Scott Williams in CAI has destroyed people´s lives with purpose, and now he obviously says he is persecuted, Scott Williams is very dangerous.

When I think of Scott I feel sadness only - no grudge. All forgiven and forgotten. Time to move on. I pray for him and hope his heart will soften before that day. I am also bearing in mind that God used CAI to at least get me connected to the bible and Faith in God, for which I am thankful.

Nevertheless I hope the members will wake up and leave - or refuse to bow to unscripural teaching. Things are changing everythime somebody refuses to tolerate unscripural activities and teachings. They excommunicate, defame and shunn the watchmen sent... then they make A LOT of changes.. coincidentally... and kind of simply forget to get back to the watchmen and thank them or admit something.

A question that CAI members should ask themselves: So much has changed since 2006 ... and again things have eased since Stephen and my family left - why? If everything we said (and you members have no idea what we said.. as we did not approach you, but the Overseers/Secretaries only, in tens of pages and hours of conference calls in which we could not be refuted whatsoever - how is that for a wolf?) ... if the issues brought up by countless people leaving.. why all the changes?

Has anyone ever contacted any of the shunned watchmen of Israel and admitted that some changes were necessary and have been implemented? No - they still think nothing has changed. Nobody tells them. How does that speak for humility? How does that look like reconciliation?

Has any of you ever heard: George brought up this point and it was right - we changed it? They will even admit something generally, but never admit a specific point. When people put their denominational belief version before the Love of the Truth... can Jesus help them?

I don't believe "God"used them to get you in touch with the Bible Torben, i sincerely believe that would have happened anyway. Maybe God used us all as chances to repent and a testament to his grace- but not to get us in touch with him- how could he when they really know so little about God?

 They wouldn't even really admit to having changed things because,

Rule no 1 says: The overseer and his secretaries are always right.

Rule no 2 says: Should, by some inconceivable miracle, the overseer and/or his secretaries NOT be right, rule no 1 applies automatically.


Things have not necessarily changed because the leadership admits that they were wrong but partly because they just had to change to stop more and more people from walking out. But those things are being kept quiet.

I was there during that Xmas GV when ASW was in Switzerland and wanted to reinstate himself as officer, several high Australian officers wrote to him and stated that they could not agree to this because of all the allegations against him still standing and not being investigated with no chance of them ever being. They asked for him to submit to an investigation before agreeing.

Mark P was one of those officers and we could all see how quickly he and the others with him were branded traitors and leadership of the GV in CH was given to Donald to ward off any possible rebellion. Anyway ... long story. We watched at the end of that GV in CH an ENTIRE cell group walk out of CAI.

People were never told about that, were they? Klaus Kupfer rang more than a year later wanting to ask something of somebody and didn't even know they weren't in the CAI anymore. The tactic in CAI is still to assassinate somebody's character and then, if all else fails, have them either disappear quietly in oblivion and never tell anybody they left or (if their exit is noisy enough) brand them as traitors and wolves and make sure everybody is too scared to ever again talk to them.

I was in Coffs recently and met a couple of their women who were out and about shopping. Heck, when I greeted, they looked as if I was the devil incarnate and looked the other way and hurried off as quickly as they could. I'm not offended by that. Just very sad that these people have to live in such fear. I've been there. I don't live in fear anymore. I wish they could too.


JP

@#4: I prefer not to generalise... some here are pushing strongly for: CAI ALL wrong = All other orthodox denominations All safe. How superficial.

I evaluate a more elaborate view. In some areas the organisation hindered spiritual growth and in others it allowed for it. In some areas they furthered the influence of the flesh, in others they discouraged it. Fact in my case is that I was part of an organisation that did preach the gospel to me, which saved me. The added erroneous parts of the revivalist gospel also did damage to many people within and outside of the organisation.

I personally was grived with the level of understanding of the great majority of members for many years, but all the members have a chance of being saved, depending on their own personal relationship with God.

Yes.. my advice would also be 'Leave quickly.. unless you feel called to reform... attempt.. fail.. leave then'

I believe Michy (not his character but his teaching in some areas... not in all areas) for a while brought in a ´change in the right direction. But the 'oldies' including the overseer eventually pulled the plug and demanded his blind obedience and admission of his views being 'erroneous revelations' as they were not vessels fit for the new wine. He caved in and became/remained a heavily depressed character... which of course created many more offences down the line.

I am not saying he was 'all right' and he also taughjt many errors.. but the direction from 'oh the Holy Spirit showed me this and that' , self righteousness, works, condemnation etc... to the understanding of the WORD.. believing and understanding instead of remaining un-regenerate etc.. I do not think people like Ian etc have the slightest idea of this trend being in existence in the CAI wing of revivalists.

I know that many did not take on this new wine... but I believe God gave the sheep a chance to wake up.

@JP I know the looks.. it hurts and there is nothiong one can do about it :(

Love and greetings, Torben

@#4: I prefer not to generalise... some here are pushing strongly for: CAI ALL wrong = All other orthodox denominations All safe. How superficial.

I evaluate a more elaborate view. In some areas the organisation hindered spiritual growth and in others it allowed for it. In some areas they furthered the influence of the flesh, in others they discouraged it. Fact in my case is that I was part of an organisation that did preach the gospel to me, which saved me. The added erroneous parts of the revivalist gospel also did damage to many people within and outside of the organisation.

I personally was grived with the level of understanding of the great majority of members for many years, but all the members have a chance of being saved, depending on their own personal relationship with God.

Yes.. my advice would also be 'Leave quickly.. unless you feel called to reform... attempt.. fail.. leave then'

I believe Michy (not his character but his teaching in some areas... not in all areas) for a while brought in a ´change in the right direction. But the 'oldies' including the overseer eventually pulled the plug and demanded his blind obedience and admission of his views being 'erroneous revelations' as they were not vessels fit for the new wine. He caved in and became/remained a heavily depressed character... which of course created many more offences down the line.

I am not saying he was 'all right' and he also taughjt many errors.. but the direction from 'oh the Holy Spirit showed me this and that' , self righteousness, works, condemnation etc... to the understanding of the WORD.. believing and understanding instead of remaining un-regenerate etc.. I do not think people like Ian etc have the slightest idea of this trend being in existence in the CAI wing of revivalists.

I know that many did not take on this new wine... but I believe God gave the sheep a chance to wake up.

@JP I know the looks.. it hurts and there is nothiong one can do about it :(

Love and greetings, Torben

torben do you believe the CAI is a christian church?

I'm sorry- you thing Michy's character is a product of him being on fire and stomped on? I could not imagine anything more further from the truth.

How could someone who someone who sepnt so much time letting Jesus grow lack so much compassion and empathy? Did he ever have any? Not really. Did studying the Bible change him? hell no.

And see that is what scares me Torben. Because in CAI we all thought our dediction to the study of the word should have brought us closer to Christ. Did it?

We built our house upon the sand.

I do not know who you are and how close you were..
I was close enough on many highland retreats Braemar etc and within the secretary circle watched much going on between Scott and Michy. Often after the senior officer dinner nights EHQ etc.. yes Michy was of 'a different spirit' in understanding than Scot in a multitude of views and he was constantly reminded to submit to 'Moses'. I was also personally there when Michy asked Scott whether his re-location to Paris was in order to get him out of the way etc... Surely other factors played in here too.. not at last the horrible effects of CAI on his family and the separation.

Scott's training influence (which is not of the knowledge of God) thoroughly trained this young man into the frustrated man he now is... had his bible study prevailed without this constant Goliath opposition I wonder if Michy might not have been a passible family father today.

Your last question shows me much about your spiritual state. You probably have the definition of bible study as Scott taught. Very clear YES ... of course it is the knowledge of God that brings you closer to God. And I can assure you without the little bit of the knowledge of God that I have received from God through the Word.. I would be a very very very different man. If you would talk to my wife... she would thell you what changed me... and I was by far more horrible than I am know if you can believe it. I give all credit for anything good in my life to God. For me this is not theory. It deeply saddens me when people talk as if it was theory to them.

I would recommend using a bible search tool and search for knowledge and meditate on all the scriptures.

Built on the sand... if you mean the vain accumulation of knowledge that went on in CAI then yes. If you sought to understand God and thereby renew your thinking and gain (develop) the mind of Christ then NO. I do get the impression you might not have done ther latter much, but you will know better yourself.

And .. this is what scares ME... it seems the majority of contributers here evaluates a congregation by it's doctrinnal statements only and by it not reminding them of revivalism only. I would want to know in how much all are ever increasing in the knowledge of God until we all come to the full measure of the stature of God. I meet people from various of the 'recommended' denominations and they do not know the Word (not talking about headknowledge... but knowing God and having spent a considerable part of their time dwelliung on His thoughts and words). I would also want to see fervent LOVE among the members of the congregation that extends beyond the 1 or 2 weekly meetings.

No offence friend. Have a nice evening. I am currently with my mother... my father is in intensive care.... these situations are always time for a reality check. I hope we can all enter into the unity of the Spirit, which must proced from the Spirit of the Word.

Love and greetings,
Torben

Just to add.. I have also met people from various mainstream denominations which DID know God deeper... my comment was a bit too general...

 

Depends on the person's commitment to who they are. I have met many christians, it is the ones that understand how central humility is to a walk with god that have the depth, the others, who still choose to be ego driven just don't get it. Very sad.

torben i'll ask again. do you believe the CAI is a christian church?

torben i don't know if you've noticed but every time someone challenges you on something you immediately try to turn it around and make it their problem. you seem to think your mind/thinking is renewed but nobody elses is. that's a bit arrogant for somebody just out of the CAI isn't it?

again... no point made.. no scripture = no discussion. How about you say what you believe  ..base it on a few scriptures and we can talk. Or do you prefer I say u r wrong and u say I am wrong like in the sandpit? The Word gives us unity. Please make a case or leave me be my anonymous friend.

torben i'll ask again. do you believe the CAI is a christian church?

Please see my comment #89 of the speaking in tongues thread.

torben it's a simple question that should have a simple answer. do you believe the CAI is a christian church? yes or no?

torben it wasn't a question that needed a bible verse to ask. what makes you think your mind is renewed more than anybody elses? given you haven't been out of the CAI for very long isn't it an arrogant assumption?

you sound very arrogant.

thank you for telling me...

here's the thing torben. i reckon you do think the CAI is a christian church and you just don't want to admit it to us here. you've been making plenty of judgments about all sorts of things and people and organizations since you starting posting here a couple of weeks ago so your reason for trying to get out of making another one now doesn't wash.

you've tried to defend michy of all people and i think you'd like to defend the CAI now.

torben do you plan on answering the question?

torben hopefully very soon you'll try shutting up and start listening up.

and I notice you've done all you could to dodge answering the question about whether your think the CAI is a christian church.

Torben,

I've been sitting back, watching how you've been interracting with people and it's been quite illuminating. Personally, I had no intention of interracting with you any further, as it's proven thus far to be a complete waste of my time (see Sirach 21:18-21). However, your latest misplaced 'rebuke' towards another warranted immediate correction. But then for those who are willing to listen and learn, as opposed to you who clearly isn't. You wrote, "Do you finally understand what the greek word for 'church' is? Do you understand there is only ONE body? What do you mean with 'a' true 'church'. Are you aware that the bible would in one instance call a certain gathering the 'Church of the wicked' had the translators been consistent with their biased translation... it abviously simple being an assembling?"

Let me point out that the Greek noun which underpins the English word, 'church' isn't ἐκκλησία, but Κυριακόv. The former basically means 'an assembly'; the latter, however, means 'belonging to the Lord'. It's for this reason that churches in Scotland are referred to as 'Kirks', and as 'Kirchen' in Germany.

The noun ἐκκλησία had become an appropriated Christian 'technical' term by the middle of the first century. In other words, it's 'profane' meaning had given way to how it was understood within Christian circles (in common with a range of other 'ordinary' Greek words including: σταυρός, ἀδελφός, σωτηρία, ΙΧΘΥΣ, etc). So when Paul prefaced ἐκκλησία with the article, which is read as 'the Church' in English, what he meant was something far more specific than what Torben has determined to be the case. Paul's ecclesiology was concrete and local, not abstract and universal. This is why he could write, '... a deacon of the church at Cenchrae ...', or 'to the Church of God that is in Corinth ...', or commend that 'all the churches of Christ greet you ...', etc. To Paul and to the remainder of Christ's post-Easter followers, the Christian Church was the local congregation of believers who (1) met to worship God in Christ, (2) to celebrate the Eucharist, (3) to hear God's Word faithfully preached, and to (4) engage in mutual Christian discipleship, hence the historic 'marks' of the Church.

The following extract is from a rather lengthy article on the word ἐκκλησία found in the English-Greek lexicon NIDNTT (being the English language translation of the Theologisches Bergriffslexicon zum Nuen Testament), which sums matters up quite well:

    Paul never uses the word ἐκκλησία to express an invisible body — a concept that arose in the context of hypocrisy and deceit. The church fathers who developed this concept insisted that those who belong to God are visible to him alone. The idea recalls 2 Tim. 2:19: “The Lord knows those who are his.” It extends to the church, in other words, what Paul said of Israel, that they are not all Israel who belong to Israel, but only “the children of the promise” (Rom. 9:6 – 8). It recognizes the danger, which church members are warned against, of reaping corruption through sowing to the flesh (Gal. 3:7; cf. Rom. 8:12 – 13). Thus, while the precise application of invisible to the word ἐκκλησία may be missing, the concept of an invisible church is present (cf. Matt. 13:24 – 43; 25:31 – 46; Heb. 2:3; 3:7 – 4:14; 6:1 – 12; 10:26 – 39; 12:12 – 28).

    The ἐκκλησία has its location, existence, and being within definable geographical limits. The apostle thus writes of “the church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), indicating both that it belongs to the people of that place and has a new and different quality. Those who are drawn into the ἐκκλησία live in the sphere of power of the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). But they are not removed from their position in the social order. They remain Israelites, Romans, slaves, freedmen, etc. (cf. 1 Cor. 7:17 – 24). But these differences lose the divisive power that prevents unity and fellowship (cf. Gal. 3:27 – 29). Thus, those counted among the “saints,” as Paul calls the members of the ἐκκλησία (1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1), are those whom the Lord calls, to whom he gives faith, and whose participation in the new life is indicated by baptism (Rom. 6:3 – 4).
                                          New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, s.v. ἐκκλησία

So in closing it isn't, as Torben maintained, a case of supposedly 'biased' translators somehow being 'inconsistent' in their efforts of translating the word ἐκκλησία. On the contrary, unlike him, Bible translators have a very good grasp of the Greek language, and how it's applied in c-o-n-t-e-x-t.

So, Torben, repent of your hubris (it's misplaced).

Ian

Just so you understand Torben- I wasn't trying to suggest that studying the Bible isn't good, or even necessary, just that you might do yourself some good having a break- because most of what CAI taught was designed to build doctrines around the personal tastes of the overseers.

Whilst a learning is as improtant as breathing, a period of unlearning may well be in order. Good luck with it anyway:) Jo.

Torben,

I had no intention of interracting with you any further, as it's proven thus far to be a complete waste of my time. Funny - to me it seems you withdrew when answering became inconvenient and lurked for a comeback on something where u feel safe. Well, I had been prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite what certain former CAI people have shared about you in recent emails. However it seems that you really are naught but an arrogant prat after all. Do you honestly believe the nonsense that you post here is in any way 'threatening' to my beliefs?

It also seems that you're blissfully unaware that the word ἐκκλησία had become an appropriated Christian expression by the middle of the first century. Yes.. and elder had been commonly accepted as priest and bishop... cheese actually means marmelade and God means satan... I best put my bible down and sign up for a monastary... so finally I will be freed from my errors and my brain. Ian, I am travelling as I speak... when I will get back to my study tools then there will be another reply.. possibly another article pasted in before then. When you finally do get back to your 'study tools', please look up the words 'diachronic analysis'. You managed to submit your response during an 'interregnum' in the forum's availability today; consequently, you missed by minutes the additional information that I was finally able to insert in my rejoinder before the forum went off-line again. I'd suggest, therefore, that you go back and review. Last, as I recommended to you earlier you need to 'ditch' Thayer's and Strong's, and acquire for yourself some decent lexical tools if you plan on continuing to 'dabble' in Greek.

Consequently it isn't, as you maintained, a case of supposedly 'biased' translators somehow being 'inconsistent' in their efforts. On the contrary, unlike you, Bible translators have a very good grasp of the Greek language, and how it's applied in c-o-n-t-e-x-t. Yes. Tyndale and Gneva wasn't that bad was it? Shame the former was burned and the latter disregarded by the KJV preference of the authoritarian system. Wow. So you've based your misunderstanding solely on how William Tyndale translated ἐκκλησία into English?! Are you aware that his reasons for doing so were politically motivated?

I hope Ian, one day you will yield your talents to make sure ceasar gets (only) his part and God will receive Hs part. The world's authorities and their ways have no business in the congregation of the saints... but then you possibly know that? Indeed. My prayer for you is that you will eventually set aside your misplaced hubris and start listening to the information that's being presented to you. I assume you are hoping to become a Christian one day?

Goose.

Ian

Hi Ian,

following suit, I also revised my previous answer to your revised post. You have thoroughly fallen short of reaching the conclusion that the tranlators had no bias by reasoning provided so far. The discussion has not even started Ian.

You also seem blissfully unaware of the fifteen instructions (especially article #3) of King James VI (I of England) to the translators? This fact alone would prove my point that Church had to be kept and that it was a secular authority that demanded it.

Once we will have begun with and concluded the discussion on the CHURCH - I would then suggest moving on to the 'offices'.

Greetings, Torben

Torben

following suit, I also revised my previous answer to your revised post. See my comments, below. You have thoroughly fallen short of reaching the conclusion that the tranlators had no bias by reasoning provided so far. Actually, the onus of proof rests on you to demonstrate that bias did/does exist. Personally, I doubt you know enough about linguistics or translation theory to be having this discussion, but I'm prepared to engage with you in the interests of your education. The discussion has not even started Ian. Perhaps. I reckon it'll be over fairly quickly, though.

You also seem blissfully unaware of the fifteen instructions (especially article #3) of King James VI (I of England) to the translators? This fact alone would prove my point that Church had to be kept and that it was a secular authority that demanded it. All that such 'proves' is that the word 'church' was equivalent to ἐκκλησία prior to AD 1611. Apparently, however, you naively believe James' instructions were/are 'binding' upon, and so universally apply to, every English language Bible translation produced since the KJV. Not so. The only English Bible that stands directly in the 'translational' lineage of the KJV is the NKJV, and that translation committee discarded his preconditions in any case. Every revision and/or translation prior to and since the production of the KJV has marched to the 'beat' of a different 'drum'.

That 'church' is universally used in the various English versions, ancient and modern, to translate into English what's described in Greek by ἐκκλησία, is due to semantic correspondence: what ἐκκλησία meant then, is what 'church' means now. Such is the process of translation put into effect.

Moving on ... The following are but a few significant f-a-c-t-s that you've apparently failed to notice. First, it was Jesus who said, 'upon this rock (i.e. upon Peter) I will build my ἐκκλησία ...' (Matthew 16:18). Paul wrote, 'Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, that is, his ἐκκλησία' (Colossians 1:24). Both find our word in it's singular form: in Jesus' self-designation, and in Paul's christological affirmation; and both are translated as 'Church' into English. But Luke could also write, 'He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the ἐκκλησίας' (Acts 16:5). And Paul, 'This is my rule in all the ἐκκλησίας' (1 Corinthians 7:17); both writers using the plural form of the noun, translated as 'churches' into English. Ergo according to Jesus, Luke and Paul, THE Body of Christ, i.e. THE Church (ἡ ἐκκλησία) is singular, but it's local expressions, i.e. the churches (τὰς ἐκκλησίας) are plural. This seems perfectly clear and completely unequivocal to me; why you struggle with the concept God alone knows.

Once we will have begun with and concluded the discussion on the CHURCH - I would then suggest moving on to the 'offices'. 'Yes'. I think it best that you engage in one 'battle' at a time.

You seem to work hard to establish that ekklesia is a local assembling - something that I believe exactly as you explain. What made you think I disagreed? My list of questions to the anonymous contributer included several facts... one being that there is only one body (of Christ) so as to assist him in establishing as to whether he had fallen into the confusion that results from the 'tranlation mess' around the word church. Ah, but there is no 'translation mess', so for you to maintain otherwise demonstrates that you just don't understand how translation 'works', whether in a formal or in a functional sense. And as I pointed out to you above, both Jesus and Paul used the singular form ἐκκλησία to describe the ONE Body of Christ, but could also use the plural form ἐκκλησίας to describe it's many local expressions. So if there is confusion, it's yours alone.

People today, as a result of incorrect translation think of the word CHURCH in many different ways applications. Ekklesia should have been translated as assembly or congregation as in Tyndales translation (any regard at all for his skills?). Tyndale was a product of his time, and his capacity with Greek wasn't anywhere near the standard that you presume to be the case. By the way, Tyndale's version was as tendentious as was James', and for the same sorts of reasons. So, once more: there is no 'incorrect translation' at work. As an aside, please remind me later to explain for you the significance of what's implied by the primitive Greek phrase, κυριακὴ οἰκία. I fully agree with your points about the plural formulations...as therefore the local assemblings of believers are congregations (churches) and not an international multi-location organisation, united under one doctrinal statement and domination title like CAI or the Roman Catholic Church. Wrong. Again. Paul certainly viewed his churches (i.e. τὰς ἐκκλησίας) to be 'an international, multi-location organisation united under one doctrinal statement' (i.e. 'his'). But he also acknowledged that they were a part of the ONE Church (i.e. ἡ ἐκκλησία) that he described as THE Body of Christ. To put this bluntly, no matter how many ways you 'slice' or 'dice' it, what you believe is factually incorrect.

Paul said Churches? Apparently so. I beg to differ.. Beg all you like, your assumptions are wrong. no such word was known to him.. nor was there a corresponding word to the koin Greek in any similtude in this context. Sorry bloke, but you wouldn't know which word(s) in the Κοινή correspond to their English equivalents were I to hit you between the eyes with an open BDAG lexicon. You're completely ignorant of Greek, and you're clearly just as ignorant with respect to comparative linguistics. You make the effort of pointing out the Greek word that DOES underpin the English word Church... why? Because κυριακόv describes the fact of 'ownership' by Christ. This Greek adjective was used for the very first time during the 4th century; prior to this the noun form was used by Christians, and then in combination with our 'disputed' word: ἡ ἐκκλησία κυριακή (i.e. 'the church belonging to the Lord'). Notably modern Protestant Greek denominations continue this ancient practice; and, of course, the official title for the Greek Orthodox Church is Ελληνορθόδοξη Εκκλησία. It only further strengthens my point that ekklesia ought not to be translated into Church... Not even close. The overwhelming evidence whether biblical, historical, cultural or linguistic, proves your 'point' is dead wrong. since the word you point out is NOT found in the over 100 instances of church in the new testament but ekklesia. On the other hand I cannot search for your word right now as I am travelling... so you might want to defuse this by pointing out the instances where it IS used. I already have. Matter 'defused'.

Torben, my advice to you is this: once you've finished with your travelling, take a break from telling us what you think we should believe, and commit some time to verifying the actual facts. In closing, your singular mistake thus far (apart from unfounded arrogance) has been to confuse 'word' with 'concept'. A little self-directed learning in applied linguistics, biblical Greek, and Church history will probably set you straight. That is, it will if you're prepared to heed what you read.

Now, how's that 'saddle' feeling?

Ian

torben do you believe the CAI is a Christian church?

Hi Guest,

Orthodox Christianity all has the same basic of saved by grace through faith and that the power of Christ's resurrection gives a foretaste of a future with Him for all those who believe.   The small differences work to keep pride and ego at bay as history has shown.

Power and ego lurk in groups who believe they and only they have it right and ALL others are wrong.

I suspect that those who have been treated badly by orthodox churches would disagree with you. Any group that believes it shouldn't be held up to question is driven by pride and ego, just ask all those in all orthodox dominations whose sexual assaults were hidden and covered up. Im sure they have quite a different story to tell.

Hi, Epi

I reckon you're wasting your time if you think you can convince Ms Santarelli to consider anything factual. She's far too invested in her fictions.

Blessings,

Ian

And a fiction is what? Anything you don't believe in or haven't personally experienced? There are things that happen in the world outside your personal experience boofhead.

So is everyone ever abused by a church in any way having a mass hallucination? You are so full of it Ian.

Ian already condones blasphemy and porn,so condoning child abuse by the Men in orthodox churches wont faze him.
Ian ISNT a christian he knows a lot of greek and big words.

(Typically) Anonymous.

Ian already condones blasphemy and porn, so condoning child abuse by the Men in orthodox churches wont faze him. I trust you realise that Scripture calls this, 'bearing false witness'. Given that you've intentionally broken the ninth commandment, understand that doing so comes at a price. Ian ISNT a christian he knows a lot of greek and big words. And 'big words' scare you, don't they?

Before I go are there any other 'heinous sins' that you'd like to accuse me of? You know, 'murder', 'adultery', 'voting for the ALP', that sort of thing?

Goose.

Ian

Reply to Guest Ian already condones blasphemy and porn,so condoning child abuse by the Men in orthodox churches wont faze him. Ian ISNT a christian he knows a lot of greek and big words.

What you have written Guest is malicious and contemptable.  How low can you go?

In Luke 6 : 45 Jesus says "...the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart.  For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."

Clear your conscience immediately Guest.  Confess, repent and apologise.

Epi

So,all the reports in the media,all the court cases,the former governor general ducking for cover about the child abuse cases in the c of e, all a lie ?
You are the ones who should repent.

Guest,

(Epi) What you have written Guest is malicious and contemptable.  How low can you go? In Luke 6 : 45 Jesus says "...the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart.  For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks." Clear your conscience immediately Guest.  Confess, repent and apologise.

So,all the reports in the media, all the court cases, the former governor general ducking for cover about the child abuse cases in the c of e, all a lie ? You are the ones who should repent.

Two things. First, Epi's 'rebuke' has nothing to do with Archbishop Hollingsworth et cetera, and everything to do with you bearing false witness against me. Second, I was personally one of paedophile student counsellor 'Skippy' Lynch's targets back in 1981 (when he was employed at Brisbane Grammar), the man at the centre of the storm that resulted in the former Governor General's downfall. Interesting that I should think differently than you about the matter, isn't it?

Given that statistically you stand a far greater chance of being sexually abused by your own father than by a clergyman, would you be prepared to label all dads paedophiles, 'just-in-case'?

Twit.

Ian

Guest,

No my dear Guest it is YOU who needs to repent on this one and apologise and no amount of twisting words will alter this.  It was YOU who made a false accusation against Ian.

Epi

Torben,

You've been absent from here for a while now, so I was wondering if you've had time to consider the points that I raised in my last response to you, post # 33?

Ian

Hello Ian,

yes I have been absent for awhile. My father is in still in a serious state of health in intensive care and I only returned from Germany yesterday. I trust you will understand my handling of priorities here.

You also seem blissfully unaware of the fifteen instructions (especially article #3) of King James VI (I of England) to the translators? This fact alone would prove my point that Church had to be kept and that it was a secular authority that demanded it. All that such 'proves' is that the word 'church' was equivalent to ἐκκλησία prior to AD 1611.

Pilgrim: So you are saying the very fact that a secular ruler becomes the 'head' of the Anglican 'church' and then dictates to the translation team to keep the word 'church' is PROOF that the understanding of the people of his day required this? If I ever get caught being a mafia boss - I take you for my lawyer mate...

Apparently, however, you naively believe James' instructions were/are 'binding' upon, and so universally apply to, every English language Bible translation produced since the KJV.

Pilgrim: No - I do not believe that at all. Why on earth would they be binding upon them?

That 'church' is universally used in the various English versions, ancient and modern, to translate into English what's described in Greek by ἐκκλησία, is due to semantic correspondence: what ἐκκλησία meant then, is what 'church' means now. Such is the process of translation put into effect.

Pilgrim: But it doesn't! I would love to see a statistic on what  averagely the members of all christian denominations  today understand under the word 'church'. I will not state my guesses so they can't be wrested, but will leave it to each reader to estimate for themselves. HANG ON ... this is funny.. I just checked whether www.adherents.com has a statistic on this (didn't find one) but see what they write in front of their world wide church/denomination statistic :   "But the term "church" has so many different meanings that we have avoided its use here. Clearly many people use the term "church" to indicate a broader, more doctrinally-oriented grouping than is meant by the organizationally-oriented term "religious body."

Pilgrim: I wonder if we really would have so many possible meanings had we stuck with tyndale's choice congragation  ... or the called out..assembly for that matter.

Moving on ... The following are but a few significant f-a-c-t-s that you've apparently failed to notice. First, it was Jesus who said, 'upon this rock (i.e. upon Peter) I will build my ἐκκλησία ...' (Matthew 16:18). Paul wrote, 'Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, that is, his ἐκκλησία' (Colossians 1:24). Both find our word in it's singular form: in Jesus' self-designation, and in Paul's christological affirmation; and both are translated as 'Church' into English. But Luke could also write, 'He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the ἐκκλησίας' (Acts 16:5). And Paul, 'This is my rule in all the ἐκκλησίας' (1 Corinthians 7:17); both writers using the plural form of the noun, translated as 'churches' into English. Ergo according to Jesus, Luke and Paul, THE Body of Christ, i.e. THE Church (ἡ ἐκκλησία) is singular, but it's local expressions, i.e. the churches (τὰς ἐκκλησίας) are plural. This seems perfectly clear and completely unequivocal to me; why you struggle with the concept God alone knows.

Pilgrim: Please read my posts more carefully and save yourself a lot of typing. I do not 'struggle' nor disagree with either of the two definitions you present. Ekklesia - as the called out...congregation.. assembly as a whole, as ONE body IS a scriptural concept. This incorporates all christians in the world that have been baptised into the body of Christ by the Holy Ghost. Ekklesia - as local gatherings, congregations, meetings, assemblies of the called out IS a scriptural concept. It may also apply to a rioting assembly of unbelievers... as well as a lawful assembly: ...Act 19:32  Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
Act 19:39  But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Act 19:41  And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.... Dismissing the assembly sounds natural. I guess a Pastor announcing 'I dismiss the church' at the end of a lithurgic traditional lutheran church service would have a few baffled faces in the congregation... just because we would somehow have a different feel about the word today

Ah, but there is no 'translation mess', so for you to maintain otherwise demonstrates that you just don't understand how translation 'works', whether in a formal or in a functional sense. And as I pointed out to you above, both Jesus and Paul used the singular form ἐκκλησία to describe the ONE Body of Christ, but could also use the plural form ἐκκλησίας to describe it's many local expressions. So if there is confusion, it's yours alone.

Pilgrim: Well done Ian - yes One body  and many assemblies

Tyndale was a product of his time, and his capacity with Greek wasn't anywhere near the standard that you presume to be the case. By the way, Tyndale's version was as tendentious as was James', and for the same sorts of reasons. So, once more: there is no 'incorrect translation' at work.

Pilgrim: Funny, I thought about 90% of what Tyndale translated was kept (and 30% word for word... with no change whatsoever) for the next series of bible translations ... including the KJV. Pretty good testimony for somone YOU IAN do not deem worthy of making a professional decision for the translation of the simple word ekklesia. You are only fooling yourself with your arrogance.. Tyndale probably thought once or twice before translating the word don't you think? After all he had to flee to Germany in order to do so (and a few other roman catholic corrupt words). He also died for it. If I was to die for translating a few words that the roman catholic and other dominating politic/religion churches/power institutions did not like... I would make sure it's not a mistake. Be that all is it will... today we DO have the ability to translate ekklesia even after you have destroyed the credibility of anything that does not have your personal or the pope's approval stamp on it.

I fully agree with your points about the plural formulations...as therefore the local assemblings of believers are congregations (churches) and not an international multi-location organisation, united under one doctrinal statement and domination title like CAI or the Roman Catholic Church. Wrong. Again. Paul certainly viewed his churches (i.e. τὰς ἐκκλησίας) to be 'an international, multi-location organisation united under one doctrinal statement' (i.e. 'his'). But he also acknowledged that they were a part of the ONE Church (i.e. ἡ ἐκκλησία) that he described as THE Body of Christ. To put this bluntly, no matter how many ways you 'slice' or 'dice' it, what you believe is factually incorrect.

Pilgrim: I do feel silly to repeat this. You above all should be capable of reading diligently and carefully before answering. I wrote: 'united under one doctrinal statement and denomination title LIKE CAI OR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'. Do you misread intentionally? So yes there is indeed ONE church united under one banner etc etc.. but I struggle to see how there can be such a thing as a/the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church. Of course people can call things what they want.. however it is not a scripturally based concept. One (church) assembly which is the body of Christ and the local assemblies of the called out... but NO assemblies (church) of Apollos, NO assembly/church of Paul, NO assembly/church of Luther, NO assembly/church of Peter/Pope. Where do you get all this from. Have you tunrned to revivalist extra/contra biblical gifts after all? Or do you possibly hold a drastically excelled opinion on the traditions of the 'church fathers'? So a biblical concept for calling the RCC or CAI 'a' church does not appear to this reader. In fact it does not even provide a justification for a situation as we see normal today. You say Paul viewed HIS churches... under HIS doctrinal statement. Maybe you can talk to Paul one day (should you meet him in eternity...) if he really viewed them as HIS churches and His doctrine His own. But until then you could possibly elaborate a little on what you are trying to say here.. and where it is founded in Scripture? Do you have ONE scripture  TWO? NONE? Some semantic cristal ball maybe? CAI is actually at least not calling itself a church but assemblies :) (greetings to my anonymous CAI hater fan with the slight swearing problem :)

Pilgrim: Why am I actually making this point some might be wondering. It is not to discuss with Ian for the sake of discussing. Ian helps ex-revivalists with the left hand and with the right he compells them to join one of the BIG orthodox (including the Roman Catholic Church) denominations ASAP in order to be saved = become christians. He does this by eloquently manufacturing the impression of us being outside the Church if we are not part of them and by charging us with creating further splits in the body of Christ, were we to gather for worship and sharing our faith OUTSIDE his approved institutions. Yes my dear Ian - you have made all these statements or to the same extent. And all your spewing of hot air and the imballanced support FOR the word church instead of congregation - measured against your intense dislike for congregations (not even talking about teachers) outside the mainstream orthodox and academic stall shows a strong bias that does not represent scripture. After all - were some of us to assemble among ourselves in our houses (or anywhere else for that matter) we would resemble the definition of an ekklesia much more naturally than the Anglican Church. There are other ways of ridding ourselves of our false former erroneous beliefs. Many I know have joined inter-denominational bible study groops and have grown much, as well as gotten rid of a lot of baggage - they still fellowship among themselves. You say they are not even in the church? How sad - I will pray for them. You call my motives for discussing here 'misplaced hubris'. Well Ian, possibly some just feel they have to defend themselves as well as others from your overpowering puffed up opinion, which does cause real harm. I am part of another study group of 80 people... they did not want to keep discussing here and guess what.. they did not leave this forum because of me (guess why they left). They just could not handle the truth right?

Got to leave in two minutes so just a few last answers in point form:

• κυριακόv not everybody is 100% sure that this is the (only) word that underpins church. Some dictionaries seem to sugest the latin (religeous) circle (circus) may be involved too. There is some evidence that could give rise to the idea of a merger of pagan and (enforced state religeon) christian concepts. Round prayer houses and druid circle places of worship etc.. maybe get into this another time. Belonging to the Lord is still 100% focussing on people.. who belong to the Lord.. nothing else. You can't build an ecclesia with brick.. you can build a kirk with brick.
• I really couldn't care less whether (some/which/what kind of/secular?) christians used which word for gatherings or church buildings by the 4rth century Ian. I do not believe in evolution - things do not get better with time in this world - they corrupt. And in this particular case they corrupted quite drasticaly in a certain big institution in the making. The source is pure - that's where I will drink. Applicable words for congregation and gathering, as well as assemblies are still in existance today - so there is no justification nor need to switch to a non-translated part-transliterated word.
  
• Translation vs Transliteration Ian. You foremost should advocate translation before translitaration. Translation tells us stupid people what it really means. Transliteration gives the pope and you the chance to RE-DEFINE a word and QUARREL about it's meaning - and then call all who disagree anything between unqualified, illiterate and heretic. Same counts for words like deacon, bishop and others.
• taken your advice on getting into learning koin Greek grammar. Finished with active present indicatives of verbs and currently going through a video series on nouns. Also bought a better greek dictionary... but the more I look into it, the more I see how you have exaggerated your advantage over us peasents.. especially in displaying us unable to look up a few words in coin greek to get a better understanding. Oh boy. Surely you have better insight than we have... but what you are trying to establish is a MONOPOLY for the big religeous bodies' leaders and academics. Only you can tell us what the bible says right? Where have I heard this before hmmm...
• The saddle is feeling quite comfortable still...
  

late for dinner - bye - Pilgrim
 

Ian: By the way, Tyndale's version was as tendentious as was James'

Pilgrim: Tyndale's translation has been called tendentious before, and that by Peter Ackroyd (and Thomas Moore). Time to wake up and realise what kind of sources Ian tappes into to form his opinion. If such works are your sources Ian (if) then your equally (with Ackroyd) dismissive, discrediting (rather then objectively discussing) attitude betimes starts to make sense to this reader. Anyone with some serious regard for protestant reformation history (I only have that in part) is advised to note well...


Almost immediately, Ackroyd goes on to dismiss "Tyndale's tendentious translation of such key terms as 'presbyter' and 'ecclesia"' ^[3] without any attempt to explain or justify this peremptory judgement, let alone to suggest why Tyndale's translation, the work which itself is the object of this scornful approach, may have been inaccurate or in any way inappropriate. It seems unlikely that Thomas More himself would have been overly impressed by the total lack of evidence or reasoned argument here. Both phrases, "English version" and "tendentious translation", clearly seem designed to suggest an attitude of mind that readily dismisses Tyndale as a trouble-maker whose works and writings should not be taken seriously. All this without the presentation of a single factual statement or argument of any kind. Tyndale's translation of the two words that Ackroyd rightly calls "key terms" (given in other sources as presbyteros and ekklesia) ^[4] arouses little controversy today; both are in fact used consistently throughout the Greek scriptures in precisely the way that Tyndale has translated them. flow then is their use "tendentious"? Does it not seem strange that such "key terms" should be subject to summary dismissal in so few words, as things of no importance? It begs the question: "who is being tendentious here; Tyndale or Ackroyd?"

The whole article on: http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/12/more.html

Hello, Torben.

I'll begin by pointing out that you seem quite keen to be generating the proverbial 'storm in a teacup' over what you think the word ἐκκλησία means. And that in spite of the fact that every modern English-Greek lexicon (e.g. BDAG, BAGD, LSJ, Grimm-Thayer, etc)  unambiguously states that 'church' is a perfectly sound translation for what's implied by our Greek word. But I'll admit to being somewhat confused by certain (of what seem at first blush to being) contradictory comments that you've made. On the one hand you can apparently state, 'You make the effort of pointing out the Greek word that DOES underpin the English word Church... why? It only further strengthens my point that ekklesia ought not to be translated into Church...' (#30). And yet on the other you can also imply that you agree with me that ἐκκλησία does and should be translated by the English word, 'church' (so #48). So which is it? Which of these polar opposites best fits your philosophical view?

Next, you seem to believe yourself something of an expert in Bible translation in general, and the efforts of William Tyndale in particular. But why? You certainly haven't given any indication thus far to being aware that Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was as dependent upon the Latin Vulgate and Luther's German translation as it was upon Erasmus' Greek New Testament. Further, you apparently find me altogether 'popish' because I pointed out that Tyndale's version was as 'tendentious' as James'. This is an acknowledged fact of history, and not simply a modern conspiracy theory. As I indicated to you in post #33 William Tyndale was motivated as much by politics in the production of his version as James was in that which bears his name. For example, Tyndale intentionally broke with tradition and common usage in how he translated the words πρεσβύτερος and ἐκκλησία, for example. How, then, is describing his approach as 'tendentious' wrong, given that the definition of the word is, 'expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, esp. a controversial one; having or showing a definite tendency, bias or purpose.' By the way, I happen to being something of a 'fan' of William Tyndale. I'm even affiliated with a Protestant and evangelical theological college that bears his name!

I must express the humour with which your comment about mastering Greek so quickly has filled me. So you 'understand' the Greek verbal structure, do you, and now you've begun looking into nouns? Well, clearly I mustn't be half as smart as you then, as it took me the better part of a decade to get my head around the language adequately. And my own students over the years must be sheer simpletons by way of comparison, given that I can't recall a single one of them ever stating how 'easy' they found the going. So you must share with me the title of your new Greek dictionary. It's obviously a ripping good one given that it's filled you with such confidence in your new found lexical abilities. And I probably should secure a copy for myself if I'm to stand any chance of keeping up with you ;)

Finally, I'm intrigued that you haven't shared the answer to the question that keeps getting raised with you here. Do you believe the Christian Assemblies International is part of the Christian Church? 'Yes', or 'no'? It really is a straightforward question, one that you should give an answer to.

Anyway, I'm off to bed!

Πρὸ συντριβῆς ἡγεῖται ὕβρις πρὸ δὲ πτώματος κακοφροσύνη.

Ian