what was said tyndale and the struggle for truth.

Kuriakon (the word scholars believe "church" is derived from), literally translated means "the lord or master of a property" and really has no religious connotation by itself; however, it has also been translated to mean "the Lord's house" (hence some scholars are under the presumption that this Greek term inspired the word "church" since church is regarded commonly as being "the Lord's house" - this is likely ascertained from other historical derivatives of the word church, such as the Scottish derivative, "kirk", and the German derivative, "kirche", etc.), but oddly enough, kuriakon is not ever once used at all in the entire New Testament! NOT ONCE! What does this mean? It means that "CHURCH" is not in the Bible (not in the original languages)! Even several dictionaries tell us that the word "church" used in the Bible probably was added because of traditional influence and comes from this Greek word "kuriakon". Then why isn't "kuriakon" in the Bible? Good question!

The words "kuriakon" and "ecclesia" are NOT synonymous! And even though some may want to take the word kuriakon into use metaphorically (i.e. the Lord's House) in reference to believers, the problem is that, not only is kuriakon not used at all in Scripture, but it doesn't mean the same thing as ecclesia so it is completely improper to use it in its place. Simply stated: kuriakon pertains to a building, or to physical property that is in the direct control/possession of some authority figure (in early times, this would be the Roman Emporer and later the Pope - Christian use would later apply this term to their religious buildings and designate them under the Lord's name, but this was not so in the first century - the Bible NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER uses ecclesia to refer to a place of worship).

Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) says, "There is no clear instance of its (ecclesia) being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning."

Ecclesia, by stark contrast, refers to people assembled. In a biblical context, ecclesia refers to the Lord's people (who are His body) - and bears no connotation whatsoever of an earthy building, temple or shrine. In the 16th Century, men of God like William Tyndale (Greek scholar and translator of the first printed English Bible) knew it and did not translate "ecclesia" as "church"... They (the religious leaders of his day) called him a heretic and burned him at the stake all because he translated the Scriptures from Greek and Hebrew into terms that more closely identified with their original meanings!

For example: instead of using the word "church" in his translation, Tyndale used the word "congregation" to place emphasis upon the Congregation of God who assembles ONLY under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; themselves being "the church." Tyndales emphasis was deliberate and true. It is obvious to see how this offended the religious leaders of his day, just as it probably would many of the religious leaders of our day; because Tyndale's emphasis on people being the Ecclesia of God (united on a spiritually global scale - i.e. the one Body of Christ) distracted readers from seeing organized religion, hierarchical leadership and the buildings dedicated for religious service as pertaining to and even defining the Church.

Tyndale further showed his contempt for the word "church" by using it just one time in Acts 19:37 to describe, not Christian, but pagan temples. This is interesting because the Greek word for "church" in this passage is not "ecclesia", but another Greek word, "hierosulos" (Strong's #2417), which means "a temple despoiler." This is the only occasion in Tyndale's New Testament where "church" appears. It is also the only place in the KJV where "church" is not translated from "ecclesia". This is an important detail that most Christians have no clue about. It appears that Tyndale was making a rather strong (not to mention controversial) emphasis of distinction, but his emphasis was (and is) in complete harmony with the original languages.

He was entirely correct to make this distinction because "churches", historically (from the biblical era forward), were raised up under mostly pagan influence. I say this because the very idea to "build a church" (as in a temple) was regarded wholly as a pagan concept. The early church did not entertain any such concept as building a "church" building or a "temple" for they well understood that they were the Ecclesia of God; His royal assembly. They were the only temple Jesus dwelt in on earth as it were. They understood that the Lord's house is a spiritual house made of living stones (1 Peter 2:5) and is fashioned by God Himself, not man (Matthew 16:18; Psalm 127:1; Acts 7:48-49; Acts 17:24; Hebrews 9:24; etc.). As a matter of fact, the early Christians were very much against erecting temples in dedication to God. Such was seen as an insult against the holy temple that God had ordained so clearly in His Word (1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16). This is an amazing fact to consider when we look at how "temple/church building" is perceived today in contrast. To put it bluntly and literally: THERE ARE NO "CHURCHES" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ECCLESIA!!! THERE IS NO DIRECTIVE IN SCRIPTURE TO ATTEND ONE! THERE IS NO CALL TO BUILD ONE! A "CHURCH" IS SOMETHING CREATED BY MAN - NOT GOD!

This is important to recognize, though I will also admit that many Christians do have "the ecclesia" in mind when they use the modern word "Church". I have the tendency to still use the word myself (generally by capitalizing the term Church) and this is precisely why a clear definition and show of contrast between the traditional use and Scriptural reference are in order. Please make note of this important distinction in this letter, for when I use the term "Church" in application to the body of Christ - I indeed mean "the Ecclesia". All other uses of the word church are in contrast to the teaching of Scripture, for (as stated previously) there are no "churches", per say, in Scripture - not akin to what most designate as "church" today. I hope this truth is becoming much clearer.

In early Christian times, it truly was only pagans who built temples to honor their idols and false gods... In fact, most of the pomp of religious ceremony that so many believe to be essential in church services is derived entirely from pagan concepts that influenced and corrupted the early Church. This is undisputable historical fact! It is clearly evidenced in early Christian writings (which we will observe more closely in a moment). Observe the following two comments from the book Ecclesiastical History:

"The pagans had been accustomed to numerous and splendid ceremonies from their infancy, and they saw the new religion (i.e. Christianity) destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all the pomp which the pagans supposed to be the essence of religion; for the unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what meets the eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian leaders thought they must introduce some of the rites and ceremonies which would strike the senses of the people. . . .

"Before the second century was half gone, before the last of the apostles had been dead forty years, this apostate, this working of the 'Mystery of Iniquity,' had so largely spread over the East and the West, that it is literally true that a large part of the Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of the pagan mysteries" (Mosheim in Ecclesiastical History, Century 2, part 2, chapter 4, paragraph 1).

The Christians understood what it meant to "come out from among them and be separate" (2 Corinthians 6:13-18), for this is even the most essential and literal meaning, which the word "ecclesia" is derived from (its root compounds: "ek" meaning: "a calling out from" - "kaleo" meaning "to call aloud"); not only does it refer merely to an assembly of people, but it means "those called out from among." As Christians we have been called out by God into His Assembly; His family. I personally think it is no coincidence that ecclesia has this very thought in mind. It makes perfect sense! For not only has God, in His Word, shown that we have been called out from among the world, but also the RELIGIOUS world!

When the King James Bible was published in 1611, it had been a deliberate order by an appointee of the King, named Bishop Bancroft, to refrain from translating the Greek word "ecclesia" to anything other than "church." This is historical fact! Not only was the word "church" to be left as is and not translated into more appropriate terminology (such as Tyndale did), but the other ecclesiastical terms were to be left according to their traditional definitions as well and not according to their actual textual meanings. As a result we have a Bible translation that truly is tainted by a devious conspiracy, where men who supposed themselves to be authorities over the Lord's Assembly tried to destroy the revelation that all God's children are priests unto God through one High Priest; Jesus Christ. This conspiracy sought to place self-appointed leaders in mediation between men and God, usurping the authority of Christ. This conspiracy, wrought of men, sought to alter the Bible text just enough to make it appear supporting of their hierarchical rule and false authority. This conspiracy is recorded in history and anyone can do the research themselves and find it to be true.

Thanks be to God, the true Message prevailed, even through all the deceitful tactics of men. When you study the history of the Bible in translation throughout the centuries, it is easy to see why those in authority sought to hide the original languages from the common people's understanding - for those original texts (as men like William Tyndale knew) would incriminate them completely and show their authority to be utterly false. In case you are concerned that I am saying there is a problem with your modern Bible translation, understand that a translation is not "inspired." It is the original writings that are inspired, for they are what the apostles penned directly by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These we can trust! I am not saying you should throw away your Bible... God forbid! But understand it is a translation and we all need to rely strong upon the voice of the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the meaning of the Scriptures as God intended them. We should trust that the Scriptures are indeed inspired by God and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. We should flee all ignorance and hold fast to the truth as God reveals it to our understanding.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.

 

I hope it is becoming clearer to us all that from the earliest influence of Roman Catholicism, pagan tradition, and even facets of early Orthodox Christianity right up to the present day, "church" has been typically understood according to its traditional definition, NOT according to its biblical one! This is a large part of why I say that Christianity today is largely "Churchianity" in light of the influence it has derived from traditional, NOT biblical, teachings. We have bought into a myth that "church" is about maintaining a routine and mandatory program that God is not able to work without. We have been led to believe that this "activity" of attending church and "plugging in" to its programs is the most essential part of being a Christian. So our lives, as believers, tend to center more around this thing called "church" than it does simply around the Lord and the revelation that WE ARE HIS CHURCH (His Ecclesia; His assembly; His people)!

But what historical evidence (other than the Bible and that which we have already discussed) is there to show that the early Christians did not concern themselves with building religious edifices or thinking that such things had anything to do with Christianity? Plenty, in fact! Let's take a look at a few references from the writings of early Christian history:

"The Word, prohibiting all sacrifices and the building of temples, indicates that the Almighty is not contained in anything." - Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

"We refuse to build lifeless temples to the Giver of all life... Our bodies are the temple of God. If anyone defiles the temple of God by lust or sin, he will himself be destroyed for acting impiously towards the true temple. Of all the temples spoken of in this sense, the best and most excellent was the pure and holy body of our Savior Jesus Christ... He said to them, 'destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again. This He said of the temple of His body.'... When they reproach us for not deeming it necessary to worship the divine Being by raising lifeless temples, we set before them our temples." (meaning, of course, the "temple" of their bodies) - Origen (248 A.D.)

"You mistakenly think we conceal what we worship since we have no temples or altars. Yet how can anyone make an image of God? Man himself is the image of God. How can anyone build a temple to Him, when the whole world can’t contain Him? Even I, a mere human, travel far and wide. So how can anyone shut up the majesty of so great a Person within one small building? Isn’t it better for Him to be dedicated in our minds and consecrated in our innermost hearts - rather than in a building?" - Mark Felix in "Octavius" (2nd Century A.D.)

"You say that we build no temples [to the gods] and do not worship their images... Well, what greater honor or dignity could we ascribe to them than that we put them in the same position as the Head and Lord of the universe! ...Do we honor Him with shrines and by building temples?" - Arnobius (305 A.D.)

“It remains for me to tell you about the temple, how these wretched men who had been deceived put their trust in the building, as though it were God's house, and not in God who made them. For almost like the gentiles they ‘made him holy’ in the temple. But know what the Lord said in nullifying the temple: ‘Who has measured the sky with a span, or the land with his hand? Haven't I?,’ says Yahweh. ‘The sky is my throne and the land is the footstool for my feet. What kind of house will you build for me? Or what will be my resting place?’ Know that their hope is worthless… Now let's ask whether there is any temple of God. There is, in the place where he himself declares to make and complete it. For it is written, ‘And it will happen, when the week is complete, that God's temple will be built gloriously in the name of Yahweh.’ Therefore, I find that there is a temple. So how will it be built in the name of Yahweh? Know that before we trusted in God, the dwellings of our hearts were corrupt and weak, like ‘a temple truly built by hands.’ For it was full of idolatry and was a house of spirit beings, because we did whatever was opposed to God. But it will be built in the name of Yahweh. So pay attention that the temple of Yahweh will be built gloriously, and know by what means that will be. In receiving the forgiveness of our sins and trusting in the name of the Lord we became new, created again, as from the beginning. For this reason God lives truly in our houses within us. How? The message of his trust, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of the tenets, the precepts of the teaching, he himself prophesies in us, he himself lives in us, opening the door of the temple for us who had been in bondage to death. This is the mouth of wisdom, having given us repentance, leading us to the incorruptible temple… This is the spiritual temple of the Lord.” – The Letter of Barnabas; Chapter 16 (96-100 A.D.)

Let us therefore do all things as those who have Him dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and He may be in us as our God, which indeed He is, and will manifest Himself before our faces. Wherefore we justly love Him.” – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians; Chapter 15 (30-107 A.D.).

"Rusticus, the perfect, said, 'Where do you assemble?' Justin Martyr replied, 'Where each one chooses and is able. Do you imagine that we all meet in the very same place?'" - Martyrdom of the Holy Martyrs (160 A.D.)

"We assemble together with the same quietness with which we live as individuals." - Mark Minucius Felix (200 A.D.)

"For where there are three persons - even if they are laity - there is a church." - Tertullian (212 A.D.)

"At another time it was opened in me that God, who made the world, did not dwell in temples made with hands. This, at the first, seemed a strange word because both priests and people use to call their temples or churches, dreadful places, and holy ground, and the temples of God. But the Lord showed me, so that I did see clearly, that He did not dwell in these temples which men had commanded and set up, but in people's hearts; for both Stephen and the Apostle Paul bore testimony that he did not dwell in temples made with hands, not even in that which He had once commanded to be built, since He put an end to it; but that His people were His temple, and He dwelt in them." - George Fox (1647 A.D.)

[Pagan Antagonist:] "They [the Christians] despise the temples as dead houses... They laugh at sacred things." - Mark Minucius Felix (200 A.D.) NOTE: Felix was a Roman lawyer that converted to Christianity and wrote one of the finest apologies of early Christianity in the form of a dialogue between a Christian and a pagan; hence, this quote is intended to be a pagan's expressed agitation with the Christian's perspective on things.

 

 

 Getting back in the clear representation of people as the temple should establish a secure mindset apart having to do all the external things to inherit the where abouts of their existance, in a concious manner. 1 corinthians 1-4, 2 corinthians 3..

 

 Blessings, a discussionon the events of the timEs to this day, one body one way, his way..NW