It seemed that you likened the link between "church" and kuriakos to a myth. The point, I thought, was Azul's request for help with finding the EOC in the Bible. Because ekklesia can refer to a secular assembly as well as a religious one, the mere appearance of ekklesia doesn't suffice to prove what Azul wants.
I didn't say there was (especially since it is true). It just has nothing to do with the point on hand:ecclesia means "Church."
LOL all you want, there's nothing untrue about my comment that the word "church" comes from kuriakos.
Azul, some Messianics object to translating ekklesia with "church" because "church" is derived from a different word, kuriakos ("belonging to the Lord"). This objection is not exclusively Messianic but is popular among many independent Christians.LOL. So like the eloborate pagan origin myths of Easter-based on the questionable origin of the word, an Germanic spring goddess, ignorant of the fact that besides the English and the Germans everyone else calls it Pascha (from the Hebrew PesaH-Passover), this one too because they are anglo-bound.
As we pointed out, those "ecclesia" identified as such by the NT are mostly still around, still called "ecclesia" and nearly all (Rome and Malta being singular exceptions) still in the EOC, continuously so from their founding by the Apostles.
I try hard to avoid eisogesis. Unless ecumenical councils were regularly convened to rule on these private disputes, a decision to treat an offender as a Gentile or a tax-collector (Matthew 18:17) must've been handled at the congregational level.
You are trying to read congregationalism into where it is not (the parrallel at I Corinthians underlying that).
The Messiah instructed that unresolved disputes about private sins be brought before the congregation to which the disputing parties belonged. Such a congregation was part of the community of believers that the gates of sh'ol would never prevail against.
George P. Estes of the Churches of Christ, for instance, avoided the word "church" in his New Covenant Scriptures translation, where we find Jesus telling Peter, "... Upon this rock I will build my community of believers, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).Yes, it does:the word is used in the LXX for Hebrew "qahal," along with "synagoge," and the Hebrew Congregation/Assembly of Israel was very much an institution, worked out by Christ's day by the rabbis. When Christ says "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail over her," He is refering to an institution, born out when He commands later "tell it to the Church" for judgement.
Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, says in regard to Matthew 16:18:
"Community, Greek ekklesia, which means 'called-out ones,' and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal, 'assembly, congregation, community.' The usual English translation of ekklesia is 'church'; and from it comes the word 'ecclesiastical,' meaning, 'having to do with the church.' The JNT [Jewish New Testament or Complete Jewish Bible] sometimes uses 'Messianic community' or 'congregation' to render ekklesia. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in God and his son the Messiah Yeshua. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the Messianic community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, 'the ekklesia that meets in their house' (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike 'church,' ekklesia never refers to an institution or to a building."
And if they belonged to two different congregations (often occuring. I know that from experience)? A bet din rendered judgement local judgement, but its judgement was respected by the entire rabbinate. So too the inferior courts of the Sanhedrin had the authority of the Sanhedrin.
So too the local parish priest of today, who is not ignorant of the source of his authority (and those who are are often quickly corrected). We are talking about a global institution acting locally, not a local institution acting on its own.
If you're appealing to the parallel situation in 1 Corinthians 5, let me note that the apostle Paul was rebuking the Corinthian believers for not removing a man who had taken his father's wife. Thus, the Corinthians were guilty of disobeying our Lord's instructions in Matthew 18 by their failure to handle this excommunication at the congregational level.
No, I was refering to 6:1-5: this "ecclesia" has a cosmic jurisdiction to judge angels. Not a parochial local congregation.
Let's be careful not to make too much of ordinations, eventhough they're not to be disparaged. Remember Arius? Despite being an ordained presbyter, he went bad. The apostle Paul said even he himself was not to be trusted, despite his ordination, if he were to preach a false gospel (Galatians 1 : 8 ). A continuation of beliefs and practices, or a discontinuation of them, can trump an ordination.
Considering it greatly important of who ordained whom over the centuries is a continuation of the Apostles' beliefs and practices, and if we do not see such a continuation, we know any congregation, church, whatever, has no connection to the Church that Christ founded.
You consider it greatly important that there be records of who ordained whom over the centuries. I look to see a continuation of beliefs and practices,
Right now there's a gap in your argument to prove that the word 'church' in Scripture refers to your institution, the Eastern Orthodox Church. This gap is impossible to bridge, so far as I can tell; in fact, Roman Catholics can't bridge it to show that ekklesia denotes the Roman Catholic Church any more than I can show it denotes the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.The is no gap (as far as instituion goes) for the "Roman Catholics", let alone the Orthodox Church, but the gap for "the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America" disqualifies it from even entering the running. For the MJAA, the trail runs cold after a century of so. Even if you extend it to include its basis in the Judaizing in Protestantism (it is a Protestant sect), that only brings in a few centuries more. Even stretch it to the breaking point and include the roots of Protestantantism and include Peter Waldo and Claudius of Turin, and throwing in the iconoclasts for good mesure, there is absolutely no one who believed as the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America believes before 730. Not a one, and even for that 730-1817 (the date of the first Messianic Jewish Congregations founding) 1,287 years, you have to overlook a lot of conflicting and contradicting beliefs:the Iconoclasts, for instance, believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Claudius of Turin defended the unity and equality of the episcopate, etc.
In contrast, those Churches called Churches in the NT mostly survive and nearly all remain in the communion of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (those who do not have gone over to the Vatican; one day, Lord willing, I will go through the NT and trace the fate of the Churches it names). We have documented, in every generation from the Apostles founding of those Churches until today, Faithful who believe exactly as we do and would be allowed to commune with us today (as they surely do now in heaven). Every generation, without a gap, "all the days" as Christ promised to be with us "until the end of the age" (end of Matthew). Even the Vatican can trace its origin to the founding of Rome by SS. Peter and Paul, as the Protestants cannot to the Apostles. The college of cardinals, for instance, did not come into its present form until amost a thousand years ago, but the links between it and the original electoral body of the bishop of Rome-the subcurian suffragan bishops, the priests and deacons (always seven in the first millenium or so) and Faithful of Rome a thousand years before-are well documented without gaps. The Vatican's problem is that it going off the rails is also well documented.
Which is a problem for the Protestants in general and the Messianic Jewish ones in particular:if we know all sorts of things about all sorts of heretics (and we do) throughout all the ages, why do we not find any documentation of Protestants-at least someone the Protestants would want to claim-before Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus and Luther? That is over a millenium gap evidently that Christ did not remain with the Church over which He promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and over which the gates of hell prevailed to make it put its light evidently under a bushel. And if Christ lied in that promise-God forbid!-we need not pay attention to anything else He had to say.
Btw, in the Jewish State, only 9-15,000 belong to the Messianic Jewish movement, whereas the number of Hebrews in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is at least ten times that number.
A discontinuation can trump an ordination: Judas was the first case, and, as the Church said in accord with prophecy "Let his bishoprick another take." Acts 1:20.
Arius was a priest, not a bishop, and was disposed of by the episcopate.
It is not possible to make too much of consecrations to the episcopate:without it, there is no Church. And the Church has proved herself more than capable to remove the unworthy recipients, and raise up worthy successors.
No bishop, no Church. There can be no continuation of Apostolic belief nor practice without him. Hence "a continuation of beliefs and practices" "trumping an ordination" is an oxymoron.
I'll ignore your silliness about the sacrifices on Mount Moriah. I'm glad you're one of Abraham's faithful sons.
as where Scripture says that Abraham's children believed and behaved faithfully like Abraham and that Sarah's daughters believed and behaved like Sarah.and offer animal sacrifices on Mount Moriah?
This son of Abraham believes and behaves faithfully like Abraham by confessing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
No silliness at all. The sons and daughters of Abraham and Sarah sacrificed on Mt. Moriah, as Father Abraham did, until the coming of the Christ, when believing and behaving like Abraham and Sarah meant to abandon the shadow the sacrifices on Mt. Moriah for the reality of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which was the continuation of the beliefs and practices of Father Abraham and Mother Sarah, not the continuation of the offering the blood of bulls and lambs.
What beliefs and practices do you have in mind that must be continued?
Paul's and the other apostles' ordinations took place before the split that led to the EOC and RCC. The MJAA honors the apostles by following their guidance on not forcing believing Jews to forsake the Torah (Acts 21:17-26). That, my friend, is ancient faith and practice.
Thus Paul, who was converted and called by the Lord, was no less an emissary or apostle than Matthias, who was chosen by lots during a meeting of the 11 other emissaries or apostles.And those whom both ordained are in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, not the pastorate/rabbinate of the MJAA.
So is sacrificing children to Moloch. Some "ol' time religions" should die out.
No split "led to the EOC": Christ sent the Holy Spirit down upon the disciples, and He made them the Apostles of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the one you are refering to as the "EOC." Hence the first order of business in honoring the Apostles is following the guidance of those whom they consecrated as their successors, who appear in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
As said bishops do not forsake the Penteteuch, they do not require Jews to forsake the Torah. Just to stop reading the New Testament with the veil of the Old Testament, but read the Old Testament with the light of the New Testament. II Cor. 3.
To be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah as the cornerstone, a group must maintain the beliefs, conduct, and practices advocated by the Messiah and the apostles,and only the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, and those in communion with them, maintain the belifes, conduct and practices advocated by the Messiah and His Apostles.
The apostle Paul rebuked the apostle Peter for separating from the Galatian believers and forcing them to live like Jews (Galatians 2:11-14), but he never complained about the Jerusalem apostles' acceptance of Jewish believers who were zealous for the Torah (Acts 21:17-26).
who accommodated peoples' scruples about diets, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths.The Apostle St. Paul withstood the Apostle St. Peter on such a matter.
Only if they removed the veil of Moses. The Protestant reformation, like the Jewish reparing the veil in the Temple torn in two, has put up the veil of Moses once again.
The hiearchy is bound to do all in the name or authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing can be bound or loosed that hasn't been bound or loosed in heaven.
To the extent that "institutions" passed laws restricting the diversity originally allowed, those institutions became less and less apostolic.The Church Christ founded has power from Him to bind and loose, and it not bound by any "diversity" other than that which it finds within the Faith.
"When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law...When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men"
The hierarchy of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church still teaches with His authority.
The MJAA does not profess Protestantism, but follows the right teaching of the apostles, who accepted Jewish believers without telling them to abandon the Torah. Your denomination may not want anything to do with us, but we enjoy fellowship where it counts!
The MJAA, to which I belong, includes members who trust in the Messiah and love the Torah just as myriads of believing Jews in Jerusalem used to do (Acts 21:20-24). There's no indication that the apostles would have been bothered by what the MJAA does.Since it confesses Protestantism, and not the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles, there are plenty of indications would be bothered by what the MJAA does. Inf fact, since it is not in communion with the successors of the Apostles, we know that for a fact.
"Not everyone who calls out to Me 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven.
I don't have a denomination. I belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those who do not enjoy her fellowship do not count, as they do not do the will of the Father to join themselves to His Son's Body, the Church.
The MJAA, not wanting to have anything to do with Christ's bishops, rejects the right teaching of the Apostles, professing the Judaizing tenets of Protestantism, telling Jews to continue to wear, and not abandon, the veil of Moses, abandoning Him who gave the Torah and breaking the covenant given on Sinai and sealed on Calvary.
The successors of the apostles are overseers who have faithfully held to apostolic beliefs and practices without introducing new restrictions.
The successors of the apostles are those upon whom they transmitted the gift of God through the laying on of their hands (semicha) (I Tim. 4:14, II Tim. 1:6) , the faithful men to whom they committed the teachings to teach others (II Tim. 2:2), who have full authority to bind and loosen (Math. 18:18), to encourage and rebuke with authority letting none dispise their authority (Tit 2:15) which the Lord gave them for edification (II Cor. 10:8 ).
They are not succeeded by those who take this honor upon themselves (Heb. 5:4).
That gap is taken care of by the Holy Spirit, whose work is manifest in our faith and practices. Again, I must note that ordinations aren't always decisive. I have an Episcopalian relative who brags that her clergy have a chain of ordinations going back to the apostles. But what good is that in a denomination that ordains homosexuals and lesbians?
Something I'd expect Ben David to bring up is the apostle James' use of sunagoge ("synagogue" or "assembly") and ekklesia respectively to refer to the same congregation: "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings ..." (James 2:2 NKJV). "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church ..." (James 5:14 NKJV). Here sunagogue and ekklesia help us see there apparently wasn't any apostolic objection to the existence of Messianic Jewish congregations.One could read St. Paul and find that out: nowhere does he forbid Hebrew Churches. And given the known connection (preserved by the Orthodox Church) between St. James the Brother of God and Jerusalem and the Hebrews, that wouldn't suprise us.
The problem you face is that gap and absolute lack of connection between St James' "Messianic Jewish congregations" and yours of today.
Since we have not found that that denomination can ordain heterosexual or celibate men, let alone anyone or anything else, you will have to take your question up with them.
Lack of consecrations and ordinations is always determinative.
Montanus, Mani, Muhammad, the Mormons...many claim that the Spirit fills that obvious gap. But God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33), so those who make such claims while denying the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded, the Apostles spread, and their successors, the bishops of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church have preserved whole, it is obvious such claims are hot air rather than the Holy Spirit.
It's tiring to hear this repeated lie that the MJAA's members are Protestant. Granted, some members used to be Protestant, but that's merely because they came to trust in the Jewish Messiah thanks to Protestant evangelism. Maybe you've forgotten that the Antiochian Orthodox Church includes at least 2,000 members who came from the Evangelical Orthodox Church, which was started by Protestants involved with Campus Crusade for Christ, a Protestant parachurch organization. But you don't call those members Protestants, do you? You should show MJAA members the same courtesy.
As you note, Paul or Sha'ul nowhere forbade Hebrew synagogues, assemblies, or congregations. So, why do you find fault with with the MJAA and its customs?Because they are Protestant, and hence have no connection to St. Paul and the Hebrew Christians he was in communion with.
Why would I call them Protestant now? They renounced their Protestantism, so their is no reason to remember it (or that of thousands of others who have been received by Orthodoxy). They submitted to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and were anointed with the Apostolic chrism. If MJAA members showed the same repentance, and were similiarly received, they would be entitled to the same "courtesy."
As long as they persist in their Protestanism, I will call them what they are: Protestants.
There you go again, this time with the word "uniform." Whenever uniformity replaces unity, division results.
Your attitude typifies a long-running problem in the community of believers, namely, an insistence on uniformity instead of unity.Yes, a uniform adherence to Apostolic authority, the source of unity. Not a problem, just the solution.
The Zealots, Bar Kochba, and the 12th "Blessing" of the Amida did that. And the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church had nothing to do with that except in reaction.
Romans 14:5 says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (NKJV). It says nothing about a dispute among apostles.
Where I live there are two congregations identifying themselves as Eastern Orthodox. In one church, members use pews; in the other, they stand during the liturgy. Moreover, I've visited forums where EO participants quarreled about calendars. Where do we find the apostles disputing about such differences?Romand 14:5
Their is no distinction between the Apostles and the Apostolic community. That is why schism from the latter cuts one off from the former. St. Paul is talking within that community.
Exactly how do EOs and OOs sanctify the day that runs from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday? Where does the Bible say the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday?
Are there any EO groups that allow for sabbatarianism? Not that I know of, yet the apostles allowed people to be convinced in their own minds as regards days of rest and worship.All EO (and AFAIK, all OO) honor the Sabbath. As for Sunday, the Apostles were the ones who made it the day of rest and worship.
This has already been answered, but Acts 20:7
Where in Scripture are we told, for instance, that the apostles told all their clergy to wear black?
When officials in the hierarchy began passing laws about schedules and clerical dress, they departed from apostolic practiceAu contraire, they exercised Apostolic authority, although I'm curious as to what exactly you mean by "clerical dress."
Where in Scripture are we told that the Apostles told all their clergy to follow sola scriptura?
I don't know where it says in the Sacred canons that all clergy wear black. Or delineates all the vestments for that matter.
The hierarchy has authority to do such things.
No, they were killed in brotherly love.
and their restrictions led to crises of conscience among members who had to choose between staying with the hierarchy or following their consciences. Some members who followed their consciences did so at the cost of their lives.You mean, died out?
No, the Romans were not yet brothers, and it was the Romans which destroyed Rome and crushed Bar Kokhba, scattering the Hebrew Church in the process.