Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2006 18:39:13 GMT -5
Many professing folks see a church building as a creation of the devil. Yet they build convention sheds and make them into church buildings for 4 days a year. Think of the money and time spent on those projects. I think a building is better than a home when possible. Persecution keep the early Christians in homes. Let an old elder die and see 2 families race to see who can be in good standing in order to get a meeting in their homes. There is nothing satanic about a church in a public building. My great uncle's funeral was in a church building when I was a teenager and I found fault with everything in the building...plus the preacher's sermon. We were taught growing up to hate these buildings. One old sister worker gave orders that she wouldn't be buried in her family's church if she died on visiting rounds. Jack Carroll and other early workers gave harsh sermons condemning church buildings.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 9, 2006 20:50:56 GMT -5
Because they are brainwashed into foolish,superstitious beliefs.
|
|
IQ
Senior Member
Posts: 942
|
Post by IQ on Jul 9, 2006 20:51:05 GMT -5
HATE is a very strong word, I don't think they hate them , just don't have a uses for them.
What's better then worshipping in the home, the very place we live, and be reminded of the need to worship God by living the moral and clean live behind closed doors of our home!
|
|
IQ
Senior Member
Posts: 942
|
Post by IQ on Jul 9, 2006 20:51:47 GMT -5
Because they are brainwashed into foolish,superstitious beliefs. You believe that?
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 9, 2006 21:18:05 GMT -5
Because they are brainwashed into foolish,superstitious beliefs. You believe that? Yes - if they aren't thinking for themselves. The ones who hold to exclusive, foolish standards are not thinking with their own brain!!You grew up listening to the same old depressing workers I did so you know what I mean:) These poor folks think that they can lose their salvation by attending a church service not held by workers. A classic example happened yesterday when my 2x2 mother in law was invited to my daughters' baptism-she wouldn't attend because it was being performed by a 'false' preacher.When challenged that her workers were false she warned that we could lose our salvation by saying that about workers-it was blasphemy!!! What a bunch of superstitious brainwashed B.S.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 9, 2006 21:29:18 GMT -5
HATE is a very strong word, I don't think they hate them , just don't have a uses for them. What's better then worshipping in the home, the very place we live, and be reminded of the need to worship God by living the moral and clean live behind closed doors of our home! 1. The singing is much better! 2. The seating is comfortable. 3. There are 'classes' so that even the littlest child can get a lesson about God-not a bunch of monolouge that usually doesn't have a theme. 4. There aren't a room full of people who are unsure of their standing with God and "just want to be one who would be more acceptable to God in the days ahead." 5. Encouragement before and after the service as people actually talk about what was said and look forward to the next study chapter or sermon because they are actually feeding and learning in a healthy group environment.
|
|
IQ
Senior Member
Posts: 942
|
Post by IQ on Jul 9, 2006 21:33:15 GMT -5
You believe that? Yes - if they aren't thinking for themselves. The ones who hold to exclusive, foolish standards are not thinking with their own brain!!You grew up listening to the same old depressing workers I did so you know what I mean:) These poor folks think that they can lose their salvation by attending a church service not held by workers. A classic example happened yesterday when my 2x2 mother in law was invited to my daughters' baptism-she wouldn't attend because it was being performed by a 'false' preacher.When challenged that her workers were false she warned that we could lose our salvation by saying that about workers-it was blasphemy!!! What a bunch of superstitious brainwashed B.S. I think that is rather sad. I can understand your disappoint. Can I suggest using softer and kinder words to, not as threating and shows sincere love and care.
|
|
IQ
Senior Member
Posts: 942
|
Post by IQ on Jul 9, 2006 21:34:13 GMT -5
HATE is a very strong word, I don't think they hate them , just don't have a uses for them. What's better then worshipping in the home, the very place we live, and be reminded of the need to worship God by living the moral and clean live behind closed doors of our home! 1. The singing is much better! 2. The seating is comfortable. 3. There are 'classes' so that even the littlest child can get a lesson about God-not a bunch of monolouge that usually doesn't have a theme. 4. There aren't a room full of people who are unsure of their standing with God and "just want to be one who would be more acceptable to God in the days ahead." 5. Encouragement before and after the service as people actually talk about what was said and look forward to the next study chapter or sermon because they are actually feeding and learning in a healthy group environment. That is right, everything has it pros and cons... God Bless!
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jul 9, 2006 22:11:30 GMT -5
2 Corinthians 5:1-3 1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.
I found it interesting today to note that this house "not built by human hands" is not talking about where we meet for fellowship or worship. It seems to be referring to our eternal bodies.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jul 9, 2006 22:49:18 GMT -5
The rejection of a church building was stipulated in various places by Paul in Romans and Apollos (?) in Hebrews. The spirit which entered the tabernacle and then the temple, now entered into a home service. The home service example was given in the Gospels, the Acts, the letters and Revelation.
This thread is the wrong argument - a better one would be where does it specifically command we build a church building? And better still, why do people refuse to have a service in their homes? Is it too personal, too humble? too close to their private lives? It works well, doesn't it?
I recall the Jehova Witnesses in our country town having a tiny, humble "Kingdom Hall." Over the years that hall became more ornate, growing into a reasonable approximation of the local churches which it claimed to reject.
A building changes the nature of the service. It brings symbolic liturgy, officiating personnel, taxes, social recognition etc. These things are out of character to the entire spread of church practices and thought shown to us in the New Testament.
Bert and Prue
|
|
dea
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by dea on Jul 9, 2006 23:00:29 GMT -5
I think that for me- I don't like the ornateness, and goddiness. Sometime it just seems that the claim "we don't have church buildings", is a way to identify ourselves as something different from everyone else.
I think that it's interesting that when identifing as one of the friends, we often say that we meet in the home, wear skirts and buns, no makeup, jewelry,etc. Why don't we first say what we believe spiritually (not physically look like)?
For me, I'm realizing that I really don't know the exact beliefs of the 'Truth'. I thought I used to 'know' so much, but I've realized I don't know as much as I thought I did.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 9, 2006 23:01:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 9, 2006 23:04:18 GMT -5
Pruebert wrote:
It doesn't. But arguments from silence cut both ways. Where does it specifically command the church meet for fellowship only in homes?
Beats me. But I doubt you'll find too many "apostates" here who reject the validity of a church meeting in a home. What you will find is a rejection of the false assertion that the home is the only appropriate place for church meetings and the second false assertion that church buildings are intrinsically wrong.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jul 9, 2006 23:11:05 GMT -5
To dea. When you go to a conventional church such as Anglican, Methodist or Catholic, you enter a building design to give the impression of God's presence. The church spires thrust upward to heaven; its stained glass windows invoke images of heavenly things; it choirs and organs reverberate with the sound of heaven and the gold and white garbs of its ministers or priests speak of holiness. It is imitation, mere symbols of the divine. Those people who met in humble homes in the New Testament had all the above things in their spirit. This is why the authors of those books rejected "carnal" and "worldly service(s)."
Bert
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jul 9, 2006 23:18:29 GMT -5
Hi Pruebert,
I know of very few churches that refuse to fellowship/pray/worship in their homes. They also use their church buildings. Most churches have bible studies, care groups, cell groups etc. in their homes. And yes, it works very well.
I've been outside the f&w group for 26 years, and have always met with other believers for worship/prayer/fellowship etc. in homes ever since. I've also met in church buildings.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jul 9, 2006 23:24:31 GMT -5
Symbols and traditions are only wrong when they become the focus, void of the Spirit. When they are used as reminders, as a framework in which to express our faith, as long as the Spirit of God is first and foremost, they are not wrong. When the framework (symbols and traditions) becomes the focus of our attention, the object of our worship, it becomes an idol.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by church on Jul 9, 2006 23:44:28 GMT -5
church building are for a static ministry what we have allows for a ministry that goes to the people like Jesus did, not for the people to go to the ministry
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jul 9, 2006 23:50:20 GMT -5
to r.oxenbridge. hi i clicked on the link and saved it. as i see it we meet in the home because the first church met in the home. we want to be like that church. i will read your web site later. bert said he will read this material when it is finished. thanks from prue
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 10, 2006 0:52:21 GMT -5
to r.oxenbridge. hi i clicked on the link and saved it. as i see it we meet in the home because the first church met in the home. we want to be like that church. i will read your web site later. bert said he will read this material when it is finished. thanks from prue Yes, I agree! The FIRST church met in the homes of Jesus' disciples for the breaking of bread, to Worship God (Eucharist), Bread and Wine, sharing testimonies, singing hyms, praying together, reading the word of God.... All believers (men/women) to participate in the service. The Vaudois apostles/disciples (A.D. 70-1800) and many similiar apostolic Itinerant ministry groups have continued celebrating the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) of Jesus' life, death and resurrection in the homes of believers for thousands of years. We are approaching the completion of 2000 years since the death of Jesus. Thus, any "celebrating" has been going on for just short of two thousand years. Nathan, why do you use the term "Eucharist" and the workers and their friends use the term "emblems"? Have they yet come to your understanding/revelation of such things?
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 10, 2006 1:16:12 GMT -5
Eucharist=Thanksgivings=emblems=Bread&Wine....... have the same meaning. I can use any of these terms as I wish. Do you know a worker by name who say I can't use the word "Eucharist," Greg? Well, since you can use any term you wish, likely you give the same license to the workers. Maybe that is what you mean. That is fine by me. Just seems odd that I have never heard anyone of the workers or any others of their friends use the term Eucharist in regard to the "bread & wine". Your question of me seems odd. I never indicated that any worker ever said to me specifically or by virtue of being in a gathering "do not use the term Eucharist" or more specifically that "Nathan Barker should not use the term Eucharist".
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 10, 2006 1:45:29 GMT -5
That's good to know that no worker that you know of say I MUST use the term "Emblems" only instead of Eucharist. Now see, I never said that. I never said I know of no worker that has indicated one must use the term Emblems only instead of Eucharist. I said I know of no worker that has said do not use the term Eucharist.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 10, 2006 1:51:26 GMT -5
That is good to know that the workers are not forbidden anyone to use the term Eucharist..... the early apostolic fathers use the term Eucharist.... I will use the the term Eucharist or emblems whenever I feel appropriate to do so. « Last Edit: Today at 2:46am by Nathan9 » Now, you have just written something that gets back to my original question. You now indicate there are appropriate situations (times or listeners or what have you) when the usage of Eucharist instead of Emblems or Emblems instead of Eucharist is more approrpiate. Just interesting to me, Nathan.
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Jul 10, 2006 2:01:07 GMT -5
if the home is the only place to worship God then why do you have conventions or special meetings? Where are all these places where they worshiped in homes that you talk about Prue. IN Revelations?
They met together and had church in the home but where does it say they worshiped God in the home? They still went to the synagogues. The same as people go to a church building they also go to homes and have sharing and Bible studies there. The 2 both have their place. So where in the New testament do you read about a special meeting in a hall and a convention? One must only worship in home?
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 10, 2006 2:44:45 GMT -5
To "a believer" Off the top of my head (I get annoyed at all the cut and pasting that goes on here!) it mentions home service in the Acts and in the letters. Was it Pricila and Aquila who had the church in their home, for example? Yes, some did meet in the synagogue. These were the so-called Jewish Christians. After the destruction of Israel and the Jewish persecution of Christians, these people no longer met in synagogues. Conventions were common not only in the Old Testament, but apparently in the New as well. I suppose Special Meetings are a form of convention, ie a one day convention. Bert
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 10, 2006 2:53:25 GMT -5
Conventions were common not only in the Old Testament, but apparently in the New as well. I suppose Special Meetings are a form of convention, ie a one day convention. Bert Do you mean "convenings or gatherings of the people (believers) were common not only in the Old Testament, but apparently in the new as well"? Or do you mean "the same conventions the workers and their friends have were had not only in the Old Testament, but apparently in the New as well"?
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 10, 2006 2:59:45 GMT -5
To Greg, hi - guess its the former here. And I suppose some of those gathering weren't believers, either. p.s. what does "unplugged" mean? Bert
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 10, 2006 3:11:00 GMT -5
To Greg, hi - guess its the former here. And I suppose some of those gathering weren't believers, either. p.s. what does "unplugged" mean? Bert Thanks for the reply. I wonder at your term "guess". Almost seems to be a little dismissive of my question. Maybe not. Still, you should know which you mean. My point in being picky/specific (and you have indicated you like specifics - either by Prue or bert or both) is when one uses words or terms that the workers and their friends use, then another is likely to take them at that meaning. Yes, some of the festivals, sabbaths, and other gatherings likely had more attendees than just the believers. Unplugged means not registered or not logged in. Has the term "annual meeting" in place of "convention" gained usage in Australia?
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 10, 2006 3:17:40 GMT -5
Greg, thanks, I used the word "guess" because I wasn't sure about the question. I try to be careful about chosing words like "from the beginning" to ensure they mean exactly what they should mean.
Here we use the word "convention."
|
|