(See http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/1-18.htm, for a typical translation example.)
Are you saying that all those teams of Bible translators, and all those people who wrote those definitions for "ekklesia" in all the Koine Greek/English Lexicons/Dictionaries, got that word wrong, and you are the only one who has it right CynicalBear?
Do you think you know Koine Greek better than all those highly educated and skilled Greek language experts do? (Frankly, I certainly don't believe that, and I'm certain that only the most naive and gullible people here might think that that is the case.)
He did not say that, at all.
Why do you insinuate that he did, by forming the question as you did?
No need to answer that though, for I *think* that I already know why -- and it's not a pretty picture, once one get's past the superficial portions, and the closer details come into view.
Look at what you did, Heart-Rest.
The formal definition which you accessed --- was not the form delineated by Roman Catholics that CB was talking about...
James Strong was a Methodist.
Nestle was not a Roman Catholic either...
What CB was speaking of is what other definitions, by word and practice both, that the RCC has given to the word, even as "they" claim that their own membership alone is what composes the ekklesia, and that all must submit to the Roman church Pontiff, etc., and much more...is what I believe CB was talking about, with CB himself holding to Strong's definition, already.
Bringing that out --- representing that as if it was what CB was disagreeing with is a form of pseudo-intellectualism, which accomplished nothing but a further muddying of the waters...
All this subtle twisting of things, of what people here have said, throwing that back at them with one of your own diversionary questions, accompanied by shallow mini-lectures --- what good is it?
You've gone on record (more than once) equating disagreement with the RCC to being equal to disagreeing with Christ, Himself.
Does it make you "feel good" to get your bashing licks in, against those whom dare criticize the RCC?
That may be so, but still does not change the fact that within the RCC, what constitutes the church, as that can be seen described in the New Testament, has been in many ways subtly (and not as subtly) altered from what the ekklesias was in the first place.
The verse you choice to highlight is itself an example.
Rome puts the "pope" as the head of the Church ---even though it does pay lip-service to Christ in claiming that He (Jesus Christ) is the head of that ekklesia.
Yet there was no singular earthly "head" of the Church in the earliest centuries. Period, dot.
Papacy? Papa?
It's real simple.
Call no man 'father', for we are to have one Father, who is in heaven.
If one does not know Him, as in has never encountered Him but in their own imaginations, then they are not sons, cannot be [adopted] sons of His...though they may well be 'sons of' a long line of Romish, illegitimate, papist &*%#@!#s.
You like the word “church” don’t you. Tell me the definition of the word church and the origin of the word. Is the original Greek word for “church” in scripture? If so, where. Be careful with you answer on that last one.
Word origin
from ek and kaleó
ἐκ - from out, out from among, from
kaleó - I call, summon, invite
Greek origin of the word "church".
Greek - κυριακὸν - kyriakon - (an adjective, derived from 2962 /kýrios, "lord") – properly, pertaining (belonging) to the Lord (kyrios).
church (n.) Old English cirice, circe "church, public place of worship; Christians collectively," from Proto-Germanic *kirika (cognates: Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Old Frisian zerke, Middle Dutch kerke, Dutch kerk, Old High German kirihha, German Kirche), probably [see note in OED] from Greek kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord," [ Online Etymology Dictionary]
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said "I will build my ekklēsian NOT kyriakon.