Reducing God to moral absurdity

[rockfox]

Agreed. That is one of the things I noticed early on, well before I learned about polygamy. The meeting is not called a "service" anywhere in the Bible.

There are a lot of things like that in our common church vernacular. For example, the word 'church' in the bible is translated that way commonly due to the KJV. They did so because the Anglican's insisted. But it was previously more accurately translated congregation or assembly (i.e. the people, which is the Greek use of ecclesia).

The English word church was originally used to denote pagan high place temples.

 

[Mojo]

@rockfox , Grace is a beautiful thing, and many don't truly understand the full implications of it.

 

[Quartus]

For example, the word 'church' in the bible is translated that way commonly due to the KJV. They did so because the Anglican's insisted. But it was previously more accurately translated congregation or assembly (i.e. the people, which is the Greek use of ecclesia).

This is one of the accepted failings of the AV. The ecclesiastical hierarchy who translated it were keen to preserve their positions (like the NT Jewish leaders - nothing new under the sun) and overdid the emphasis on church administration in translation so they could maintain their position in the new Protestant order of things.
But generally they tried to get at the truth of what the scriptures actually said. The marginal cross-references in the full printed editions are often very good.

The English word church was originally used to denote pagan high place temples.

In the Scottish Gaelic, their word for "church" is "kirk". I'd be interested to know the link between the (root) word(s) going back to the pagan high place temples if possible please.

 

[Man@Home]

And in Dutch it is “kerk”. Quite similar.

 

[rockfox]

This is one of the accepted failings of the AV.

Accepted? Well not if you're KJVOnly. But that wasn't a criticism of the KJV; despite not truly being a translation in our language due to word meaning changes over time; it is still one of the most accurate translations. I just used it as an example of the way our church culture has lost the meaning of words and replaced them with something foreign to the NT conception.

In the Scottish Gaelic, their word for "church" is "kirk". I'd be interested to know the link between the (root) word(s) going back to the pagan high place temples if possible please.

I've heard a variety of different takes on the history of this word, but this is a good place to start.

If you ever hear a Christian refer to their building as a 'house of God' or similar, thats a cultural artifact dating back to the original Greek word that became the English word 'church' over the process of 2000 years. But it hasn't been the dwelling of God in any religious sense since the temple veil tore. The early Christians had no building for worship until later when Greek culture came to dominate; even more so when former pagan temples were converted to Christian use. There are many such cultural artifacts in churches; if you visit a church service and pay attention to the language and decoration you will often pick up things that have their origin hundreds and thousands of years ago. The oldest such practice I've been able to trace back at least 4000 years.

Basically the original root meant 'lords place' or seat of power. I've heard it said it was used for European pagan temples. The link above implies it may also have been used for the seat of power of earthly rules, but the implication is unclear.

When the OT speaks of 'high places' it talks of the temples of false gods, because they were often worshiped and temples built upon high hills; that practice carried on in Europe as well. This practice dates back to most ancient of times. Likewise also seats of earthly power were often upon high hills, mesa's, etc; both because they were easier to fortify and for psychological reasons (same reason a throne or idol is put on a pedestal). Even in medieval times, rulers would construct a earthen hill upon which to erect their castle. Many of these locations today are marked only by the mound; some of them in Europe dating at least as far back as Viking times.

 

[rockfox]

You may have heard a preacher say, "the church is a people not a building." They are highlighting the cultural confusion. They are scripturally right, ecclesia is better translated assembly or congregation and refers to the people. But etymologically church refers to the building.

In English history the two get conflated because the building was the seat of power for the church hierarchy and welded real power in society. It was often attached to large tracts of rented out land. People were required legally to attend church and paid separate taxes to the church. Not offerings in church, but literal taxes enforced by secular authorities. I'm not yet sure if that practice dates back to European pagan practice or if it came down from Greek or Jewish Temple practice.

But when reading your Bible, church always means people. It is best to think of it in conception as like a tribe or an extended family.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

The church has completely missed the lesson of Paul when he said...

Was going to post on this but figured maybe hijacking someone else's thread is better?

I found this lesson really hit home the other day when it came to the issue of drinking with my father-in-law who is a teatotaller. Do I think drinking is wrong? No. In fact I'd argue that getting drunk, while unwise and to be avoided, is also not a sin. But my father-in-law absolutely refuses alchohol of any kind. For a long time this annoyed me, and I felt indignant when my wife would ask if I could avoid ordering alchohol while at dinner with him. Although she agreed with me in the end, I eventually found it quite grating the complaints and comments I would get from him. And then I realized...this was impacting my own spiritual life. My resentment and annoyance was causing ME problems. Suddenly I realized: yeah I'll drink as much as I like without him around...but when he's there...it's really nothing to do with whether he likes it or not. It has everything to do with my own heart attitude and spiritual peace of mind, so to speak. As soon as I realized that, it was like a fog lifted and this verse carried so much more meaning. In the past I've always found it primarily a comfort in the whole weaker/stronger brother debate. But now I finally found a place where the 'willfully giving up something' actually applied to me haha.

@PassionatePatriarch

The problem is inconsistency. I'm going to post longer on this very topic, but I think that's the issue at its core. Willful ignorance, in some cases, fear in others...but in the end, inconsistent faith and inconsistent behavior/beliefs. The same person who has a developed and mature view on gambling, for example, might turn around and beat their child (and I'm not talking corporeal punishment) while simultaneously exclaiming that Pokemon is evil. It's craziness. I realize in myself that there are plenty of things I don't have a full 'answer' for, and don't fully understand. I don't PRETEND to know or understand those things. And sometimes, God surprises me and shows me something ELSE that I hadn't even considered myself ignorant in that suddenly I have to go do a lot of prayer and study of the Word before I can move forward. But so many Christians don't even TRY, much less care to do so. They are perfectly content to argue that because magic is bad we shouldn't watch movies with wizards in them while at the same time saying that homosexuality is ok. wut?

I would encourage everyone: do not think of yourselves more highly than you ought. And I don't mean that to be insulting, but simply...know your limits. Know what you know and what you DONT know. Make sure you have researched, with an open mind and heart and listening to the Spirit, every theological issue you see fit to speak about or take a strong stance on...ESPECIALLY as it relates to the so-termed 'peripherals'.

 

[Mojo]

Nice testimony.