|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 23:59:52 GMT -5
Hey todd! I suspect that they have just accepted whatever version of the history that they were told, because it really doesn't make any difference.What version of the history were you told? I would guess that most workers would have heard more than you would have just by the fact that they get around to a lot more places (at least I would imagine they would...) The only time I have ever discussed this with a worker, he was no more conclusive about WI being the founder than anybody here is. I don’t see why they would know any more just because they get around… wouldn’t they still look at the same sort of information that is on here to find out the history? I’ll point out here that it is my belief that WI wasn’t the founder, and this is partly because I have asked what it is that makes him the founder and haven’t been able to get that question answered. If I am wrong, I am happy to be proven wrong, but that won’t happen by repeatedly saying that WI founded the fellowship I am in. If these workers know something about what WI did that nobody else here knows then they may be rightly saying that he was the founder, but if WI wasn’t the founder, they are lying to say that he was. Oops sorry… I see now. I meant “or any other lie when I asked that question”. Really, I don’t expect him to tell a lie regarding anything else either. Didn’t I tell you not to say that?... you… you dim-wit. Anyway, the point I was making was, don't feel bad about scrutinizing what I say or picking on me. I am often told that I am wrong on here, but not very often shown where and how I am wrong. LOL… I can’t say though that your photos are ever normal or rational, but at least very topical and always entertaining nevertheless. Yes… if we are both Christians (This is not an invitation to publicly give your opinion about whether I am a Christian ).
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 17, 2009 1:59:58 GMT -5
I suspect that they have just accepted whatever version of the history that they were told, because it really doesn't make any difference. Wasn't it Bill Carroll who said in court that William Irvine started the mission that he worked in? I see no reason why Bill would lie about that. Firstly, it might have been that Bill just accepted that William started the mission if that is what he was told, and didn’t consciously try to deceive. He could have been telling the truth too. I see no reason for school teachers to lie about Thomas Edison either, but it seems they did. Secondly, “starting a mission”, is a whole lot different to “founding the no name church”. Thirdly, John Long went out preaching in faith according to his understanding of Matt 10, before William did. If this ministry was built on “Matt 10” as some say it was, then John Long was the first.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 17, 2009 4:30:44 GMT -5
Firstly, it might have been that Bill just accepted that William started the mission if that is what he was told, and didn’t consciously try to deceive. He could have been telling the truth too. I see no reason for school teachers to lie about Thomas Edison either, but it seems they did. The Carrolls professed in the Nenagh mission and saw the work and the fellowship evolve around them. The mission William Irvine started produced converts who came to appreciate his leadership. After a few years this band of believers established fellowship meetings, conventions, special meetings, workers’ lists, etc. This came to be known as the “no-name church”. John Long himself refers to William’s role, and I don’t understand why you think he was the first to go out preaching in faith. William was a Faith Mission worker before John Long left his employment as a Methodist colporteur. You will have noticed from the Pattison account that William was the main man at the Nenagh mission - he was referred to as "The Evangelist".
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 17, 2009 6:43:32 GMT -5
Do you think the disciples realized this at the time--?? Wonder when they understood they were under the New Covenant? Some continued to go to the temple after Jesus died... Was there a transition period...? Actually, I do believe that the old law was done away with when the veil was rent in twain, which I understand was when Jesus was on the cross...the darkest hours on the earth! And I also believe as Nathan said that is when the testator died and made his testament in force which is the new covenant, the new law of freedom for all mankind. God's plan of redemption included the old law that was given to Moses....seems it perhaps was a stopgap measure and probably should have been the ringing of the bell in the children of Israel's head about the extended plan of salvation......God always used repentance and forgiveness in the OT and Jesus' death on the cross was the "seal of redemption" or so it seems to me! Honestly, I think the apostles and disciples had to grow in grace just very much like we do....they didn't receive the total picture all at once....fact is they didn't get any of it until after they received the Holy Spirit apparently for that is when it is said they began to remember what Jesus had taught them. I do think they understood pretty much about the New Covenant when they received the Holy Spirit. As to going to the temple? It wasn't wrong for Jesus had gone to the temple himself, didn't he? He never told them not to go at all! Nor did he tell them not to go to the synagogues. I don't think Jesus was so very much concerned the where of people's worshipping "in spirit and in truth"....just as so they just did it! He did forewarn them that those buildings would be thrown down. Also if we want to worry about what the apostles did....some of them went back to be fishermen....the resurrected Christ had to gather them again!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 6:57:16 GMT -5
What is your view of this, Sharon?
Jesus and the Sanctuary
Malachi's prophesied that "... the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple."15 Jesus did in fact enter the Temple (more precisely, the temple court.) He did this to learn;16 preach;17 cleanse 18 and to fulfil prophecy19 (Jesus also entered the synagogues, which were not authorized by scripture.)
But Jesus spoke of the arrival of another temple. He was speaking of a spiritual temple, of which he was the "chief corner stone."20 Jesus told the Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."21 The Jews did not understand this saying, and quoted it at both Jesus' and Stephen's trials.22 Neither did the disciples understand, "... he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; "23 Nor did the disciples understand the fate of the physical temple. "And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.24 A picture of the struggle to understand was Peter: during the transfiguration Peter asked Jesus could he make three tabernacles, the author remarked of him, "Not knowing what he said."25
Jesus held a home service at the end of his ministry. He sent his disciples to a man saying, "The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples."26 This was the Passover which commemorates Israel's deliverance from Egypt, when the death angel safely passed over them. This was held in "a large upper room furnished and prepared."27 and recorded in all four Gospels. This, however, was not the traditional Passover service. Jesus himself condemned the Passover purity rituals now required, such as the washing of hands, sweeping floors and incense. But Jesus washed the disciples feet. This event clearly was not anticipated by the disciples. It was not out of ritual purity but for an example of servitude: "The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many.”28 Jesus did not give the traditional Passover blessing. In partaking of the bread he said, "Take, eat; this is my body." and for the wine he said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."29 This would have been seen as an extraordinary claim, since Jesus is stating that the OT rituals of atonement are fulfilled in himself. That the bread was unleavened would no longer be a requirement as the bread no longer symbolized the departure from Egypt.
It is likely that had Jesus partaken of the rites, such as eating the bitter herbs30 it would only have been in explaining its relationship to himself. The core event of the evening, the eating of the sacrificial lamb, could not have been done as a Passover service when Jesus was himself that lamb. Jesus spoke at length31 and a hymn was sung before they departed.
After the crucifixion the "veil of the temple" was torn.33 The heavy fabric was ripped from the top to the bottom. This key event ended the role of the Temple, "The Holy Ghost thus signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." 34
The Temple was destroyed during the Jewish Roman wars. It's main function was sacrifice, but seeing "there is no more offering for sin" 35 its role had been fulfilled.
After Jesus' crucifixion the disciples and their followers continued gathering in homes, large building or even outdoors.36
Jesus gave his approval by gathering with them. There is no record of Jesus attending either the Temple or the synagogue again. In Acts 1:4, "(Jesus) being assembled together with them," and a congregation "about an hundred and twenty ... they went up into an upper room... these all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication..." And in Acts 2:46, "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," On the day of Pentecost the spirit of God appeared to the congregation as "cloven tongues like as of fire," filling them with the Holy Ghost.37 "... suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting." This is significant: the Pentecost home gathering had the same seal of approval as had the Tabernacle and the Temple when God appeared in the cloud.
Prior to the Jewish Roman wars the Gospel was preached in the Temple. There are occasions when they preached in Diaspora Synagogues.38 Most likely this was in early times, "... for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue."39 Jewish Christians were allowed to hold onto their Jewish heritage.40 In one case Paul entered the Temple to perform a "Nazarene Vow." 41 The symbolism was important because some felt Paul was disrespectful to the Law of Moses. Paul said it was wrong to do "... anything whereby thy brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak" 42 Thus the disciples respected the Temple as a still standing institution to God. They were not worshipping in total accord with the old Law, but preaching the new: "And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." 43
There were home churches throughout the Roman Empire in the first century. Some were mentioned in passing.
Peter held the first Gentile service in Cornelius' house. 44 There is an allusion to a church in Jason's house;45 in Lydia's house 46 and in Mary's house. 47 When Paul taught the newly formed churches, he did so from "house to house" 48 Paul saluted Nymphas and the brethren who met in his house at Laodicea 49 Paul saluted the brethren who met in the house of Philemon, probably at Colossae.50 Paul also referred to Priscilla and Aquilla and twice to "the church that is in their house." 51
These people followed no custom in meeting in this manner: there is no record of Jews or Pagans worshipping in homes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 7:02:57 GMT -5
And the doctrine of why they met as they did...
Stephen, preaching the new covenant to the Jews said, "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?" 52
The author of Hebrews wrote, "However, the Most High doesn't dwell in temples made with hands."53 Such dwellings were symbols of what Jesus made real, "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true"54 Jesus is described as coming to replace both the role of the high priest and the temple. "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building."55 And also, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"55a Jesus is described as "A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." 56 And those who served at the former "tabernacle" had "no right" to come unto the new tabernacle in Christ.57
Paul, observing an Athenian temple to the "Unknown God" remarked to its citizens, "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands;"58 Paul referred to the physical building as a form of idolatry, "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them;"59 Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "You are God's building."60 and growing " ...unto an holy temple in the Lord.61 Paul urged them to respect their moral bodies, "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 62 and "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"63 and also, "... if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands..." 64 "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:" 65 To the Ephesians Paul wrote "...are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God" 66
Peter spoke of his people as being "... lively stones, are built up a spiritual house"67 and of his death in these terms, "Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me." 68
John, in Revelations, saw "a new heaven and a new earth" 69 and a great voice said "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." 70 and the promise, "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." 71
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 17, 2009 7:15:51 GMT -5
I agree with most of what you say, Bert.
It was the "Passover" in which Jesus shared with His apostles in a home! It was in a home in which the first passover was shared, was it not. I do not think that part ever changed.
Now as to sharing in the Passover in homes now.....the F&W's make it a Passover feast nearly every Sun. a.m. Whether that is right according to God's Will I am not sure....this much I know after Jesus returns, it is the "feasts of the tabernacles" which will be celebrated ONCE a year in Jerusalem...to worship Jesus, King of Kings and Lord of Lords!
How much are we supposed to follow in the old feast days....I'm not sure....it was ONLY 4 TIMES a year that all the male Jews were required to appear at the temple....the Passover Feasts were always shared in the home and followed with the feast of the unleavened bread!
The synagogues were not particularly for the "worship" but for the "educational" services teaching the law to the people within the different cities and also those synagogues served as well for other business mtgs. that concerned a large populace! They were not entirely used just for teaching of the law! To make of them to be like churches of the world is not right in any form. They were "educational" advantages. And that is and was understandable for the script of the scriptures was not widely available...only approved scribes had them. I have always despised when anyone refers in a haughting tone "synagogues" as if they were full of sin or something....that is as far wrong as it can be. Jesus had NO problem with them, He taught in them....He took advantage of the "meeting" of the populace to teach about the gospel!
And yes! I'm fast coming to the realization that God's tabernacle is with mankind....esp. those who are willing and ready! And God and His Lamb should be our tabernacle of worship.....they holding all our worshipping in spirit and in truth! There will be NO DENOMINATIONAL CHURCHES when Jesus returns. NONE!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 7:19:22 GMT -5
bert, you make a good case that "Meeting in the Home" is the new "Temple Made with Hands."
A lot of the friends follow your new truth and believe that the only place God dwells is in the home when meeting occurs.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 17, 2009 7:26:07 GMT -5
I had a bit of a cackle at " Jesus held a home service at the end of his ministry."
Isn't it amazing what you can force scripture to say !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 7:26:16 GMT -5
Sharon, Jesus was in the synagogue yes, but this structure was never authorised in scripture. There is no record of Jesus worshiping in a synagogue or the temple. But, what we read of that "last supper" was mentioned because of its significance. It was called the "Passover" but it couldn't BE the old Passover, because Jesus ended the Passover! And this is mentioned...
Jesus held a home service at the end of his ministry...This, however, was not the traditional Passover service. Jesus himself condemned the Passover purity rituals now required, such as the washing of hands, sweeping floors and incense. But Jesus washed the disciples feet. This event clearly was not anticipated by the disciples. It was not out of ritual purity but for an example of servitude... Jesus did not give the traditional Passover blessing. In partaking of the bread he said, "Take, eat; this is my body." and for the wine he said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." This would have been seen as an extraordinary claim, since Jesus is stating that the OT rituals of atonement are fulfilled in himself. ... It is likely that had Jesus partaken of the rites, such as eating the bitter herbs it would only have been in explaining its relationship to himself. The core event of the evening, the eating of the sacrificial lamb, could not have been done as a Passover service when Jesus was himself that lamb. Jesus spoke at length and a hymn was sung before they departed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 7:32:04 GMT -5
I had a bit of a cackle at " Jesus held a home service at the end of his ministry." Isn't it amazing what you can force scripture to say ! Well, let's see..."The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples." House means home, no?And I suppose you think the following verses were forced as well?Peter held the first Gentile service in Cornelius' house. 44 There is an allusion to a church in Jason's house;45 in Lydia's house 46 and in Mary's house. 47 When Paul taught the newly formed churches, he did so from "house to house" 48 Paul saluted Nymphas and the brethren who met in his house at Laodicea 49 Paul saluted the brethren who met in the house of Philemon, probably at Colossae.50 Paul also referred to Priscilla and Aquilla and twice to "the church that is in their house." 51 Perhaps they really meant church, cathedral, temple, synagogue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 7:36:44 GMT -5
No, to be a Temple you would need a dedicated structure. The little house churches that the first Christians worshiped in were buildings dedicated as homes.
And, temples lead to Priests, priesthoods, altars, sacred symbols, taxes and tithing, legal structures and laws. All of which, incidentally, were done away with in the New Covenant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 7:43:24 GMT -5
All of which, incidentally, were done away with in the New Covenant.
Thanks Bert. That explains why Paul and other believers went up to the temple and synagogues to preach and pray and no doubt perform other forms of devotion "AFTER" the New Covenant came into being.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 17, 2009 7:47:43 GMT -5
Pshaw......... supposition and assumption marketed as fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 8:07:55 GMT -5
All of which, incidentally, were done away with in the New Covenant. Thanks Bert. That explains why Paul and other believers went up to the temple and synagogues to preach and pray and no doubt perform other forms of devotion "AFTER" the New Covenant came into being. Yeah, we covered this good point too. Prior to the Jewish Roman wars the Gospel was preached in the Temple. There are occasions when they preached in Diaspora Synagogues. Most likely this was in early times, "... for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue." Jewish Christians were allowed to hold onto their Jewish heritage. In one case Paul entered the Temple to perform a "Nazarene Vow." The symbolism was important because some felt Paul was disrespectful to the Law of Moses. Paul said it was wrong to do "... anything whereby thy brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak" Thus the disciples respected the Temple as a still standing institution to God. They were not worshiping in total accord with the old Law, but preaching the new: " And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 8:25:46 GMT -5
Clay, some questions
what IS this Coleman lantern you often refer to? have you or Rob put anything new into your articles? anything directly specific you feel we need to address in ours?
ps various people on the TMB and outside have suggested changes which we were happy to make if they were valid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 9:23:47 GMT -5
Bert, I appreciate what you say about worshipping in the temple according to the old law. That much I can accept. However, as far as I can see there is nothing wrong with preaching the New Testament in the Temple (while it lasted) or the synagogues. The place was not important as regards worship. Yes these places ceased to have their OT importance but that didn't make it wrong to have normal Christian worship in them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 10:04:18 GMT -5
Nathan, I have no problem with the disciples going into the temple and the synagogues to preach and win converts. However, God is the main focus of our lives and worship and if it was wrong to worship according to the New Testament in the Temple or synagogues then the disciples were wrong to try and attract converts by doing so. Of course that is not what I believe. In my view there is nothing wrong with worshipping in the Temple or synagogues according to the NT, it's just that these places had lost their OT significance.
Paul and others continued to "pray" and no doubt perform other devotions in these places.
As regards the emblems. These were originally part of a meal served up in someone's home and may have taken place several times daily, where believers remembered Christ as they partook of their daily sustenance. The disciples went from house to house breaking bread at the times of their hospitality meals!
At some point the ceremony was separated from communal meals and taken out of the home and placed in public places of worship. The separation from the meal to my mind was a big mistake. Wine and bread were served with most meals in early NT times and it was the most convenient place and time to remember Christ, even several times daily?
Separating the emblems from meals (and from the home) reduced them to a weekly ritual at least (away from "as often as you do this, you do it in rememberance of me). The closest thing that I can think of nowadays to my understanding of the early eucharist practice is a family/friends sitting around a table having a meal preceded by the remembrance of Christ through someone saying grace, etc.
Homes were chosen for the emblems because that is where the "meals" were prepared. If they were not meant to be taken with a meal then there is nothing to stop them being taken anywhere else.
All that said though, it is the spirit in which we worship God, not the place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 10:46:31 GMT -5
Now I see who makes the rules......you.
Most Sunday elders believe that their home is a structure dedicated to the church every Sunday morning. During that time, they believe that the workers have control of it. Even by your own definition, you support the idea that the "Meeting in the Home" is the "Temple made with Hands."
You can play with the definitions all you want bert, but you can't change the truth of it. The Home is the new Temple against the wishes of God, who wants the heart to be the new Temple not made with hands.
Our group worships the home fellowship as much or more than any Jew who worships his Temple or Catholic who worships his grand cathedral. It's all the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 11:03:05 GMT -5
Hi Nathan. Very interesting that Paul says repeatedly "ONE PLACE," not one house or home. However the food and drinks issues he was raising seem to my mind to be relating to gluttony and drunkenness which is the centre of the eating and drinking worthilly issue?
Verse 31 (1 Cor 10). "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God !"
Verse 33 ( 1 Cor 11). "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to EAT, tarry one for another (i.e. don't be gluttenous pigs and leave some for others !)
Have you considered Paul's words that you quote from 1 Cor.14 verse 23 ?
Paul DOES NOT appear to have any problems in creating a hypothetical scenario for church assembly !
" If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will ye not say ye are mad?"
This is very interesting because he is in the main talking about speaking in tongues in the course of worship. Verse 19. "Yet in the CHURCH I had rather speak five words with my understanding, etc..."
The point I'm making here with this is that Paul does not seem to have a problem with the church assembling as a whole for formal worship (which of course could not in most cases take place in a man's home, more like a large public building). Also these services were open to unlearned as well as unbelievers.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 17, 2009 11:07:33 GMT -5
Clearday, Something I feel gives credence to your position is that workers feel a home with a Sunday morning mtg is "sanctified", in a literal sense. I didn't realize this until we were going to be gone on Sunday for the first time, and we had a discussion about where folks would meet while we were gone. It was explained that there was the option of having the meeting in one of the homes of one of the men in the mtg, but the mtg would not be able to have communion because the home wasn't "sanctified". However, if we would get the house/room ready for the mtg to come in, they would be able to take the emblems. So, this was always the way we did it.
Also, our overseer described belief in the mtg in the home as a fruit of the Spirit.
IMO, you are on the right track with your argument.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jun 17, 2009 11:42:55 GMT -5
Now I see who makes the rules......you. Most Sunday elders believe that their home is a structure dedicated to the church every Sunday morning. During that time, they believe that the workers have control of it. Even by your own definition, you support the idea that the "Meeting in the Home" is the "Temple made with Hands." You can play with the definitions all you want bert, but you can't change the truth of it. The Home is the new Temple against the wishes of God, who wants the heart to be the new Temple not made with hands. Our group worships the home fellowship as much or more than any Jew who worships his Temple or Catholic who worships his grand cathedral. It's all the same. Of course Bert makes his rules like most of the professing world. In all my times in meeting this is my argument. We have made the home a church. It is exactly as you say clearday. Especially what you said about how we worship the home church like any Jew worships the Temple. Sigh, we are the church and by stressing a house, once again we miss the boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 14:20:25 GMT -5
What's interesting about the development of our church since its founding is that the early movement was in part a reaction to the institutional churches of the day. ie the elevated place of the clergy, the focus on church buildings, the deadness of canned monologues for church services etc. Our early meetings had some very clear advantages over the institutional churches which people found very meaningful and spiritual.
The meeting in the home was a good part of the program. It kept things simple, unpretentious and a good place for relational Christianity. Over the decades, we started to become what we initially were against. The meeting home has become as much of a church edifice as the local cathedral or Baptist church.
Zorro, your experience is commonplace all over the world. The meeting home does not allow God inside unless duly authorized by the workers.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 17, 2009 15:42:11 GMT -5
What's interesting about the development of our church since its founding is that the early movement was in part a reaction to the institutional churches of the day. ie the elevated place of the clergy, the focus on church buildings, the deadness of canned monologues for church services etc. Our early meetings had some very clear advantages over the institutional churches which people found very meaningful and spiritual. The meeting in the home was a good part of the program. It kept things simple, unpretentious and a good place for relational Christianity. Over the decades, we started to become what we initially were against. The meeting home has become as much of a church edifice as the local cathedral or Baptist church. Zorro, your experience is commonplace all over the world. The meeting home does not allow God inside unless duly authorized by the workers. Sad, but system-minded people dictate to God where he is allowed to go and who he is allowed to work with and when. God must first get permission from the workers. In speaking with the woman at the well Jesus remarked that "place" of worship would not be important, but true worshippers would worship in spirit and in truth. Believers meeting in homes can work well, but worship is 24/7.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 17, 2009 16:00:08 GMT -5
Sharon, Jesus was in the synagogue yes, but this structure was never authorised in scripture. There is no record of Jesus worshiping in a synagogue or the temple. But, what we read of that "last supper" was mentioned because of its significance. It was called the "Passover" but it couldn't BE the old Passover, because Jesus ended the Passover! And this is mentioned...Jesus held a home service at the end of his ministry...This, however, was not the traditional Passover service. Jesus himself condemned the Passover purity rituals now required, such as the washing of hands, sweeping floors and incense. But Jesus washed the disciples feet. This event clearly was not anticipated by the disciples. It was not out of ritual purity but for an example of servitude... Jesus did not give the traditional Passover blessing. In partaking of the bread he said, "Take, eat; this is my body." and for the wine he said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." This would have been seen as an extraordinary claim, since Jesus is stating that the OT rituals of atonement are fulfilled in himself.... It is likely that had Jesus partaken of the rites, such as eating the bitter herbs it would only have been in explaining its relationship to himself.The core event of the evening, the eating of the sacrificial lamb, could not have been done as a Passover service when Jesus was himself that lamb.Jesus spoke at length and a hymn was sung before they departed. Bert! If Jesus didn't "okay" the Temple...why in the world did He get so angry about the moneychanger defiling His Father's house? Jesus had NO qualms about being in the Temple...He was taken there as a babe for His sanctification as the firstborn male wasn't He....we read also of Him being in the Temple at 12 yrs. of age teaching no less! Bert, it's a mighty stretch of the imagination to say that Jesus or scripture didn't back up or cotton to the Temple or the synagogue......think about it! Jesus is the Word made living and when He presented Himself into the Temple for the days that were required of all Jewish males, or teaching or preaching in the Temple, He certainly was NOT "dissing" the Temple, now was He? He was fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law...IMO Also when He went into the synagogues to teach, He wasn't saying they weren't fit to be used either....the synagogues had their uses and they were NOT extravagant buildings, but it is said they were very basic and simple structures....just to provide shelter for a larger crowd then what could fit into a home! The Apostles used the synagogues as well to teach and speak in....Paul even spoke in the coliseum didn't he in Rome? The Passover was to be kept in the homes period and that is because of the blood upon the door posts outside! Not all homes were gathered together with their neighbors to partake of the lamb...only those who were not so large in number and that was so that there would be NO part of the lamb left.....otherwise it was just the regular family within the home......not really a meeting in the home now was it? I have NO problem with mtgs. in the home but I think going around Robinhood's barn to make it absolutely the right thing has no real backing. If you want to get sticky about where Jesus worshipped? He was in the desert sometimes, He was in the mountains sometimes and at the very very last, He was in the garden.......I think if we're to get down to brass tacts, we should be all meeting in the garden.....for there is where death and life meet.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 17, 2009 16:06:51 GMT -5
It's important to understand that the gospels were written after the Temple was destroyed. With the possible exception of Mark, who, even if written beforehand, could see the writing on the wall. One or more Gospels also were written after Christians were driven from the Synagogues.
To put things in perspective, then, it was clear to Gospel writers that there must have been something wrong with the Temple and synagogues, since God led his people away from them. Anti-Judaism tendencies that perhaps did not exist in Jesus himself would still surely become reflected in the later writings about him.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 17, 2009 16:08:02 GMT -5
Sharon, One thing those closest to me know, that perhaps the casual observer doesn't, is that I am a cliche master. So I feel duty bound to point out that it's "jot and tittle" and "brass tacks". I'm also assuming that you'll understand that I'm just kidding Seriously, I think your post is spot on. Well done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 16:10:36 GMT -5
Interesting thought Sharon, that the garden is where death and life meet. Thanks....something to think about.
|
|