tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post6365853132593508893..comments2023-06-11T04:55:09.337-07:00Comments on Alms for Oblivion: Pop Culture and the Arrangement of HistoryThomas Bankshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06855333805635398250noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-77128760273973282792007-06-30T09:32:00.000-07:002007-06-30T09:32:00.000-07:00And to get back to your original post, the 1st cen...And to get back to your original post, the 1st century A.D. at least has a very definite and appropriate starting point.<BR/><BR/>Too bad Dionysius Exiguus was a few years off in his calculations, though...<BR/><BR/>-JeffJeff Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114418077449866628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-30631442146747652712007-06-30T09:30:00.000-07:002007-06-30T09:30:00.000-07:00Tom, I agree with you about ekklesia ("church"), w...Tom, I agree with you about <I>ekklesia</I> ("church"), with one important tweak. Yes, the word means "an assembly" when it's used outside the Bible, and that's basically what it means throughout the Bible too. A church is an assembly.<BR/><BR/>Here's the "tweak": You said that <I>ekklesia</I> picked up the specific meaning "church" in the 1st century, but again I'd have to say that happened in the 2nd century BC when the OT was translated into Greek (the LXX). Two centuries later, Greek-speaking Jews were already used to talking about themselves as "the Lord's assembly/church" (i.e. <I>ekklesia Kyriou</I>) and they had an expectation of the <I>Christos</I> to come. Those who became believers in Jesus still thought of themselves as "the Lord's church"--just as they always had--but they worshiped <I>Christos</I> who had already come and called Him the Lord. Same church, but with new glory.<BR/><BR/>The Apostle Paul makes the same point in Romans 11:13-31 when he describes the church as a tree. He doesn't say that the Jews belonged to one tree and the Christians to another. In fact, he says that some Jews who were already on the tree were broken off when they refused to believe in Christ, and Gentile Christians were grafted onto that same tree in their place. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, this sort of conversation would probably work better in person. I'll be away for a couple of weeks visiting family in West Virginia, but I hope to see you again when I get back.Jeff Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114418077449866628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-70454557237604319322007-06-29T15:01:00.000-07:002007-06-29T15:01:00.000-07:00Jeff- Sorry for the delay, hadn't noticed your lat...Jeff- <BR/><BR/>Sorry for the delay, hadn't noticed your latest comment. To answer the last question first, let me pose another question: If Christ's Kingdom is "Not of this world," then whence any sort of political mantle? Sorry to be an annoying Anabaptist on this one, but that strikes me as the most direct and natural explanation.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I may be out of my depth here, as my study of Greek has only covered two semesters thus far, but "Ekklesia," at least in the Attic usage, usually means simply "Assembly" rather than the more specific "Church," which meaning it adopted in the hands of the 1st century patriarchs, being to them the available term closest to the desired meaning. In the OT references to which you allude, could this earlier employment of the word not be the case?<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>T.Thomas Bankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06855333805635398250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-47916730339047424432007-06-28T11:17:00.000-07:002007-06-28T11:17:00.000-07:00Whatever Pentecost means, it's not the origin of t...Whatever Pentecost means, it's not the origin of the C/church. According to Stephen, Moses led "the church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38, see KJV), and the congregation of Israel is similarly called "the church" (Greek <I>ekklesia</I>) dozens of times in the Greek OT. Some good examples are Deut. 23:2-9; Judges 21:5; 1 Kings 8:14; 1 Chron. 28:8; Ezra 2:64; Psalm 22:22; Micah 2:5; etc.<BR/><BR/>The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost to give power to the church, so that they could testify about Jesus not only among the Jews but to all nations, to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).<BR/><BR/>Where does the Bible talk about the Church as a "collective body of the truly redeemed" which is <I>not</I> "a historical and sociopolitical entity"?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the interaction--<BR/>Jeff :-)Jeff Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114418077449866628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-87494263070245611622007-06-26T20:55:00.000-07:002007-06-26T20:55:00.000-07:00That explanation was certainly helpful, but it lea...That explanation was certainly helpful, but it leads to another question- what does Pentacost mean, given the Church=Chosen Line caveat?<BR/><BR/>And to answer your previous query, I'd propose that the undercase "church" is a historical and sociopolitical entity, whereas the "Church" is the collective body of the truly redeemed.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>T.Thomas Bankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06855333805635398250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-52567696296407718772007-06-26T19:17:00.000-07:002007-06-26T19:17:00.000-07:00Tom, maybe I just take things too seriously, but I...Tom, maybe I just take things too seriously, but I thought your post made a few really cool points. Yeah, you had some pretty funny lines, like the first sentence, and the one about Gregory or Julius or whoever getting a slightly higher place in the Nine Circles for inventing the <I>century</I>.<BR/><BR/>So what, according to you, is the difference between "the church" and "the Church"? I could take a guess, but I'd like to know what distinction you make--and find out which one gets the capital C!<BR/><BR/><I>to ask what one does with the first two millenia of history in which neither the church nor the Church exist</I>...hmm...do you mean from Adam to Abram, assuming that the C/church starts with the call of Abram in Gen. 12?<BR/><BR/>I don't think it would be a stretch to say that world history "really" centered around the Chosen Line (i.e. proto-Church) during that period too. Thus the importance of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies in the Bible. I think Leithart's claim about the church being at the center of global history could be restated as "the Chosen Line/Chosen Race is at the center of global history." That way, you get a continuous stream from Seth to Noah to Abraham to Jacob/Israel, focusing in on Judah, David, and finally Messiah. Messiah is the culmination of the Chosen Line and the personification of the Chosen Race. During the whole A.D. period, to be in Him is to be in the Chosen Race is to be at the center of history...and thus "the church is the historical entity at the center of global history."<BR/><BR/>And this was a very serious answer for a self-confessedly sophistic and humorous post. :-)Jeff Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114418077449866628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-42479554222214886852007-06-26T14:18:00.000-07:002007-06-26T14:18:00.000-07:00Jeff- That's an interesting point. Having not expl...Jeff- That's an interesting point. Having not explored Leithart's position in any depth, I can't offer much in the way of either agreement or criticism, other than to ask what one does with the first two millenia of history in which neither the church nor the Church exist?<BR/><BR/>And don't take anything I said in this post too seriously. I wanted it to sound funnier than the end result may indicate, and if I failed, it's only because I wrote it in ten minutes. <BR/><BR/>Chalk it up to me amusing myself by acting like a sophist.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>TomThomas Bankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06855333805635398250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8117439219993737916.post-48066525367153237762007-06-26T09:25:00.000-07:002007-06-26T09:25:00.000-07:00Good observations, but why should periods of histo...Good observations, but why should periods of history be defined only by military and political events?<BR/><BR/>I agree with <A HREF="http://www.leithart.com/archives/000769.php" REL="nofollow">Peter Leithart's claim</A> that "the church is the historical entity at the center of global history." If this is true, we might (for instance) date the beginning of the Medieval period at the conversion and baptism of Augustine (386/387), and its end at Luther's posting of the Ninety-Five Theses (1517). The twentieth "century" might be considered to begin in 1910 with the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Missionary_Conference" REL="nofollow">Edinburgh Missionary Conference</A>. I don't know if we can yet clearly recognize an ending point for this century, in terms of church history. However, the consecration of V. Gene Robinson in 2004 as the first practicing homosexual bishop in one of the largest worldwide Christian communions (Anglican) may yet have such far-reaching effects that it would be a good candidate for this "honor."Jeff Mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114418077449866628noreply@blogger.com