In the beginning 2

[snow]

Jul 26, 2014 21:28:58 GMT -5 NathanB said:

Jul 26, 2014 20:45:57 GMT -5 snow said:

Nathan, obviously we are interpreting things differently. My take on it was they did meet in homes at that time, not because it was ordered of them, but because it was what they had so they used it. Also it was likely a safety issue too. We know the Catholics didn't do that and they claim to be the first Christians. I haven't read anywhere that is actually says that they 'must' meet in homes. That is a very important difference. If there are several hundred it makes more sense if they gather together in a larger building, somewhat like you do at conventions.

~~ More people then more homes will be opened to fill the need of MANY.... Small groups of 20 this way all can participate/share their praises to God and celebrate Christ's life. Convention is wonderful where hundreds, thousands can gather together to enjoy the fellowship with other believers.


The Catholic/Universal church met in homes for 3 centuries.... Then they changed and began to build church Cathedrals buildings for a place of worship after the Emperor Constantine became a Christian.

~~ Apostolic fathers writings: Eucharist celebrated on Sunday!

~~ Justin Martyr (160 A.D.) On the day called Sunday! all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one Place. And the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, the leader verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we all rise together and pray when our prayer is ended, Bread and Wine are brought. Then the leader offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability then, the Eucharist is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in that over which thanks have been given. Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. No one is allowed to partake of it but the one who believes that the things which we TEACH are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the Remission of sin, and unto regeneration, and who is living as Christ has commanded.

It is called Eucharist because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek word Eucharistein and Eulogein recalled the Jewish blessings, that proclaim especially during a mea---- God's works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover. It was on "the First day of the Week," Sunday! the day of the Jesus' resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread." From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the Center! of the Church life.

I see the instructions for the Eucharist, but I must be missing where Martyr states it should be done in a home. When I read about the times when the early church was fighting over the Trinity, I am sure I read that they had churches by then. This was before Constantine stepped in to try and get them to reach a consensus. There were many churches by then from what I remember of that book. I guess my feeling is that it was never contingent upon anyone' salvation where or in what a person worshiped. Just to let you know, I don't have a problem with meetings in the home and actually think it's not a bad idea. More intimate in some ways. I just don't think it was ever commanded and that denominations that do use other buildings are not breaking any commandment.

[snow]

Jul 27, 2014 1:12:01 GMT -5 NathanB said:

Christ's Passover/Bread and Wine worship services were kept in the homes of true believers for centuries... Jesus instituted the New Testament Bread and Wine in the home, the early apostles and disciples kept the tradition in the homes, they passed it on, and it was kept that way.... By the end of the 3rd century the Roman Catholic Church bishops changed it.... from having in the homes to having in the church buildings.... They didn't think it was that of IMPORTANT commandment/teaching either. Instead of every believers having parts, sharing testimonies with one another (I Cor. 14:23-26) now ONLY the priests do the preaching and the believers just listen without speaking.

I'm sure it was a large part of what the early church did. I still don't think it should be tied to something you 'have' to do though. I do agree that each person having a say is a good idea, if they want to. However, in a large congregation that isn't viable. That is likely why many churches have small groups outside of the regular church services, bible studies etc. so that people can experience that kind of setting and be able to voice what is in their hearts in a smaller group setting. I truly think religion puts far too much emphasis on legalisms and not enough on just being love and compassion and going with the flow. Anything that's too regulated loses some of it's joy in being a member imo.

[rational]

Jul 25, 2014 12:30:20 GMT -5 @wally said:

Jul 24, 2014 21:56:29 GMT -5 Mary said:

It does not say that we were to substitute the temple for the home. It says the temple is our body it does not say it is a home. All you have done is move the temple from a large building to the temple being the home, rather than the temple being our bodies. It says as often as we meet to break bread, it does not say you have to do it in the home but where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name we can take it. Nothing about it must be in the home. You are continually adding to the Bible by making rules which are not there. The simplicity of Christ is robbed with your rules that we must do this or that.

The marks are a changed life, not man's works such as meeting in a home, believing in and following the workers. The Bible message is to break bread not where we meet, and it is to believe in the message of Christ only not to believe in the workers message only. The workers have taken the message and complicated it to a set of man made rules. Salvation is in Jesus, preaching is the message of the Cross, meeting is where ever believers are gathered. Not find the workers, believe in their message, meet in a home... all man made rules and nothing to do with salvation as laid out in the Bible.

church in a home

Rom_16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1Co_16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Col_4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Phm_1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

These verses tell where these specific churches met but do not demand that all future churches meet in the home. Although I can see the charm of a church in the home.

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2014 8:51:01 GMT -5 rational said:

Jul 25, 2014 12:30:20 GMT -5 @wally said:

church in a home

Rom_16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1Co_16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Col_4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Phm_1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

These verses tell where these specific churches met but do not demand that all future churches meet in the home. Although I can see the charm of a church in the home.

this is a case of leading by example not by commandment although it would have had to been revealed to someone at somepoint...

[Mary]

I thought I had heard them all but your one beats them all wally. It is a sure example of adding to the Gospel which is not the Gospel at all. What it is, is an example that it is not important where we meet. The notion was that were 2 or 3 are gathered in his name He is in the midst.

The disciples continued to meet in the temple for prayer and worship after the resurrection so maybe that needs to be revealed to you. The temple did not become the home. It was the temple is within you.

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2014 17:06:24 GMT -5 Mary said:

I thought I had heard them all but your one beats them all wally. It is a sure example of adding to the Gospel which is not the Gospel at all. What it is, is an example that it is not important where we meet. The notion was that were 2 or 3 are gathered in his name He is in the midst.

The disciples continued to meet in the temple for prayer and worship after the resurrection so maybe that needs to be revealed to you.

Paul spoke without commandment once or twice and we follow his lead all the time...well until the last few decades anyway...i can't find one reference in the bible that they continued to meet in the temple after the resurrection...do you have a verse in mind for that?

[Mary]

Luke 24:50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.


Acts 2:46

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

Acts 3:1
One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.

Acts 3:8

He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God.

At no time do we see that they were not to continue going to the temple.

[dmmichgood]

Aug 3, 2014 8:51:01 GMT -5 rational said:

Jul 25, 2014 12:30:20 GMT -5 @wally said:

church in a home

Rom_16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1Co_16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Col_4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Phm_1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

These verses tell where these specific churches met but do not demand that all future churches meet in the home. Although I can see the charm of a church in the home.

Wouldn't those verses simply indicate that the disciples were still few in number and that  homes was the best place to meet.

Perhaps  they met in homes because the church was still under a lot of persecution and that was the safest.

After all, didn't I read that in Rome that Christians met in the catacombs and that was an attempt at safety from authorities?

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2014 18:14:18 GMT -5 Mary said:

Luke 24:50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.


Acts 2:46

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

Acts 3:1
One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.

Acts 3:8

He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God.

At no time do we see that they were not to continue going to the temple.

good verses except for the 2nd one where it references the home...

there is just one small problem with "not to continue going to the temple" though...the temple was destroyed in 70 AD so worship would have ended had it been based in the temple Jesus even foretold of it destruction...
if there were a temple to worship in it would have had to been the one in jerusalem and since its not we use homes as per the example they left us in the new testament...the clues are all there you just have to put the pieces together...

[Mary]

No puzzle or pieces to put together. Jesus said our bodies are the temple. Worship God any where, any time, any place. Again he did not substitute the temple for the home, nor convention grounds or a rented hall. You are adding to the Gospel. The church is people not a building. We can choose to meet in a home, in a building, in the forest, or any where. The NT Christians as we know continued to go to the temple (or synagogue) to worship. They did not use homes because the temple was destroyed as you claim, they used homes and the temple at the same time and both for different purposes. You can worship a building but as for me I will worship Jesus where ever I am. My faith is not in a building but in Jesus. The workers see such works as a necessity for salvation. The mark of a true church is one who focuses on Jesus alone, not man's works such as where we meet etc. Jesus only is our message, Not Jesus plus our works.

[faune]

Dec 16, 2012 16:28:22 GMT -5 StAnne said:

Dec 16, 2012 16:03:23 GMT -5 NathanB said:

~~ But NOT the Roman Catholic Church truth for sure. If the Popes, Cardinals had exterminated the Vaudois without leaving a trace. Your Roman Catholic Church could have been the ONLY True church on the planet but God did NOT allow that to happen for the True Church to be wiped out!

Anyone who so chooses can go back thru history and research the truth of the early history. But. Coming back to topic ... one certainly cannot say that the 2x2 church is the early church or the true church. It has not existed until Wm Irvine and it has, even according to your own belief, taught heresy concerning the most fundamental of Christian doctrine - the misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity.

StAnne ~ I believe a lot of the fuss over the Trinity is related to a lack of understanding as to what it actually signifies and how it came into existence?  By looking at the history of the concept before it became part of Christian doctrine in the 4th century, I believe people will see that there's a real basis for its concept, especially when you discuss the different heresies that were prevalent during the first three centuries of Christianity, which necessitated the meeting of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.  

www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Many concepts seen as essential elements of the Christian faith, such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are denoted by terms not found in the Bible, although Christians consider the concepts to be contained in the Bible. The term "Bible" itself, which is not found in the Bible, is an example. The term "Trinity" is another such term.[11]

While the Fathers of the Church saw foreshadowing of the Trinity even in the Old Testament, as in the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. The most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Reflection, proclamation and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible. The simplest outline of the doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, largely in terms of rejection of what was considered not to be consonant with general Christian belief. Further elaboration continued in the succeeding centuries.[12]

Scripture does not contain expressly a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to the Christian theology, it "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.[13] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[14] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory were proposed.[15] Trinitarianism contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects).

History

Further information: Trinity of the Church Fathers

 The earliest known depiction of the Trinity, Dogmatic Sarcophagus, 350 AD[24] Vatican Museums
The Ante-Nicene Fathers affirmed Christ's deity and spoke of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", even though their language is not that of the traditional doctrine as formalised in the fourth century. Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.[25] Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110,[26] exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit".[27] Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".[28] The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[29] in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy.[30]

Another early, and already more philosophic, formulation of the Trinity (again without usage of that term) is attributed to the Gnostic teacher Valentinus (lived c.100 – c.160), who according to the fourth century theologian Marcellus of Ancyra, was “the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures”. The highly allegorical exegesis of the Valentinian school inclined it to interpret the relevant scriptural passages as affirming a Divinity that, in some manner, is threefold. The Valentinian Gospel of Phillip, which dates to approximately the time of Tertullian, upholds the Trinitarian formula. Whatever his influence on the later fully formed doctrine may have been, however, Valentinus' school is rejected as heretical by orthodox Christians.

Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds,[31] or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[32][33] all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.

[Greg]

Jul 25, 2014 12:30:20 GMT -5 @wally said:

church in a home

Rom_16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1Co_16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Col_4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Phm_1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

Does this specifically mean the church met in these homes? Could the church be living in these houses?

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2014 0:25:11 GMT -5 Greg said:

Jul 25, 2014 12:30:20 GMT -5 @wally said:

church in a home

Rom_16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1Co_16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Col_4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Phm_1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

Does this specifically mean the church met in these homes? Could the church be living in these houses?

in one of those chapters it lists those that attended so yes they met in the home.

[CherieKropp]

FYI: King James instructed the word "church" be substituted for "assemblies" and "assembly" in the KJV translation bearing his name.

[Greg]

Aug 6, 2014 13:15:10 GMT -5 @wally said:

Aug 6, 2014 0:25:11 GMT -5 Greg said:

Does this specifically mean the church met in these homes? Could the church be living in these houses?

in one of those chapters it lists those that attended so yes they met in the home.

I know there were gatherings in homes. That was not my question.

[Greg]

Aug 6, 2014 17:21:40 GMT -5 CherieKropp said:

FYI: King James instructed the word "church" be substituted for "assemblies" and "assembly" in the KJV translation bearing his name.

To me, using assembly instead of church makes the sentences clearer and makes more sense.

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2014 18:12:01 GMT -5 Greg said:

Aug 6, 2014 13:15:10 GMT -5 @wally said:

in one of those chapters it lists those that attended so yes they met in the home.

I know there were gatherings in homes. That was not my question.

okay i'll try it again...

yes they specifically met in the homes...

your second question doesn't make sense to me perhaps you could rephrase it?

[Greg]

Aug 6, 2014 18:27:06 GMT -5 @wally said:

Aug 6, 2014 18:12:01 GMT -5 Greg said:

I know there were gatherings in homes. That was not my question.

okay i'll try it again...

yes they specifically met in the homes...

your second question doesn't make sense to me perhaps you could rephrase it?

Cherie's post cleared any concern I had about the sentences quoted about church in the home.