[aron]

I'll try to briefly point out a couple of my views. First is that the word 'church' is a translation of 'ekklesia', which often meant meeting or gathering. If you look at the word in scripture such as the LXX, which predated Christ by centuries, it was already in wide use. "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You." (Psa 22:22; cf Heb 2:12)

Second, look in the NT and see usage of 'ekklesia' where we can't possibly translate it into our 19th or 20th or 21st century idea of 'church'. "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia' ". (Acts 19:41).

Third, in the quote Ohio provided, that author talks about 'ekklesia' meeting in people's homes (e.g. in the greetings in Romans 16). Does that perforce involve all believers in Rome? Or is that what we'd call a 'home meeting'?

In sum, if we base a religious movement upon some forced and narrow reading that can't hold up across scripture, then we're mistaken, and building on the proverbial sand. (Somewhat similar to the enforced reading of JHWH as 'Jehovah' when the Hard J sound came from 18th century German, or insisting that everyone now observe the Sabbath because "its in the Bible"). Any critical reading makes these ideas look untenable.

In short, I see no more justification for One-city-one-church dogma than One Trumpet (the Bible was written by how many authors?) or One Apostle Per Age. It's merely starting with an ignorant and self-biased premise, finding six or eight verses that might support it, turning another 20 verses to fit the view, and then ignoring the dozen or so verses that can't fit. Wave the ones you like, saying, "It's in the Bible" and ignore the rest of the Bible, and centuries of Christian precedent and/or understanding.

Um, no.