# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

Maybe you didn’t understand my post. To enter heaven we must** be** perfect, just like He said, and in whatever way He intends.

FH:

Trying to understand. Are you saying, then, that Jesus command
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
was for those in Purgatory and for Mary only? Or do you think that the modern proverb
Nobody is perfect.
is a lie?

 

[paul_c]

There is a reason most University and College professors will not accept Wikipedia as a reputable source: Anyone can edit the content of any page. Do you have any more trustworthy sources (perhaps some online scientific research) that documents the validity of any of these miracles?

If you were really interested, you could just google
: Miracle of the Sun"
" Miracles at lourdes"
" stigmata of Padre Pio"
and find sources that you think are credible.

Here are two that might meet your criteria:
pdtsigns.com/pioscientific.html
mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jan2002/MoreOnLourdesMiracleMSCure.html

 

[paul_c]

FH:

Trying to understand. Are you saying, then, that Jesus command
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
was for those in Purgatory and for Mary only? Or do you think that the modern proverb
Nobody is perfect.
is a lie?

I think that some people attain very high levels of holiness in this life and that their goals may become perfectly aligned with Christ. I think this is what is meant.

 

[fhansen]

FH:

Trying to understand. Are you saying, then, that Jesus command
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
was for those in Purgatory and for Mary only? Or do you think that the modern proverb
Nobody is perfect.
is a lie?

I think the proverb is true, but that we use it as an excuse when convenient and, by our actions, deny we believe it the rest of the time. So St Augustine says:

"This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections."

We’ve been given the gift here of temporality-a reprieve from the instant justice that should result from sin-to have the opportunity to work out our salvation-to become perfect-which simply means to become the beings God’s always intended us to be, with His help-to make the right decision that Adam & Eve didn’t make, which means to know we need Him in order to be perfect-and ultimately be perfectly happy, eternally.

God is patient with us. Jesus died for us while we were yet in our sins. He’s working in us and He’ll get us there if we continue to diligently seek Him and strive for the prize.

Becoming perfect-and so justified-is a process in Catholic theology-and thus invovles time.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

 IMHO you could respond something like this:

Dear Ed,

         I guess you expect that answering by quoting Scripture, and  no less than Peter,

can be very impressive for my catholic virtual friends.
But, you see, I do suspect this is not the case at all. Since what they ask, is precisely what makes your own position Ed, better than that of the leadership of the ancient Church as far as the sound comprehension of Jesus’ message is concerned.

You see, catholics do know you have the Bible, Ed, and they do not doubt your ability to quote it. What they will keep asking, and I know well enough them now, is what makes you Ed, a better interpreter of the written word
than the leadership of the early Church*, which received, when selected, the special task to guard the deposit of the faith, and therefore fight corrupted innovations.

Some of them could also ask for evidence of your interpretation in the generations before 325. That could be very useful for them, as I got to know them. Collect it please, just in case.

The reply is always the same, though the Scriptural support for the reply varies:The leadership of the Catholic Church is deceived. It is a fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

(1 Timothy 4:1-2)

As for me, i have no doubt the prophecy is true and might even find fulfillment today. I just don’t know whether Catholic Carl or Evangelical Ed is the deceived!

And to you Soc, I ask whether at this point you don’t suspect that the verse quoted by Ed, upon cross-examination a la Socrates4Jesus, and an ad hoc megathread, could turn out as ambiguous as those you quoted in the OP, to your eyes, ie could cease in its turn being a reason for you to follow the Evangelicals’ way rather than Catholicism.

My thought is that this might be another case of a lack of clarity, but of a different sort. The passage is not so much ambiguous as it is vague. Both Catholics and Evangelicals believe the purpose of baptism is not to bathe the body, but to bathe the soul (to use a figure of speech). So i wonder whether the water of baptism is the means by which one receives the Holy Spirit or merely an outward symbol of an inward reality.

I mean, does the Spirit require the chemical properties H2O to conduct Himself to the soul? Does the lack of physical water prevent Him from making the change to one’s non-physical self?

My how we are touching on so many topics, here! It’s a wonder the moderator has not split the discussion thread many times over. Rather than diving deep into the mystical water of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, let’s suffice it to say one can understand why Protestants might become confused. It’s another example of the literal-figurative debate. How can one know whether the New Testament authors are speaking literally or figuratively when they speak of baptism, or any number of important subjects?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I hope I get evangelical points about baptism correctly. There is “water baptism”, an obedience and an outward expression, and distinct from that, a “spiritual baptism”, the one which is regenerative. Ed quoted 1 Petr 3 as alleged support of this position.

Yes, P7, that’s a correct understanding of their understanding.

As for other relevant pericopes

Romans 6:4 teaches baptism is regenerative. We are to believe it is not “water baptism”.

Titus 3:5 He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit./I] We are to believe this is not water baptism.

John 3:5 no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. We are to believe this water is not physical water. Or is maybe amniotic fluid.

Yes, yes, and yes–these are all what they believe, i believe. At least it was what i believed and was taught and thought was the true meaning of the Scriptures you cited.
pneuma07;5861871:

Back to Peter

Acts 2:38,"Repent, and be baptized

every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Let’s listen to Peter then.
We are to believe that either this is not “water baptism” (Just, wait a minute if “receiving of the Holy Spirit IS spiritual, ie real, regenerative baptism”, and if Peter does not speak about water baptism here , but “spiritual baptism”, his exhortation amounts to saying” repent and be baptized, and you shall be baptized” ),
or - if it is - the effects of remission and receiving the Spirit come from repenting only, and nothing at all from getting baptized into water. ( the construction “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and be baptized ….” would be proper then )

But he says

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, i see what you mean. I do think these words of Peter are the strongest Scriptural evidence for the Catholic understanding. Protestants have devised this workaround: In Acts 2:38, Peter was speaking of repenting as being the cause of one being forgiven, Ed tells me. Only after one is forgiven, the a natural act of obedience is become baptized.

It seems, after the evangelical teaching, we can only see either a non-water regenerative baptism,or a non-regenerative water baptism.
It looks like Jesus and the Apostles would preach these two completely distinct kinds of baptisms. Never, ever should we understand they would teach regenerative baptism with physical water.

Yes, i believe Evangelicals believe both to be the case. Water is not necessary to receive the Holy Spirit and eternal life as a present possession or change within the essence of one’s soul. The water of baptism, like the bread and wine of the Eucharist, is merely a physical symbol of the metaphysical reality. That’s what the Evangelical Eds and Evangelical Evelyns tell me.

To be fair to them, they do not pull this idea out of thin air. They are consistent in not believing anything they cannot find supported by the Bible. This is the Scriptural precedent they often cite, and one i first heard from D.L. Moody:
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

(Acts 10:45-48)

Here we see the gift of the Holy Spirit was received PRIOR to baptism, and reason tells me that a cause can never precede its effect. Therefore, water baptism (at least in this case) cannot be the cause of receiving the Holy Spirit.

And now I come to your kind request. Let us see what around 150 AD was the understanding of this teaching in St. Justin’s words
*
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven*

. ( First Apology, Chapter 61)

Bless you
P7

PS i’d say we are saved from sin, and his consequences. In baptism we receive the remission of sins.

Thank you for that quote by Justin, P7. It seems, i’m afraid, that he’s not so clear as to the cause of one’s spiritual rebirth. He says water is used, but he does not explicitly say that the water is the cause of one being born again. Evangelical Ed would have no disagreement with what Justin wrote, i suppose.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

P7:

The upshot is that the lack of clarity of Sacred Scripture proves to me that either Evangelical Ed or Catholic Carl might be correct. I’m still looking for the authority i should trust to tell me which view is true. Should we return to the task of attempting to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is that authority?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, they accept the entire new testament put together by a church that they consider corrupt. How is that logical?

I suppose, PC, that the Evangelical Eds would say the “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” in the Nicene Creed was originally speaking of the Holy Spirit, NOT holy water. One passage they might quote to make their case:But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit … .

(Titus 3:4-5)

It’s the Spirit, not physical water, that washes our sins away and gives our non-physical souls spiritual rebirth, they tell me. This just proves to further make the case that the Bible is unclear on this and other important doctrines. It’s unclear whether the baptism that saves us is the water baptism, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or both. That’s why i’m trying to find the authority outside Sacred Scripture that will help me see; you see?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you were really interested, you could just google
: Miracle of the Sun"
" Miracles at lourdes"
" stigmata of Padre Pio"
and find sources that you think are credible.

Here are two that might meet your criteria:
pdtsigns.com/pioscientific.html
mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jan2002/MoreOnLourdesMiracleMSCure.html

Thanks!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think that some people attain very high levels of holiness in this life and that their goals may become perfectly aligned with Christ. I think this is what is meant.

You mean, sinless perfection this side of Purgatory or Heaven is possible?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think the proverb is true, but that we use it as an excuse when convenient and, by our actions, deny we believe it the rest of the time. So St Augustine says:

"This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections."

We’ve been given the gift here of temporality-a reprieve from the instant justice that should result from sin-to have the opportunity to work out our salvation-to become perfect-which simply means to become the beings God’s always intended us to be, with His help-to make the right decision that Adam & Eve didn’t make, which means to know we need Him in order to be perfect-and ultimately be perfectly happy, eternally.

God is patient with us. Jesus died for us while we were yet in our sins. He’s working in us and He’ll get us there if we continue to diligently seek Him and strive for the prize.

Becoming perfect-and so justified-is a process in Catholic theology-and thus invovles time.

FH:

I’d have to disagree with the author you quoted. Knowing one is not as perfect as God is *never *the same as actually being as perfect as God! Don’t you agree? I think you do, for you said it is true that no one (aside from Mary and Christ) was or is perfect this side of Purgatory or Heaven. The upshot of your assertion is this:

If the proverbNobody is perfect.

is true for all but Christ and Mary, then Jesus words,**Be **perfect … .

apply ONLY to Mary and Christ, and no one else. Or do you think Jesus commands you and i to do what is impossible for us to do? That is, do you think Jesus is setting you and i up for failure?



My thought is that there are two possibilities: EitherA. It is possible for someone to first become and then remain (or be) as perfect as God this side of Heaven

or

B. Perfection is imputed to the Christian so that practically he is not sinless, but positionally He is considered sinless by God. That is, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer.

Now (B) is what many Protestants believe. And i believe there are some Catholics (Thomists i think they call themselves) who actually believe (A) to be true. Perhaps Matthew 5:48 is one reason why they hold such an unpopular opinion?

 

[paul_c]

FH:

I’d have to disagree with the author you quoted. Knowing one is not as perfect as God is *never *the same as actually being as perfect as God! Don’t you agree? I think you do, for you said it is true that no one (aside from Mary and Christ) was or is perfect this side of Purgatory or Heaven. The upshot of your assertion is this:

If the proverbNobody is perfect.

is true for all but Christ and Mary, then Jesus words,**Be **perfect … .

apply ONLY to Mary and Christ, and no one else. Or do you think Jesus commands you and i to do what is impossible for us to do? That is, do you think Jesus is setting you and i up for failure?



My thought is that there are two possibilities: EitherA. It is possible for someone to first become and then remain (or be) as perfect as God this side of Heaven

or

B. Perfection is imputed to the Christian so that practically he is not sinless, but positionally He is considered sinless by God. That is, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer.

I believe there are some Catholics (Thomists i think they call themselves) who actually believe (A) to be true. Perhaps Matthew 5:48 is one reason why they hold such an unpopular opinion?

Since it is always useful to understand scriptural context, here is the whole sequence from Mathew 5:
43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect

He’s telling us to follow the example of God and to love our neighbors as ourselves, without distinction or prejudice. Why should we settle for anything less? If we can’t do this, we will need further refinement in Purgatory. For faithful Christians, its always about increasing our love until we love everyone

And by the way, this doesn’t mean we can’t make mistakes or have accidents because we are not physically perfect. What I believe it means is that we need to strive for perfection of intent to do God’s will, which is to love. You might not understand that if you looked only at 5: 48 as a single verse.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Since it is always useful to understand scriptural context, here is the whole sequence from Mathew 5:
43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect

He’s telling us to follow the example of God and to love our neighbors as ourselves, without distinction or prejudice. Why should we settle for anything less? If we can’t do this, we will need further refinement in Purgatory. For faithful Christians, its always about increasing our love until we love everyone

And by the way, this doesn’t mean we can’t make mistakes or have accidents because we are not physically perfect. What I believe it means is that we need to strive for perfection of intent to do God’s will, which is to love. You might not understand that if you looked only at 5: 48 as a single verse.

How are we to follow God’s example, PC? Perfectly, or imperfectly? What does Jesus say?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[paul_c]

I suppose, PC, that the Evangelical Eds would say the “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” in the Nicene Creed was originally speaking of the Holy Spirit, NOT holy water. One passage they might quote to make their case:But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit … .

(Titus 3:4-5)

It’s the Spirit, not physical water, that washes our sins away and gives our non-physical souls spiritual rebirth, they tell me. This just proves to further make the case that the Bible is unclear on this and other important doctrines. It’s unclear whether the baptism that saves us is the water baptism, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or both. That’s why i’m trying to find the authority outside Sacred Scripture that will help me see; you see?

I’m of the opinion that the Holy Spirit is always within us from the day of our conception. It gives us life and talks to us through conscience. After all, in the Nicene Creed, we say:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets

When we take active sacramental steps within the Catholic Church, it prompts the Holy Spirit to give us additional graces. Its not that the spirit enters you at baptism. It has always been there. . It’s also not that the water is cleansing you of your sins , per se. Otherwise, any time you took a bath, you would be cleansed of your sins. Rather, it is fact that we are taking the required physcial action to demonstrate our faith and intent that results in the graces associated with the batismal sacrament. Its not symbolic, its real action we take, with real results.:When baptized, it signals the spirit to cleanse you from prior sin and makes you a new man, a member of the church, with sufficient grace to be saved

Here’s the summary statement on Baptism from the CCC. Notice it doesn’t say the Holy Spirit enters you. In Confirmation, we don’t gain the Spirit either, we gain the gifts of the Holy Spirit, a subtle distinction that is not always discussed.

1275 Christian initiation is accomplished by three sacraments together: Baptism which is the beginning of new life; Confirmation which is its strengthening; and the Eucharist which nourishes the disciple with Christ’s Body and Blood for his transformation in Christ.

1276 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20).

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.

1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624).

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.

1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.

1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

---

 

[paul_c]

How are we to follow God’s example, PC? Perfectly, or imperfectly? What does Jesus say?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We are to attempt to follow The Father’s example perfectly. In our journey toward holiness, we may in fact fail to do this at times. That is why there is the sacrament of reconciliation, so that we can humbly repent, being reconciled with God to try again until we achieve perfection.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

We are to attempt to follow The Father’s example perfectly. In our journey toward holiness, we may in fact fail to do this at times. That is why there is the sacrament of reconciliation, so that we can humbly repent, being reconciled with God to try again until we achieve perfection.

Yes, i understand. So then, the Catholic Thomist must believe that once one reaches a state of sinless moral perfection in this life, the Sacrament of Confession is no longer necessary.

Do you see, PC, what this means? There still are, after nearly 2,000 years, things that Jesus said that are ambiguous even to the Catholic Church! If there were not, then the teaching of Catholic Thomists (and that of their Father Thomas Aquinas) would have been condemned as heresy long before now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomist

 

[fhansen]

FH:

I’d have to disagree with the author you quoted. Knowing one is not as perfect as God is *never *the same as actually being as perfect as God! Don’t you agree? I think you do, for you said it is true that no one (aside from Mary and Christ) was or is perfect this side of Purgatory or Heaven. The upshot of your assertion is this:

If the proverbNobody is perfect.

is true for all but Christ and Mary, then Jesus words,**Be **perfect … .

apply ONLY to Mary and Christ, and no one else. Or do you think Jesus commands you and i to do what is impossible for us to do? That is, do you think Jesus is setting you and i up for failure?

What Augustine is getting at is that man’s self-righteousness separates him from God because only God is right in the ultimate sense. So, to find out in which way one is imperfect-or not right-or wrong –is to now be able to overcome those faults. God is perfect love. For man to be perfect, he does not become God, himself, but must become like him in that he loves also. And this love is uncompromisable. We are to love God with our whole hearts, souls, minds, and strength –nothing above Him-and our neighbors as ourselves-this is the perfection of man and the imitation of the Trinity. All of mans imperfections lie in lack of this love and this is why sin and love are mutually exclusive.

And Augustines statement was not intended to exhaustively cover the topic anyway but, rather, to be instructive or enlightening in concise form. If we say that man is perfect if he no longer sins, this is another way of saying that man is perfect when he fully loves as God intended him to do. Another quote of Augustine’s is, “Love and do what you like”. And this is another way of saying the same thing. The law is fulfilled, man is whole and perfect, order is restored to the universe.

I’ll reply to the rest of your post when I get back in. Gotta go now.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

What Augustine is getting at is that man’s self-righteousness separates him from God because only God is right in the ultimate sense. So, to find out in which way one is imperfect-or not right-or wrong –is to now be able to overcome those faults. God is perfect love. For man to be perfect, he does not become God, himself, but must become like him in that he loves also. And this love is uncompromisable. We are to love God with our whole hearts, souls, minds, and strength –nothing above Him-and our neighbors as ourselves-this is the perfection of man and the imitation of the Trinity. All of mans imperfections lie in lack of this love and this is why sin and love are mutually exclusive. And Augustines statement was not intended to exhaustively cover the topic anyway but, rather, to be instructive or enlightening in concise form. If we say that man is perfect if he no longer sins, this is another way of saying that man is perfect when he fully loves as God intended him to do. Another quote of Augustine’s is, “Love and do what you like”. And this is another way of saying the same thing. The law is fulfilled, man is whole and perfect, order is restored to the universe.
I’ll reply to the rest of your post when I get back in. Gotta go now.

Then it seems Augustine was imitating Christ in being ambiguous! For although he said this,“This is the very perfection of a man–to find out his own imperfections.”

what he really meant is this,“This is the very [first step to achieving the] perfection of a man–to find out his own imperfections.”

There’s nothing uncommon about that. Every child knows he must know what he has done wrong before he can improve. But i suppose we cannot fault Augustine for not being exact with his words. For Jesus, who was perfectly without sin, appeared to do the same!

 

[fhansen]

Then it seems Augustine was imitating Christ in being ambiguous! For although he said this,“This is the very perfection of a man–to find out his own imperfections.”

what he really meant is this,“This is the very [first step to achieving the] perfection of a man–to find out his own imperfections.”

There’s nothing uncommon about that. Every child knows he must know what he has done wrong before he can improve. But i suppose we cannot fault Augustine for not being exact with his words. For Jesus, who was perfectly without sin, appeared to do the same!

But the finding out of ones imperfections is a continuous journey. Saints actually became more convicted of their sins as they grew in holiness-or realized they were sinning in a way they never recognized earlier. So to come to know ones imperfections, from a Christ-oriented perspective-is to grow in holiness/perfection. Maybe that’s too much qualification-or reading too much into it- but this has always been my understanding of this quote. Because sanctification is part of justification in Catholic theology, being convicted of sin -and dealing with it- is an intricate and necessary, if often arduous, part of the process.

 

[joe370]

Again, that depends on what the true definition of Church is. Let’s try to define it so that we know about what we are talking when we say the word Church.

**The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong’s Number: 1577 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
ejkklhsiva from a compound of (1537) and a derivative of (2564)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ekklesia 3:501,394
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ek-klay-see’-ah Noun Feminine
Definition

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   1. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   2. the assembly of the Israelites
   3. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   4. in a Christian sense
      1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
      2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
      3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
      4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
      5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Remember, Jesus only built one assembly, and prayed that His established assembly would be one just as He and His Father are one…and she was one until the protestant reformation which supplanted Jesus’ church authority for the authority of the bible via individual interpretation - sola scriptura, and the authority of man-made churches.

Perhaps Jesus doesn’t mind if I go to one of the Lutheran churches in the world today. If that were the case, then, hypothetically speaking, which one? I can point out one Lutheran church that believes as does the C.C. regarding the Eucharist, and another that calls that Lutheran church an apostate church because of their belief in the true presence, and both base their conclusions on the authority of the bible via individual interpretation.

The key to finding truth is to find Jesus’ established church, guided by the holy spirit since pentecost, with both leaders and pupils, which was/is commanded to teach all that Jesus commanded…Am I right or wrong? **