None of this is strictly speaking wrong, with the qualification that everything I wrote in this regard isn't wrong either.rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:33 am My point is, ekklēsia is not a distinctly Christian word. It does not in fact describe a "church". Jews also considered themselves members of the ekklēsia of God. Even pagan Greeks of course also used the term ekklēsia to describe many organizations and religious groups.
Alright, this isn't wrong either because ekklēsia did not describe a building.rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:33 amSo I don't see a specific reason why Mark couldn't have used ekklēsia just fine, unless that reason is that ekklēsia does not describe a building while synagōgēn does describe a building and in Mark's narrative is he always talking about Jesus entering a building.
The question of the OP was about the use of a word (ekklēsia) in a gospel (specifically Mark). I mentioned how the Gospel of Matthew uses the word ekklēsia, but when it does so, it does so in a way that refers to the future. I mentioned how Luke-Acts does so, but when it does so, it is only when the narrative arrives at that future, after the narration of the resurrection (in Acts). This helps illustrate the orientation of Christians regarding their ekklēsia being established post-resurrection. This is relevant because the thread is framed in terms of the appearance of the word, and one way in which the word can appear (as illustrated) is with reference to the Christian community everywhere or particular such communities.
If the discussion wants to focus instead on the use of words in particular contexts, like the contemporary context of people and places visited by Jesus, and particularly in reference to Jewish people and places, that's fine. Then it should be noted that we're not really talking just about the non-usage of the word in Mark. We could also be talking about Matthew, Luke, and any other text that doesn't use the word that way.
I'm making a wild guess here, that the OP was written from the perspective that the word might be ambiguous in Paul, but that the pattern of non-use of the word in Mark is taken as a clue to the use of the word in Paul? (The OP was not clear.)