or What was the purpose of the Ekklesia ? Was it a temporal corporation to rule on earth ? No ! Was it to have a temporal head ? No ! It was a gathering of YHvH's chosen people to hear His Word ? and learn to Fear YHvH all their days ? And to teach their children the same ? Yes. ------------- Ekklesia is from the Hebrew Qahal (kop, hey, lamed) How does YHvH define "church" i.e.Ekklesia ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Is it all those called out by YHvH ?
A study of the word "church", in the Koine Greek : Ekklesia.
Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded
Feast day of Shavuot (pentecost) as some say ?
Did the "church" exist earlier ?
Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10 NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before YHvH, your God
Also see : Deu 4:10, Deu 9:10, Deu 18:16, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4, Deu 23:9, Deu 31:30,
at Horeb, when YHvH said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Jos 9:2, Jda 20.2, Jda 21:5, Jda 21:8, Jdg 20:2 Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:8, 1 Sa 17:47,
1 Sa 19:20, 1 Ki 8:14, 1 Ki 8:22, 1 Ki 8:55, 1 Ki 8:65, 1 Ch 13:2, 1 Ch 13:4, 1 Ch 28:2,
1 Ch 28:8
which is haQahal The assembly (hey, kop, hey, lamed)
In scripture it is always used to describe
those who have been assembled by YHvH.
It begins in Exodus 16:3 ( the bread from heaven )
and continues to Nehemiah 8:17 (living in Booths) NAsbU Nehemiah 8:17
Shabbat Shalom !
The entire assembly of those who had returned from
the captivity made booths and lived in them.
The sons of Israel had indeed not done so
from the days of Joshua(Yehoshua)
the son of Nun to that day.
And there was great rejoicing.
Nice try by a non-Christian.
You know, it’s interesting reading your post from a Catholic perspective, speaking for myself I don’t have too much of a problem with it. I’ve heard similar “objections” raised against the Catholic Church before, but again, I don’t understand how it (what you have posted and similar thoughts) are believed to be some kind of proof against the Catholic Church’s claim(s).
It seems to really hinge on different (presupposed perhaps?) viewpoints/definitions of certain words in such posts such as “started” and “temporal head”.
For example, I don’t have much of a problem believing there were a group of believers, an “assembly of believers” before Pentecost, after all, even after Jesus came on the scene, but before Pentecost, clearly there were “believers”. The question really is, at least to me, did these “believers” function in the same capacity before and after Pentecost? IOW, to me it seems fair to say after Pentecost, these “assembly of believers” took on a more active, “visible” role, thus in that respect, the “Church” was started at Pentecost, even though “it” may have existed in a more passive, less visible role before.
Similarly for the phrase “temporal head”. I don’t have any problem proudly claiming Jesus is the “Head” or “Chief Cornerstone” of the Catholic Church, but “before Jesus” could this be said? That is, would Jews before Christ have said that? Of course not. So, it’s again a question of “time” no matter if we speak of Christ or even a “guardian” or “steward” He appointed in St. Peter.
That is, God is always acknowledged as the “Head” of the Church throughout time, so of course the answer to the strict question, “Was it [the Church[ to have a temporal head ?” would be “no”, IF such a question is asking, “Was the Church intended to have a temporary, mortal head to REPLACE God?”. The answer to that is no, and again, every Catholic would agree with that.
So again, in conclusion, I don’t see why such posts that revolve around a word study of “church” are thought to be so contrary to Catholic thought. I’m interested in your thoughts/responses on this matter, but I probably won’t respond to anything you write in response, as I’m not looking for a debate. Just any further thoughts you wish to add at this time.
Thanks,