OBW
Quote:
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that "Churches of Christianity" are somehow different from "the ekklesia"? Isn't it all Christianity? That is the label given to those who are Christ-followers. And the churches (ekklesia) of Christianity would be the ekklesia.
What are you saying? Is there some differentiator between Christians?
|
Christianity itself creates its own differentiations between Christians. Starting with denominational differences over doctrine. Differences important enough to Christians that they practice closed communion over the differences. Pretty significant to me seeing as communion is thought of as a participation in unity. Communion participated in a denominational sense. How interesting. There’s even one uber essential doctrine that Christians use to determine one’s Christianity.
Christians freely use the word cult to eliminate opposition in the name of objective truth. Truth denominationally believed. The Recovery is a cult to mainline Christians. Probably brought on by themselves due to how they think of the rest of Christianity. Yet they are concerned how Christians view them. Nothing reasonable there, as far as I’m concerned. If I had of started a community that strictly followed what I believe in the sense of doctrine, it would be considered a cult. Indeed, not even Christian.
There is one basic difference between Christians that should be obvious to all who are in Christ. Some Christians are in Christ, some are not. But due to natural denominational thinking so common among them, it’s not obvious at all.
In my view, a distinction must be made between the ekklesia portrayed in the New Testament and the Churches of Christianity. Something you’ve already disagreed with in no uncertain terms elsewhere. So I have to question the motive for your post. Unless I’m confusing you with someone else.
If and when I agree that the ekklesia and the Churches of Christianity are the same thing, it will be because I’ve become an Atheist who considers the relationship between the Bible and Christianity to be one of basic synonymity. As do most Christians and those who leave Christianity, and pretty much any non-Christian.
As a religious Agnostic, the only reason I argue for a supernatural expression where the rubber meets the road, is because I still have hope (and a little faith) that the Bible portrayal is real. I’ve already lost all faith and hope in Christianity. A non sequitur to Christians. To hope in the Bible when all hope and faith in Christianity is already non-existent. Or vice versa.
I’ve had people tell me I should just be a Deist, and dump the Bible, since I’ve already for all practical purposes dumped Christianity. But since I still attend a Christian Church, that isn’t entirely true. Who knows how that will play out. If I become Atheist, I certainly would be a more formidable foe to Christianity, if I chose to be so, then any of the so-called nouveau Atheists who can’t see much farther than their own nose. One would think they would just let the Christians be, if they can’t even understand what the religion is supposed to be about. Not that it’s entirely their fault, seeing as most Christians don’t seem to understand their religion any better than the Atheists do. And that’s taking into account that to Christians, there is a synonymity between the Bible and Christianity.
Is the reason there is such a disparity in thinking between the Bible and Christianity really due to a difference between 1st and 21st century thinking? Or are the Catholics right that Christianity (in the form of the Roman Catholic Church) is just a historic development through the Spirit of what initially existed in the 1st century? Are Protestantism and orthodoxy are representative of not following the flow of true Christian history with the Spirit? Perhaps. Lee sure got the idea of flow wrong if so. But it seems to me that the flow in Christianity has been more natural than supernatural.
MacDuff