WordWolf

Bravo. An excellent post overall.

That guess was hardly "wild". It IS "Taxi Driver." Travis suddenly begins focusing his life when he prepares to do violence- working out, buying guns, fashioning a custom holster, looking tough in the mirror ("You talking to me?...."), then tries to shoot the Governor/Presidential candidate. He fails. Meanwhile, he's been trying to get Jodi Foster's character to give up prostitution. When he sees her pimp victimizing her, he gets her out of there by shooting up the place-and shooting all the criminals. He becomes reported as a hero for rescuing that young girl from criminals. Meanwhile, it's soul searcher's turn.

No. I'm glad it wasn't too obvious. IMHO, this movie is better known than "V For Vendetta."

A man adds direction to his life, and attempts to become a public enemy, but accidentally ends up being proclaimed a hero.

Wikiquote's main page in English: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikiquote's index for television shows with quotes: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Television_shows They also have sections for films and literary works, and that doesn't even count the other languages. Just go to the page for television shows, and look through the alphabetized list of shows with quotes listed. Then pick one you're interested in, and look at its quotes. If it only has 1 or 2, you might want to pick a different show.

Check the date and time the poster posted. Check the date and time the moderator posted. If you find a long post like that which was posted AFTER the moderator's message, then by all means report it. I haven't seen one (yet).

He dodged and changed the subject because that's all he's got. Someone already demonstrated he doesn't even understand the sections he's quoted, and his insults just cover his fears he will see himself as clumsy as we've seen him, stumbling his way through discussions with nothing to offer but insults-and certainly no SUBSTANCE. With no ability to discuss or debate here, it's obvious his claims of success, skill and even competency elsewhere are nothing more than wind. Anyone can make any claim, but it's not hard to see who's all sizzle here, and who's got the steak to match their sizzle. We've had quite a week of grizzle, I'll say that. Must be the changing weather.

IIRC, they did, with 2 different orders of ordination. So, they ordained each other with the first order, then ordained each other with the second order.

Which means, since this was correct, Hwtb is up at bat.

Just going from this, I suspected it was "Oh, Brother, Where Are Thou?"

"Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer." I was a bit busy lately, but the "You're on fire!" "YOU THINK?????" exchange is hard to forget. Even if I only got it off the commercials. :)

I thought it bore repeating. =============================== Before I forget to mention this, I may disagree with Abigail concerning doctrine, but I respect her beliefs and I respect the integrity with which she holds them. Similarly, I may disagree with many Christians concerning doctrine, but respect their beliefs and the integrity with which they hold them. That does not apply to everyone, and trying to meld an incomplete understanding of Christianity to an incomplete understanding of Judaism is only going to produce an odd patchwork creature that displays the weaknesses of both, and weaknesses neither has. It's like trying to draw a picture of a tall, fat, skinny little man. It's not going to work. Of course, someone can CLAIM it would work, but then opinions are not guaranteed, and denial has had a long, proud tradition upon the face of the earth.

So far, it seems every time someone ex-twi has set up another religious group, it's resembled twi in any number of ALARMING things, like the authoritative leader, lack of accountability, making a profit, etc. This shouldn't be terribly shocking. There's a reason that the saying is well-known: Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Those who don't "purge their systems" of twi poison end up perpetuating the system, like an abused child can become an abuser if they don't get help and get rid of toxic ideas, toxic behavior....

For the curious, James crossposted the same response to 2 threads. My response to this was already posted, so I'll just link to the page.

[Well, since you're determined to end your understanding there and INSIST that Christians are supposed to follow all the Law of Moses, I see I'm going to have to be more obvious. BTW, just about everybody else here has no trouble with this, so this is unnecessary most of the time....] Galatians 2:16-20 16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17"But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18"For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19"For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21"I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." ================================= Galatians 3:1-14 1You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? 5So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. 10For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." 11Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." 12However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. ================================= Galatians 3:23-26 23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ============================================= [i know, I know, you've got your own personal spin on all that. We're not required to sip your Kool-Aid, however. We can read it for ourselves, and the contortions it takes to invalidate a straightforward reading of this and reverse its meaning from "we don't need the law anymore" to "we need the law now" do not appeal to the locals here. This is not fertile ground for your doctrine, your organization, or your proselytizing. That having been said, I'm not saying you're being kicked out. I'm saying it's plain to us that you're here with an agenda, and I'm telling you that agenda won't get done here. You can go try to accomplish it somewhere else, but you're setting up a Sabrett's Hot Dog stand in front of a vegan convention and waiting to see how much business you're going to get. (In case it wasn't obvious, I'm using a figure of speech- dwelling on the specifics of the figure would be moronic. I bring that up because vpw did it sometimes, as have others. I want to save you the trouble of doing the same just this once.}]

And some of the people who were "disfellowshipped"/"marked and avoided" by twi went on to form their own cults. And vpw himself left a legitimate church to form his cult in the first place. Leaving a cult is no guarantee one won't rejoin a cult, or even make their own cult. In fact, the odds are worse for them than the average person on the street. Unless they learn what was so toxic and harmful the first time, they'll repeat the mistakes of others like someone caught in the cycle of child abuse.] ["I didn't split from one group to IMMEDIATELY create another" =\= "I didn't split from one group and create another." You're even claiming you were critical in this "Nazarene Judaism" organization. That sounds more like an accidental CONFESSION than anything else, around here. [twi hasn't "disfellowshipped" many people since 1996, either- it's about overall numbers. There were too few people to just kick them out. BTW, you disagree with all the posters here so far as to what the "essentials" even ARE, and the idea you're AGAINST division over non-essentials is a funny one to those who've kept up with your posts. ]

[Apparently, that's EXACTLY what he meant.] [When the people who supposedly are on your side are pointing out that your thinking is fundamentally flawed, you need to start over with more diligence and humility- you're missing the obvious.] [Just from what little he's posted already, it's clear that Decomposer lacks a basic understanding of what he's condemning, so his defense mechanism is to pronounce sentence on it and declare it unclean. Since he's putting forth himself as at least a PASSING intellectual, and is actually BELOW AVERAGE, it becomes obvious what his obsession with "hypocrisy" stems from. Just as vpw couldn't tolerate hearing the suggestion that Paul was a sex maniac because his own faults were that he HIMSELF was a sex maniac, Decomposer despises hypocrisy with a hot vendetta- he HIMSELF is hypocritical, and trying to wage war on hypocrisy outside of himself so he can ignore the hypocrisy INSIDE OF HIMSELF. Jesus would have told him to get the beam out of his own eye before trying to help with the splinter in someone else's eye. Too bad Composer is unable to comprehend good advice if it comes from a religious source no matter how badly he needs it....]

[it's a demonstration of the calcification of James Trimm's thinking process that he can't see what's clear to all the other posters, that is, the meaning of the replies he's getting.] Acts 15:1-31 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." 6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8"And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." 12All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. 14"Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15"With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,' 18SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. 19"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." 22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24"Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27"Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." 30So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. [but would James Trimm ask us for money? I mean "again" since he already solicited donations for his lawyer....]

[The GSC posters tend to operate on the principle "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." That or "Once bitten, twice shy." Or both, in most cases.] [i can see there's something of a consensus building about that. James isn't the first such person to arrive at the GSC, he's just the flavor of the week. Sadly, he won't be the last, either.] [Technically, you may not. Technically, neither did victor paul wierwille. However, he orchestrated things so as to get people to consider him God's Sole Spokesman, and tell that to others, all without him mouthing the actual words. He understood the concept "plausible deniability" if only at a subconscious level. We've learned since then. And seen it since then.] [You're presuming he hasn't worn out his welcome in other playgrounds. He's presuming someone here is interested in what he's "selling", when we already rejected this sort of thing the first time.] [We know that- we've seen your stuff on more than one website. We can correct you here, but not everywhere.] [Ezekiel 33:1-5 1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: 3If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; 4Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. 5He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. ]

I'm not going to respond to most of this now. However, the more I learn about victor paul wierwille, the more I see that he took ideas from everyone else with no original ideas of his own. (With the possible exception of saying that God thought orgies were acceptable but not "best".) This one here on Holy Spirit almost certainly came from Bullinger's "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit" (formerly known as "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" or something like that.) That's the book that goes through all the usages of the term in the New Testament and attempted to document exactly what it referred to in each case. (Presuming they meant different things.)

[if this is the same poor excuse for formal logic you use elsewhere, no wonder you've been reduced to coming here and harassing posters instead of doing something of genuine benefit. If A= Christians, and B= hypocrites, what you've said is A=B, which means you've said "All A=B" and "All B=A", which means in plain English that you think there are no Christians that are not hypocrites, and there are no hypocrites that are not Christians. That's a flaw easy to see using formal logic. Did you really mean to say you don't think any hypocrites exist among non-Christians? That there's no atheist hypocrites, no agnostic hypocrites, no Muslim hypocrites, no wiccan hypocrites, no Jewish hypocrites, and so on? It IS what you said, when you said that "Christian" and "hypocrite" are "one and the same". If it's NOT what you meant, you need to understand your own posts better. If you don't understand what YOU write, you have little hope of understanding what OTHERS write. If that's true, then there's small wonder that your response to what you misunderstand is to condemn it. That's the refuge of small minds from every walk of life, from every religious, non-religious, or anti-religious background. If that's true, then there's little hope of giving you a satisfactory answer- you will lack the understanding to receive it and accept it. On the other hand, if you understood what you posted, and meant every word of it, then you truly are blinded by your own prejudices and are unable to see poor examples of non-Christians, and good examples OF Christians. If that's true, then there's little hope of giving you a satisfactory answer- you already passed judgment on every Christian post before reading them, and passed judgment on every non-Christian post before reading them, blindly condemning every Christian utterance, and blindly endorsing every non-Christian utterance. So, I'm just curious- did you NOT mean that (and pass yourself off as someone much smarter than you are), or did you MEAN that (and proudly own an intellectual bigotry that operates as a tremendous mental blind spot)? Either you meant it or you didn't, so it's one or the other.]

[Let's be honest. The Research Department wrote both books, which is why their writing style is superior to all other books that say "by victor paul wierwille" on them. IIRC (which I may not), vpw wrote a foreword or preface to the book, but otherwise it was all their work. (If he didn't, he wrote none of it.) TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, if he's put "EDITED BY victor paul wierwille" on it, I'd object less. The thinking would be that he was acknowledging that the material was work by others, even anonymous others, and that he was claiming overall direction of them, not direct authorship. The idea is that, since they were following "his" rules, that "he" was editor by proxy, despite Wa1ter Cumm1ns being the one who oversaw the entire department as well as both books. There were a SMALL number of them, but some of that small number was trained in accredited universities with formal degrees in languages like Greek, Aramaic and so on.] [That was the status of things up to 1985, when vpw dropped dead.] [shortly after vpw's death came the first reading of "the Passing of the Patriarch." http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-miscellaneous/passing-of-the-patriarch.html (The entire contents are on the GSC for your perusal. There have been entire threads discussing it, its contents, and so on.) The upshot for purposes of this thread is that the end of 1986 and the beginning of 1987 saw some of the higher-ups in twi leaving twi- partly due to POP and partly due to other truths coming to light to them about vpw being a liar, rapist, molester, etc. In 1989, lcm- President of twi since the early 1980s, but not the sole figure until vpw dropped dead in 1985- demanded an oath of loyalty from every single person in twi. When someone who knew him personally asked him to clarify and said it sounded like he was asking to be FOLLOWED BLINDLY, lcm himself said the other guy "HAD BEEN DOING THAT ALL ALONG",(whereupon the other guy proved that wasn't the case and said lcm could kiss part of his anatomy). Not counting the people who left the other year (or the slow trickle of people who started leaving since vpw died), lcm's demand for all leadership and all rank-and-file to swear their loyalty to him resulted in 4/5 of the group refusing to do so. When that happened, lcm fired 4/5 of all the leadership at every level- at the Region, the State/Limb, Territory (parts of states), and Branch (groups of the local fellowships meeting at people's homes.) He could not fire the Twig/fellowship leaders since they were all volunteers. When lcm fired 4/5 of the leadership, 4/5 of the current membership got up and walked off from twi. Many stayed in touch locally, and many leaders stayed together, since they left as a unit, so they were able to continue largely as before, with final orders coming from the Region or Limb level rather than HQ in Ohio. At that time, Wa1ter Cumm1ns left HQ, and most of the research department left with him. (After that, the way magazine started running all its articles with lots and lots of images, illustrations and photos, which just happen to replace large amounts of text, as if they wanted to hide that they had nobody left to write for them. Furthermore, when they taught on "Word in Culture" after that, it was entirely about how to submit an article for inclusion in the way magazine. Even with all that, the magazine got a bit thinner- even with most of its content being anything but text.) The remaining members of the research department left over the next few years as lcm slowly began making loopier and loopier commands. Any who remained by the time rosalie rivenbark was placed in the top chair left when they got tired of her even more restrictive commands. This is a woman who had been in charge of the twi Bookstore, and ordered that every employee sign in and out when leaving for any reason-including going to the bathroom. She got more legalistic as she got more authority. Currently, all people with ACCREDITED RESEARCH educations have left twi. Currently, twi has nothing to interest any more from ever signing on. So, the twi Research Department has been "dead" for years.]

It was LAZINESS! First, victor paul wierwille went up to Canada, took BG Leonard's class, and came back, plagiarizing Leonard's class as "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (later "Power For Abundant Living"). Then victor paul wierwille plagiarized JE Stiles' book "Gift of the Holy Spirit" as the first edition textbook of that same class- and named the publishing company by plagiarizing the name of the publishing company Leonard set up- CANADIAN CHRISTIAN PRESS. That was 1953 and 1953-1954, respectively. He was a plagiarist, he intended to deceive the students when he said it was his class, and when he said it was his book. Need more? The VERY FIRST class, he ASKED Leonard for permission to run LEONARD'S CLASS. All people who took Leonard's class were automatically considered grads of "vpw's" class. (A handful traveled with vpw when he sat through Leonard's class a "second" time- he had interrupted a class in progress the first time, and Leonard generously allowed him to take the class he interrupted even though it wasn't his normal policy.) When speaking to Leonard, he said he's run Leonard's class once. He took a photo of that class, and sent it to Leonard, and that's the last he told Leonard. Leonard, meanwhile, added the photo to his scrapbook and believed a supposed fellow Christian wouldn't lie to him. (One of our fellow posters later took Leonard's class, AND got to look through his photo album AND identified the photo.) Meanwhile, what did he tell those students? He said it was HIS class and never mentioned Leonard to them. He kept a copy of the photo for his own records, and after that class, he continued to run Leonard's class with the new name and pocket the money. vpw slowly built "his" church ministry on this. He did this while still on the payroll of his denomination, and waited a few years before severing ties with them. He continued to rely on "his" class and "his" ministry (grads who stuck around), which accounted for a very small number of people staying with him for significant periods of time, but allowed him to make a living at it. (BTW, he regularly taught sermons, but he also kept a library hidden that was composed of sermons and work from other Christians- and he regularly drew from those for the sermons. He didn't write sermons from scratch- mostly he retaught their sermons. I got that from one of the few people who got to SEE and HANDLE those books, back when vpw still referenced them-which he continued to do for THE REST OF HIS LIFE.) This changed shortly after he read about the House of Acts in Haight-Ashbury. He immediately went to San Fransicso to hijack the hippies. He convinced real Christians among them to work with him. THEY worked for God on the East Coast and West Coast, and membership numbers skyrocketed in the space of 2-3 years. Once the numbers were up, then vpw kicked out the former hippies that were responsible for all the numbers. twi's growth was the combination of the class of Leonard's, the book of Stiles, and the Christian ministries of men like H33fn3r and D00p. (With some additions here and there from other authors like Bullinger and Kenyon.) The man's entire ministry was based on plagiarizing the work of others, and hiding the sources so he didn't go to jail.

*winces* I was hoping to see you post again-but under better circumstances! I'll T.I.T.T.L.I.P for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church " The English language word "church" is from the Old English word cirice, derived from West Germanic *kirika, which in turn comes from the Greek κυριακή kuriakē, meaning "of the Lord" (possessive form of κύριος kurios "ruler, lord"). Kuriakē in the sense of "church" is most likely a shortening of κυριακὴ οἰκία kuriakē oikia ("house of the Lord") or ἐκκλησία κυριακή ekklēsia kuriakē ("congregation of the Lord").[2] Christian churches were sometimes called κυριακόν kuriakon (adjective meaning "of the Lord") in Greek starting in the 4th century, but ekklēsia and βασιλική basilikē were more common.[3] The Greek word ekklēsia, literally "assembly, congregation, council", is the traditional term referring to the Christian Church." [(Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary agrees with the wikipedia explanation.) Anybody could open a collegiate dictionary and check this-as I did- or look this up online-as I did. It's an easy mistake to fix.]] James Trimm: "You may have heard that the word "Church" originally referred to the people and later came to refer to the building. This is not true. The word "Church" originally referred to the building and later came to refer to the people. Moreover the word "church" is of pagan origin." ["Assembly" and "congregation" don't refer to a building, and the early Christians didn't HAVE buildings to work from. It HAD TO refer to the people and later to the building. Moreover, as we just saw, the word "church" is NOT of pagan origin. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/church http://www.thefreedictionary.com/church Look it up yourselves.] James Trimm: "Now if you look up the English word "Church" in Webster's dictionary you will find the following meanings:" [Come on-you're supposedly a sufficiently-educated man. Saying something is in "Webster's Dictionary" gives no real information-that name is in the public domain, which means that you or I could bang out a horribly bad dictionary, call it "Webster's Dictionary", and sell it to the public. That's why I quote the Merriam-Webster, which IS copyrighted- which means there's only 1 Merriam-Webster. Finding something in "Webster's Dictionary" is no guarantee it was even researched. There's no quality control for that term.] James Trimm: "1. a building set apart or consecrated for public worship, esp. one for Christian worship. 2. All Christians as a whole. 3. A denomination of Christians. In short a "church" is either a building or a group of Christians." [in short, that's what it means in plain English, regardless of what it meant centuries ago or where it was derived.] James Trimm: "Now wherever we see the English word "church" in an English Bible we would expect the underlying Greek word would be a Greek word that also means "a group of Christians". Since the English uses such a technical theological term one would expect that the Greek has also used a technical theological term. But the reality is that the Greek word that appears wherever the English has "church" is not a technical theological term and DOES NOT mean "a group of Christians" at all. That’s right, a technical theological term of pagan origin meaning "a group of Christians" has been inserted in your English Bible despite the fact that the corresponding Greek word is not a technical theological term and does not mean the same thing as the word "Church". The Greek word that appears where our English Bible's have "church" is EKKLESIA. EKKLESIA is just the Greek word for "assembly". Although it comes from a root meaning "to call out" there is no special theological significance to this word. In fact this is the same Greek word which was used for "assembly" by the classical Pagan Greek writers. Inscriptions in ancient Greek auditoriums where pagan ritual dramas were performed by the Bachus cult have the audience section inscribed with the sign "EKKLESIA". This same Greek word EKKLESIA is used throughout the Greek Septuagint translation of the Tanak as the word for "assembly". There are also many places where the Greek word EKKLESIA appears in the NT but which the KJV and other translators did NOT translate the word as "church". This same Greek word is even used in Acts 19:32-41 to describe an unruly mob, yet here the translators suddenly translate the word as "assembly" rather than "church"." [Glad you could join the rest of us. We discussed this on and off through the years, the last of those times in 2003. We discussed it in the "Actual Errors in pfal" thread as well as other places.] James Trimm: "There is therefore no such thing as the "church" because the Greek word translated "church" does not mean "church" at all but "assembly". [Don't be so silly! When the Christians assemble together as Christians, they are an assembly of Christians, a Christian congregation, a Christian CHURCH. The word "church" carries a current meaning that "ekklesia" didn't carry by itself 2000 years ago. And "meat and drink" used to mean "solid food and a beverage" (which would include broccoli and spring water) but NOW means "cooked edible animal flesh and an alcoholic beverage" (Which would NOT include broccoli and spring water.) LIVING languages change in meaning over time.] James Trimm: "Now there are some who claim that the "Church" was a new entity born in Acts 2 at Pentecost of 32 C.E. . However if we examine the events of Acts 2 we find that at that event persons were "added to" the "church" (Acts 2:47) which means that the "church" had to have already existed at that time." [it obviously did. Reading the Bible makes it obvious who was in "the Christian church" before the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Read Acts 1!] Acts 1:15-22.(NASB) " 15At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 16"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.' 21"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." Can it be any simpler? About 120 people ASSEMBLED there as a CONGREGATION. They were the first people in the CHRISTIAN CHURCH-those who were ready on the day of Pentecost, the official beginning of the Christian Church, when about 2000 more were added to about 120.] James Trimm: "If we turn to Acts 7:38 we see that it speaks of Moses as "he that was in the church in the wilderness". Certainly this "church" could not have been a new "New Testament" entity." Acts 7:34-39 (NASB) 34'I HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN THE OPPRESSION OF MY PEOPLE IN EGYPT AND HAVE HEARD THEIR GROANS, AND I HAVE COME DOWN TO RESCUE THEM; COME NOW, AND I WILL SEND YOU TO EGYPT.' 35"This Moses whom they disowned, saying, 'WHO MADE YOU A RULER AND A JUDGE?' is the one whom God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush. 36"This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years. 37"This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, 'GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN.' 38"This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you. 39"Our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt, ============== [Looks like, if one is not obsessed with the KJV and reads more CONSISTENT versions with their origins in the 20th century textual discoveries and not those extant in 1611, one doesn't see "church" when "congregation" was more appropriate. Israel assembled as a congregation lots of times. So did every other group at that time.] James Trimm: "Now while the term "church" is a mistranslation for a word simply meaning "assembly"," [it was a corrected error when referring to Israel-so long as you're not forced to only use the King James Version. The early Christian congregation assembled as the church, so this is correct in referring to them as such.] James Trimm: "there is an entity which is commonly referred to as "The Assembly" in the New Testament. Let us examine the Scriptures and determine what the true identity of this "Assembly" is. To begin with we must understand that this Assembly is also known as the "Body of Messiah" as we read: "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:18 - KJV)" [Right. And in Colossians 1:2, we see more about them.] Colossians 1:2 (NASB) 2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. James Trimm: "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph. 1:22-23 - KJV)" {Ephesians 1:1 (NASB) 1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: James Trimm: "Now one may ask what "Assembly" is the allegorical Messiah?" [The faithful brethren in Christ, the witnesses of his resurrection, the holy ones ("saints"). That's what the same chapters called them. They are obviously the early Christians. They certainly weren't anyone else- who else would be considered "the witnesses of his resurrection" if everyone except early Christians didn't think Jesus was resurrected?] James Trimm: "To find the answer to that question lets look at Matthew 2:14-15: "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. " (Matthew 2:14-15 - KJV) Now here Matthew is citing a prophecy in Hosea 11:1 and applying it to Messiah. Now let us go back and look at this prophecy in Hosea 11:1 in context: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." (Hosea 11:1 - KJV) Here Hosea is referring to Israel as the son who is called out of Egypt. This points us back to a passage in the Torah: "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." (Ex. 4:22-23 - KJV) From these two passages we learn that Israel is the firstborn son of Elohim who is called out of Egypt. However in Matthew it is Yeshua the Messiah who is called up out of Egypt and in Col. 1:18 Messiah is the "firstborn"." [Correct. These are some of many verses where there was a double fulfillment. Another was when Jeremiah wrote about the children dead in Rama, which was fulfilled in Jeremiah's lifetime and AGAIN when Herod slew the innocents in an attempt to kill the coming King (Jesus.)] James Trimm: "Moreover Hebrews speaks of the "church of the firstborn" (Heb. 12:23 - KJV)." Hebrews 12:23-24 (NASB) 23to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. [That's still obviously the Christians.] James Trimm: "Thus Israel is allegorically equivalent to the Messiah. There are some very important reasons for this allegorical relationship: * Both are the "firstborn Son of Elohim". * Both made a major impact on the world. * Both were born through a biological miracle on their mother's womb. * Both were taken into Egypt to save their lives. * Both were called up out of Egypt. * Both were despised and rejected by men. * Rome attempted to destroy them both. * Both are resurrected." [You have suddenly stopped quoting the Bible, failing to support this list-probably because part of this list is contrived, and is the word of man and not in the Bible.] James Trimm: "Thus Israel is the allegorical "Body of Messiah". Moreover in the Tanak, Israel is commonly called "The Assembly of Israel" and wherever the phrase "The Assembly of Israel" appears in the Tanak the Greek LXX has "EKKLESIA of Israel". The so-called "church" which is the "Body of Messiah" is in reality "the Assembly of Israel". Yeshua did not come to create a new religion, but to be Messiah of the old one. Wherever your English New Testament refers to a "church" (i.e. a group of Christians) the Greek has "EKKLESIA a term which commonly refers to the "Assembly of Israel". The "Church" as most Christians have understood it never existed. All of the passage people have thought were talking about the "Church" were actually talking about the Assembly of Israel, not Christianity, but the Nazarene sect of Judaism." [Jesus came to save the world. He knew full well that he would be forsaken by Israel- he spoke the parable about the party where the original guests refused to attend, and the rolls were opened to EVERYONE. Israel obviously assembled as a congregation. That no more makes them the same "ekklesia" as the early Christians then the "ekklesia" that was the mob in Ephesus was the same ekklesia was the same "ekklesia" as the early Christians. The Christian church began as Jesus began to preach, and formally began on Pentecost. Even a fool knows people assembled to hear Jesus preach- some of those people believed on him. About 120 of them met in Acts 1 in Jerusalem after Jesus' ascension to the right hand of God. That's "the Church" as most Christians have understood it, and a simple reading of the chapters makes that plainly obvious. Unless one is determined to enforce another meaning and discard the most straightforward one.] [Edited to fix some punctuation-I did not add, delete, or change a single word.]