The "Other"

[jimmie]

Synagogue and ekklésia
Synagogue and church
Synagogue and assembly
A and B
^ and *
I don’t care how you choose to represent the two terms, as long as you understand the fact that the writers, under the leader ship of the Holy Spirit, choose to use two separate terms. The Catholic’s rallying around the word “church” or the Jew’s rallying around the word “synagogue” in no way affects the writer’s actions of employing two separate words. Ekklésia is rendered as church(S) 109 times, assembly 3 times and congregation twice while Synagogue is left untranslated 55 times and is rendered as assembly once and congregation once. Apparently, the translators saw some relationship between the two Greek terms as both terms were translated using the same English terms at times.
Do the two terms “synagogue and church” have “loaded” or “pregnant” meanings today. Yes. And the purpose of those loaded meanings is to divide the body of Christ. But that most assuredly was not the intent of the writers. In the Acts 15 resolution, both “sects” won. The new believers were allowed into the church/synagogue with minimal requirement upfront. They were also to be taught everything else which is what the “old” believers were asking for. All I have said is we should do likewise in the church/synagogue debate use both terms in a positive non-condescending way.

[alon]

Mar 9, 2015 9:59:55 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Synagogue and ekklésia
Synagogue and church
Synagogue and assembly
A and B
^ and *
I don’t care how you choose to represent the two terms, as long as you understand the fact that the writers, under the leader ship of the Holy Spirit, choose to use two separate terms. The Catholic’s rallying around the word “church” or the Jew’s rallying around the word “synagogue” in no way affects the writer’s actions of employing two separate words. Ekklésia is rendered as church(S) 109 times, assembly 3 times and congregation twice while Synagogue is left untranslated 55 times and is rendered as assembly once and congregation once. Apparently, the translators saw some relationship between the two Greek terms as both terms were translated using the same English terms at times.

As I have shown, what the translators saw was a chance to misrepresent the two words. Maybe not every time- that would be an extreme which is probably not true. But I think I've shown they did have a bias in translating the words. And why is the term Synagogue left untranslated 55 times if not to hide something; some truth they wanted left unseen?

Do the two terms “synagogue and church” have “loaded” or “pregnant” meanings today. Yes. And the purpose of those loaded meanings is to divide the body of Christ. But that most assuredly was not the intent of the writers. In the Acts 15 resolution, both “sects” won. The new believers were allowed into the church/synagogue with minimal requirement upfront. They were also to be taught everything else which is what the “old” believers were asking for. All I have said is we should do likewise in the church/synagogue debate use both terms in a positive non-condescending way.

How did everyone get what they were asking for? How did the Natsarim "win" when they were persecuted to extinction, first by the Jews and then most effectively by the "church"? And the believers admitted on those minimum requirements were admitted into Natsarim fellowship, not that of the "church." And why not just render the term synagogue as synagogue? Using both terms interchangeably today only further obfuscates the fact that thee are important differences in Messianic Judaism and Christianity. Church and synagogue are obviously two different types of assembly, and it is important we not blur the line between the two.

Dan C

[Deleted]

Well, after reading all the thread postings, now I am really pondering. Not sure what to say at this moment. Is there any links than what I have found on this?

Moriah Ruth

[alon]

Mar 9, 2015 17:59:39 GMT -8 @moriahruth7 said:

Well, after reading all the thread postings, now I am really pondering. Not sure what to say at this moment. Is there any links than what I have found on this?

There are many links on this subject; most of them from a Christian perspective. I don't know what all you have found, but using any search engine just type in "church vs. synagogue" or "ecclesia vs. synagogue" and you should get plenty to read. Just always beware the writers bias.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

The enemy can be so subtle. I think there were a few who very intentionally directed what the many thought and understood. Somehow, we got to this place that requires this conversation. The word "church" isn't just a word to Christians. It represents the elect of G-d which is defined as them and not Israel. That's not an accident. I personally cringe when I hear it because it represents a deception that the speaker doesn't even realize exists.

[Deleted]

Thanks Dan.

[Deleted]

Dan,

Do you not have any link that has the Hebrew mindset of church? This is what I am looking for. I don't spend a lot of time searching because my time is limited.

Moriah Ruth

[alon]

Mar 10, 2015 10:05:01 GMT -8 @moriahruth7 said:

Do you not have any link that has the Hebrew mindset of church? This is what I am looking for.

Not on that specifically. I can tell you that the Jews mindset concerning the "church" is that it has been an oppressor for two millennia now. I am sure the early Natsarim would have agreed, since the church persecuted them to extinction. And they don't really trust us either, since historically when persecution has started anywhere the Christians all abandoned them. They think we'll do the same. But I get this from talking to Jewish people and reading, but without taking notes or logging websites.

Dan

[Deleted]

Ok thank you for your input Dan.

[jimmie]

alon,
The bias that I see is you saying “every time you see the word “church” replace it with “synagogue”’. The authors didn’t use the word “synagogue” where the translators choose to use the word “church” so what are you doing misrepresenting the two words. There are a whole host of words that have been untranslated, not just synagogue. Most names of people and places have been left untranslated. I don’t know the reason they didn’t translate them. I, only know that they didn’t do so. And it causing me a lot of work to discover the translation of them. I have learned a lot of unseen things studying those untranslated names. However, I don’t attack the translators for not translating them.

I guess I should have been more precise with my wording about Acts 15. What I meant by “everyone” is everyone that was a party to the Acts 15 dialog, not everyone throughout all eternity. So the Natsarim, as you call them, had two groups: one consisted of believing Jews and the other consisted of believing Gentiles. These two “factions” brought differing concerns to the table. And their concerns were addressed in a fair and equitable manner as you have so often pointed out. If you wanted two different terms why did you start out by wanting to do away with one of them, by replacing church with synagogue?

Elizabeth,
Jesus forewarned us that believers would be put out of the synagogue. However, that action was followed by the equally unjust action of some believers follow a church organization that rejected Israel. The terms “church” or “synagogue” shouldn’t cause anyone to cringe. Only their misuse and abuse.

[alon]

Mar 11, 2015 9:16:15 GMT -8 jimmie said:

alon,
The bias that I see is you saying “every time you see the word “church” replace it with “synagogue”’. The authors didn’t use the word “synagogue” where the translators choose to use the word “church” so what are you doing misrepresenting the two words. There are a whole host of words that have been untranslated, not just synagogue. Most names of people and places have been left untranslated. I don’t know the reason they didn’t translate them. I, only know that they didn’t do so. And it causing me a lot of work to discover the translation of them. I have learned a lot of unseen things studying those untranslated names. However, I don’t attack the translators for not translating them.

But synagogue seems to be an important word, too important not to translate, and to translate correctly. Also I think I've adequately shown a translational bias. Reading the works of Dr. Stern (the CJB) I'd say he agrees with me. So do the translators of the OJB.

I guess I should have been more precise with my wording about Acts 15. What I meant by “everyone” is everyone that was a party to the Acts 15 dialog, not everyone throughout all eternity. So the Natsarim, as you call them, had two groups: one consisted of believing Jews and the other consisted of believing Gentiles. These two “factions” brought differing concerns to the table. And their concerns were addressed in a fair and equitable manner as you have so often pointed out. If you wanted two different terms why did you start out by wanting to do away with one of them, by replacing church with synagogue?

Those Gentiles converted by the Natsarim (as the Bible calls them- Nazarenes) were taught by Jews in synagogues, not in churches. As I've shown, the church was an entirely separate entity then as now. It is true that both Jews and Gentiles mixed together brought with them separate concerns. There was even one faction of Messianic Jews which brought in an entirely different concern, the legalism which was the subject of the Acts 15 debate. And that debate was settled not by compromise, but by a ruling of the Jewish leadership. And either way you meant it is correct- both they and everyone through all eternity are bound by this decision if they are to be saved.

Elizabeth, Jesus forewarned us that believers would be put out of the synagogue. However, that action was followed by the equally unjust action of some believers follow a church organization that rejected Israel. The terms “church” or “synagogue” shouldn’t cause anyone to cringe. Only their misuse and abuse.

They were put out of mainstream Judaic synagogues, however they continued to worship as they always had. As the church fathers themselves said, their practices and worship was Jewish, only that they accepted Yeshua was different. And I think Elizabeth is right to cringe at the misuse of the terms. But that's me- she can decide for herself if the terms have a satanically influenced bias.

Dan C

[jimmie]

Septuagint, Synagogue and Symbiosis: The Jews of Hellenistic Egypt - Dr Gary A Rendsburg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyEZ4mewdDs

Tell me again why synagogue, a Hellenistic term, is perfered over church.

[alon]

Mar 12, 2015 10:47:40 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Septuagint, Synagogue and Symbiosis: The Jews of Hellenistic Egypt - Dr Gary A Rendsburg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyEZ4mewdDs

Tell me again why synagogue, a Hellenistic term, is perfered over church.

Very interesting history. It does not however address the bias that exists in Biblical translations. The term may have originated under the Hellenistic diaspora, however it still meant a place where Jews met to worship. The speaker said that other religions met in similar circumstances based on the Jewish example, NOT that they too met in synagogues.

And again, the early believers were overwhelmingly Jewish. Gentile converts also met in synagogues and were taught by Jews. The church has been more than adequately shown to have been a separate entity hostile to the Jews and the Natsarim. So to say the early believers ever met in a church is an outright lie. Christianity and Messianic Judaism never mixed.

The lie that early believers were all Christians meeting in churches is necessary to saying that the early believers were predominantly Gentile and to preserve the façade of apostolic succession. Both were necessary to the Replacement Theology of the church of the time and all its later incarnations.

Synagogue is the preferred term because Biblically and by the hateful admissions of the church fathers themselves the early believers were Jewish. They met in Jewish institutions of worship (synagogues) and worshiped as they always had, the exception being their belief in Yeshua as HaMoshiach.

Dan C

[alon]

By the way, I just came across another note in my JPS Study TNK that the LXX changed something from the original Hebrew text. This happens more than a few times. This time it just changed the order in Exodus ch. 35. Other times the changes are more serious.

Dan C