I don't understand your point, but I can only think of Acts 5:19-20, actually the whole chapter is temple focused.
I did honestly post the entire Strong's definition of Here's the word "church" in Greek: ekklésia previously as well as the reference as a link. Definition: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
The trouble with the view you're espousing that of the final definition and the first is that the "whole body of Christian believers" and "an assembly" are too open ended. Church is found in the New Testament as a specific, authorized, ordered entity, geographically limited and only under those circumstances does the "whole body of Christian believers" constitute the Church and "an assembly" the grouping of those Christians in their geographic place. We cannot impose the 20th century on the 1st.
Let's look at some examples:
In Matthew 18 Jesus covers several topics, but one that is overlooked is the "church" as described by Christ himself. Matthew 18:17 Jesus: "If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won't accept the church's decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector."
Now that's Jesus talking and the Church he is describing is one of order. Can you imagine just going to any church to resolve this problem? Even if the church agreed with your beliefs would you argue that any randomly chosen church would settle this issue?
The Church of Jesus Christ is a church of order, it is an assembly of order and only in order can it ever be called the "the whole body of Christian believers."
Regarding order - are you telling me that Paul appointed 12 year old boys to supervise your definition of a 'church'?
Now this is not my definition of church, but God's. I don't know if Paul appointed 12 year old boys to administer in the church and neither do you as the Bible is silent on that matter. But the Christian expectation is a church with Christ ordained offices. See: Ephesians 4:11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.
Fail again 10, you were emphasizing a physical structure associated with location. Acts 14 comes later than Acts 5 10. Were the Gentiles Paul were ministering to attending temple in Jerusalem - NO, they were forbidden. The temple was nothing like mormon temples.
I did honestly post the entire Strong's definition of Here's the word "church" in Greek: ekklésia previously as well as the reference as a link. Definition: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
Sorry, fail again, Biblos provides an incomplete definition. This site provides the more accurate and detailed definition:
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1577
The trouble with the view you're espousing that of the final definition and the first is that the "whole body of Christian believers" and "an assembly" are too open ended.
Fail again 10 - do you bother to read in context? The usage of the word in context provides the definition. Are you claiming that Christian believers are not part of the church? Remember - at no point in the NT did they have a physical location/building called a 'church' - that is a late invention (see your baffled statement at first)
Church is found in the New Testament as a specific, authorized, ordered entity, geographically limited .. . .
Still haven't studied the bible very much huh? Unfortunately - even your abbreviated definition of ekklesia repudiates this view. It was only geographically limited because it was growing and young. It had no temples, it had no priesthood, it had no 'ordiances' aka morg doctrines.
only under those circumstances does the "whole body of Christian believers" constitute the Church and "an assembly" the grouping of those Christians in their geographic place. We cannot impose the 20th century on the 1st.
LOL, I'm not the one superimposing the bogus views of a peep stone user on the 1st century. That is why ekklesia in its context is true. Read Paul - his references to church proves that its use is not limited geographically or chronologically - Ro 16:23, 1Co 6:4, 1Co 10:32, 1Co 11:22, 1Co 12:28- just for starters. Paul uses it to address ALL Christian across ALL the ages, and not just the Believers - the "called out" ones (practical application of ekklesia from the bible).
BTW 10, just which specific geographically limited 'church' was Jesus establishing in MT 16:18?
In Matthew 18 Jesus covers several topics, but one that is overlooked is the "church" as described by Christ himself.
And what does Jesus "describe" 10? Definitely nothing remotely resembling mormonism. Jesus said to lay the whole matter before the congregation of Christian believers - no ecclestical structure at all.
Can you imagine just going to any church to resolve this problem? Even if the church agreed with your beliefs would you argue that any randomly chosen church would settle this issue?
Jesus' context was also clear - it was the local assembly - no broader church hierarchy 10.
The Church of Jesus Christ is a church of order, it is an assembly of order and only in order can it ever be called the "the whole body of Christian believers."
Yes, a 'church' of legalism, but ekklesia says NOTHING requiring order now does it. In fact the structure of the early believers was very fluid.
Now this is not my definition of church, but God's. I don't know if Paul appointed 12 year old boys to administer in the church and neither do you as the Bible is silent on that matter.
LOL - the argument from silence. In that passage Paul appointed elders - elders in mormonism are appointed at 12 years old. Paul later describes these elders as being married with children. Another epic fail on your part 10
See: Ephesians 4:11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.
And mormonism continues to get it wrong doesn't it. It places apostles over prophets (what NO Presidents), and why no women prophets (Lu 2:36)? No priesthood, no wards, no stake presidents, no office of patriarchs, no office of seventies. My, the more I look, the more it is evident that mormonism doesn't even remotely resemble anything found in the first century.
BTW, what was the name of the "church" in the first century 10?