in stone. Because people were prone to go after strange God’s, up to their mode of dressing and their relations had to be micro-managed so that they did not act like the heathens did. All these laws were the breakdown of the main law of the Spirit God had wanted to write in the hearts of man for He said
‘I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’ (Heb. 8:10; Jer. 31:33)

Why Was the Law Given

It would have been good if the presenter had quoted the Galatians 3 scripture that was suggested to prove this point but I understand the constrain that must have arisen because of the limitations the convention placed on number of words. So I provide it here:

19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one. 21 [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

This was the presenter's interpretation of why the law was given:

The law was added due to sin & unrighteousness, a demand so stringent, it had been stripped of the grace that could have gone with it had it been it had been a communication between God and his people directly and the faithlessness that characterized not wanting to hear God directly, governed by unhealthy fear

Is this statement exactly true? I do not think so.

Can we confidently say that God intended for any kind of grace to have come with the law? The intention for giving the law is well documented in the Galatians scripture. There was no need for the presenter to add to it. It was simple: the law was to act as a guide, a school master until the time of grace. After which the law was no longer needed. Paul will go on to describe the fact that those under the law could be likened to as children and those under grace, as men who have come to maturity. Indeed God's intention was to have his laws etched upon our hearts; he preceded this by etching the law on stones first. Today, glory to God, those laws are within us.

The incidence at Sinai, where God spoke to Israel, that led to them fearing and pleading that God should not speak to them again except via a mediator, was carefully ochestrated by God to instill his fear in them. However, in Hebrew 12 we see that those under grace have not come to a mountain of fear anymore; rather we have come to zion. This does not remove the need to regard God with reverence and godly fear; but it certainly has delivered us from the fear that slaves have towards a tyrannical Master.

The point I wish to disprove in the presenter's post is simply that the Law of Moses is abolished, obsolete and no longer practiced in the New Testament church. This is a point that is missing in the over 3,500 words of the presenter. A point that is emphatically stated by scriptures:

4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth - Romans 10

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby - Ephesians 2

13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away - Hebrew 8

Alwaystrue: CHAPTER 2
The Supply of the Grace

Grace, I will opine, as favour shown to the unworthy and the divine ability to do things God’s way; this could be divine ability for salvation and divine ability to do what we would not normally be able to do and it comes as a result of being connected to Jesus Christ, His Son. Jesus, while on earth was the fulness of the Spirit, of truth and grace. He was the confirmation of what God said when the Israelites rejected God’s words to them on Sinai. While He wanted to deal with them in words, they wanted it in laws.

I believe the definition provided for grace in this text is inadequate (edited). Grace is 'charis' in greek; it indicates the favor of God to the unworthy. That is its primary meaning. It is God's gift to the sinner, see Ephesians 2:8. Grace is nowhere defined in scriptures as 'the divine ability to do things'. The very essence of the grace of God is for men to for once cease doing things and enjoy what God has done. The divine ability to do things is a definition supplied by charismatics that has no bearing on scriptures because they cannot see beyond do, do and do in Christendom.

It is when the believer has become secured in what God has done in Jesus Christ by the cross, that whatever he does in appreciation of grace becomes acceptable to God.

Now there is a scripture that seem to nullify my position here and let us observe it:

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace [which was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. - 1 Corinthians 15

Its easy to conclude that this was equally the position of the presenter. But notice that Paul was talking about the grace of God to carry out his ministry; those were the 'things' God's grace was available to him for. Not grace to keep the law, which to me seem the obvious reason why the presenter used the term 'the divine ability to do things'.

Its easy these days to forget that grace is foremost encapsulated in what God has done in Christ and bestowed on undeserving sinners; and to reduce grace to 'ability to do things'; which in many cases is to keep the law of Moses.

Alwaystrue: CHAPTER 3

[b]Lawlessness: Equally damaging, however, is that doctrine that excludes law. Law is control and grace is power. Those who teach the doctrine of grace without law are teaching divine power without divine control. Power without control is dangerous in any realm whether physical, political, or ecclesiastical, governmental, intellectual, and certainly spiritual. This is the doctrine of lawlessness. Satan, its originator, will bring it to full manifestation in the man of sin, the lawless one.

CONCLUDED

In the last convention, their was a paper presented titled 'Grace is not License'. The reason why the organizers took the pain to show this was to erase the notion that those who teach grace are lawless. The laws Christians keep today are the law of love which our Savior commanded us. Paul shows us that all the laws of Moses are summed in this. Therefore when we are told to keep laws, so that there will be some power of control, we need to ask: what laws? If it is the law of Moses; no. If it is the law of Christ; yes.

Like the presenter said, this convention has shown that human beings cannot live outside laws; having enacted laws to govern the running of the convention. But I must say here that the laws enacted for this convention were not the laws of Moses; neither were they laws breadth down the necks of everyone here; they were laws agreed on by every member of the forum, over a long period of time while the convention was in the making. These laws were made in the spirit of freedom, understanding, fairness and love. These are ingredients missing in the laws of Moses; ingredients found in the law of the Spirit of life - the law of Christ.

Thank you.