Synagogues and Christian Churches

Marksman, my whole point was that none of those verses describe anything any of us would consider a worship service. A prayer meeting, fellowship - yes, worship service- no. Nor did I ever deny there were Churches in NT homes. In fact I rather specifically mentioned a couple and gave examples of a few sites believed to be just that originally (they later built regular Church building on top of it). Furhter, not every verse you mention with "home" in it has anything to do with Church, worship or a function of a Church (they stayed in the home of a friend). What is illogical is not asking why several Churches would be mentioned in the same verse with ONE that is said to be in a home. If home Church is the norm and not an exception in that case, why mention specifically the one as being in a home?Also illogical is to blame structure and buildings on a person or Church that came about hundreds years AFTER there were already grand Churches and very large organizations.

my whole point was that none of those verses describe anything any of us would consider a worship service.
I am not sure what you are talking about

In case you are not sure what I was asking, what is a "worship' service?

my post said "none of those verses describe anything any of us would consider a worship service", perhaps I should have most of us today, as some here apparently have a much broader definition. I guess if we took it to that extreme, then any meal I share in my home or party I throw, a poker party, cigar party, whatever or whenever I allow guest to stay at my home, if we are to include these as "worship" then disregard my comments about those verses. In that case any mention of a home in the same sentence with reference to Christians would be a worship service. Sorry if I was confusing anyone.

I would still like to know what you consider a "worship" service.

My view of what constitutes a worship service today is irrelevant, that would not be the point of this thread. The point of the thread would be more directly answered if someone holding that there were no "Church" in the 1st century only people coming together and that all those verses describe "worship" would explain why a Church is refered to in the same verse with another Church said to be in a home if that was a redundant point. If all Churches everywhere at that time met in homes, then making that statement about one particular Church must at least seem odd to someone believing this to be true.The assumption of the OP was that such buildings as we meet in today did not exist in the early NT Church, and further that they did not exist until "Rome" became a Church. We know the second part of that statement is not true because they were building magnificent Churches in the 2nd century, which would have been planned at least by some of the second and third generation of Christians after the last Apostle died. So as for a cause of why we have Church buildings today, we cannot look to Rome. The question remains what evidence do we have that they built no Churches. The only "proof" are references to people's homes, a reference to one Church meeting in a home and the suggestion that because they did not mention building projects it must not have happened. No explanation of why not every Churches mentioned is given the added detail that they met in a home, or why if that is all they did was there a need to mention it in this case. Also not one verse forbiding the building of a Church is given and no explanation of why within 2 generations of Apostolic teaching would they be building Churches if it was forbidden or not necessary or something wrong with it from the Apostles view. And that with absolutely no objection from anybody. It is not like they had no fights. Surely if building a Church is so wrong, someone would have objected when they did it.

My view of what constitutes a worship service today is irrelevant, that would not be the point of this thread.
As part of your argument is based on this proposition, it is very relevant, so pray tell me what constitutes a worship service. If you won't answer, I have to assume that you are backing down on your argument because you can't answer.
The point of the thread would be more directly answered if someone holding that there were no "Church" in the 1st century only people coming together
I don't think that anyone is holding that there were no "Church" in the NT (whatever than means).
all those verses describe "worship" would explain why a Church is refered to in the same verse with another Church said to be in a home if that was a redundant point.
I am afraid this doesn't make sense.
The assumption of the OP was that such buildings as we meet in today did not exist in the early NT Church,
What is an 'OP'.
We know the second part of that statement is not true
We know that the first is so why is that insufficient to build a truth on. Sounds a bit like we believe what the bible says, but if we find something later than contradicts it, we will forget the bible and go with man's contrary view.
The question remains what evidence do we have that they built no Churches.
You can't build 'no churches'.
The only "proof" are references to people's homes, a reference to one Church meeting in a home and the suggestion that because they did not mention building projects it must not have happened.
You say this because you obviously don't understand how to exegete scripture. As I said previously, the best commentary on the bible is the bible and truth is always based on the general revelation of scripture. i.e. 17 verses that talk about leadership of the NT church all saying the same thing as in Elders who are the older, senior men of the church chronologically and not one verse talking about a 'pastor' leading the church. Therefore, you can argue all you like about pastors leading the church, but scripture does not support it.The same with where the church met. I have listed the verses that stated where the church met, but you won't find one about meeting in a public building. Therefore the general revelation of scripture is that they met in homes. Having read about 40 other authors who wrote about NT church life as well as the scriptures I am amazed that they ALL said the same thing. When you have that body of evidence you have virtually got a "thus saith the Lord".
Also not one verse forbiding the building of a Church is given
On the basis of this contention I have to assume that as the following is not forbidden in scripture, they must be OK. Smoking, clergy, men in dresses conducting meetings, the pope, hymn books, pulpits, denominations, marriage of same sex men, prostitution, altars, incense, canibalism to name a few.
Surely if building a Church is so wrong, someone would have objected when they did it.
How do you know they didn't?

(marksman;56968)
As part of your argument is based on this proposition, it is very relevant, so pray tell me what constitutes a worship service. If you won't answer, I have to assume that you are backing down on your argument because you can't answer.
If you would like to start another thread to discuss what is worship, that would be fine. And I did answer that if we are to say any meeting (a party, dinner, going to the movies, having a drink at a bar together...etc) involving Christians constitutes worship as maybe therefore a part of an "invisible" Church then I conceded that all such meetings could be labeled "worship" and therefore all these verses could be said to be worship. And maybe not stated but obviously I do not agree with that definition of worship.I will say that I do not think verses indicating where Apostles, disciples intended or did stay or where they ate meals necessarily indicates a Church having a worship service. As a matter of practicality these men had no where to stay, so it makes sense they would be welcomed somewhere and that would be a "home". They could hold prayer services there, or big meals and I am sure have discussions, but again there is nothing explicit in those verses saying that is what (and ONLY what) a Church is.
I don't think that anyone is holding that there were no "Church" in the NT (whatever than means).
The original poster (OP) of this thread made it pretty clear what is meant by "no Church" and so have you for that matter. See no reason to clarify for you what "no Church" means since that is your position being argued against.
I am afraid this doesn't make sense.
admit it is a run on sentence, but basically why (if you are saying it is the norm) would the emphasis that this particular Church met in so and so's home that detail is left out in the same verse for other Churhes. If it is the norm what is the significance and if Churches buildings are such great evils why no verses against it? Why go to synagogues at all if the building itself is wrong.
What is an 'OP'.
Original post or poster. The topic of the thread, which is not "what is worship" or what constitutes a Church. Changing the topic is called hijacking the OP's thread.
We know that the first is so why is that insufficient to build a truth on. Sounds a bit like we believe what the bible says, but if we find something later than contradicts it, we will forget the bible and go with man's contrary view.
But the point is we know no such thing. You are basing the belief they built no structures or special rooms on the supposition that it is not mentioned and the opinion of 40 authors. How that becomes assumed as true and a not a view of men am not sure.
You can't build 'no churches'.
Precisely my point! Or are you making this a personal attack on grammer and syntax? The mission of the Church is more than just spreading the Word, it also includes teaching and care for the needy of the community. The claim was made that those needs are better met by "home" Churches. My experience with "home" Churches does not support that claim. Can only speak from that experience but it makes sense to me also. People naturally form organizations with structure (the family being one the smaller examples) and as that structure grows the need for building rises.When people come together for any common cause, they need organization and structure. If a community of people is assumed to be permanent and growing then that organization will always be more stable and efficient with a centralized location. While it could start in a home and assuming that is the first Church (thinking 1st century) it will quickly outgrow that home. So it only makes sense that at some point some where, people will create structures to carry out the mission of the Church from.The other point to remember (and mentioned already) is that any "family" or "home" of the 1st century consisted of a much larger unit, structure and in most cases adjacent buildings or dwellings (tents) than we have today. The numbers of children were greater and several generations would be considered all part of the same "home". So to say 30-40 people make an ideal Church (as was stated by someone on this thread) is to pretty much say a single family of the 1st century was a Church. There is no scriptural support for that. In fact when they spoke of administering for the care of sick, elderly, orphaned or widows...etc.. there is nothing in that direction to suggest it only meant immediate family. So with any Church growth at all and because entire families were often converted together at the same time, because of the family size there is no way we could be talking about a home Church supporting more than a single family of that day.
You say this because you obviously don't understand how to exegete scripture. As I said previously, the best commentary on the bible is the bible and truth is always based on the general revelation of scripture. i.e. 17 verses that talk about leadership of the NT church all saying the same thing as in Elders who are the older, senior men of the church chronologically and not one verse talking about a 'pastor' leading the church. Therefore, you can argue all you like about pastors leading the church, but scripture does not support it.
In any organization worth having, someone has to lead. Jesus did not give everyone leadership positions and clearly the NT speaks of each member having a role. We do not need Bible commentary to know that single leader functions better than a committee. Life experience alone tells us that much.
The same with where the church met. I have listed the verses that stated where the church met, but you won't find one about meeting in a public building. Therefore the general revelation of scripture is that they met in homes. Having read about 40 other authors who wrote about NT church life as well as the scriptures I am amazed that they ALL said the same thing. When you have that body of evidence you have virtually got a "thus saith the Lord".
Actually I thought I was arguing the Lord has not said that. It is the opposing view that claims this is what is said by supposition and the opinion/support of 40 like minded men.Paul had no problem going to public places to teach, why should we think there anything wrong with doing that?
On the basis of this contention I have to assume that as the following is not forbidden in scripture, they must be OK. Smoking, clergy, men in dresses conducting meetings, the pope, hymn books, pulpits, denominations, marriage of same sex men, prostitution, altars, incense, canibalism to name a few.
Well at least now you see the problem of basing a view on something that is not explicit, requiring commentators or the opinion of 40 like minded men to support it. And believe it or not all of those positions including prostitution and cannibalisms have been practiced by people claiming to be following scripture. Perhaps they too based it on commentators or the opinions of 40 authors.
How do you know they didn't?
We have records of much more trivial matters being debated. No records at all of any such debate, not even any legends or the opinions of 40 authors that they had such a debate. However, we do have the ruins and reams of documentary evidence that they built Churches long before there was a Rome, and some legends/traditions of some of those being the site of first century Church structures. We could ask which is more likely, that building these Churches was/would be considered wrong by the Apostles and they did it with no one objecting that the Apostles would consider it wrong or it was considered wrong and no one objected.

And maybe not stated but obviously I do not agree with that definition of worship.
Until you state what is worship to you, there is no discussion as discussion starts with a proposition. So I ask you once again, what do you mean by worship?
But the point is we know no such thing. You are basing the belief they built no structures or special rooms on the supposition that it is not mentioned and the opinion of 40 authors. How that becomes assumed as true and a not a view of men am not sure.
I can't tell you how many times people have dismissed the views of 40 authors, who have mostly given a lifetime of dedication to studying the word of God, many of whom are professors of theology and lecture in theological colleges, when these 40 authors do not share their view of things. A bit like saying if every writer in the NT says the same thing about a certain topic, I am not going to accept it because it doesn't agree with my view of things.We have a classic example of this in the RC church. Although the scriptures speaks of the way of salvation throughout the whole of the New Testament, they still insist that you can only obtain salvation through christ and the sacraments and obeying church doctrine.If I follow through on your theory that no author is right, I might as well throw out my library of a 1,000 books because they must all be wrong if you have a different view to them. The worst form of exegesis is when you only accept the views of those who agree with you. I dug out of my library and purchased books about NT church life regardless of their content so that I could learn as opposed to try and find evidence to support my views. The end result was about 40 that came to the same conclusion as I did and a couple who didn't. Are you telling me I am an idiot for accepting what the 40 said, as it sounds much like that and that I should have jettisoned the views of 40 authors in favour of two, especially as they were quoting tradition, not scripture? When I was at university, one of my lecturers said you can put any view you want as long as you can back it up with evidence. The next essay, I put the the christian viewpoint, not the secular humanist one that he was teaching. He didn't like it but he could not criticise my views because they were backed up by scripture. If I had said "the bible doesn't say this but I assume this is what happens" my mark would have been zero.Theology is more conclusive when you stick with what the bible says, not what the bible doesn't say which is what you are doing.
Or are you making this a personal attack on grammer and syntax?
No, I am not. I am pointing out that it needs improving, which is not surprising seeing as I teach English as a subject. Just because we are Christians doesn't give us the right to ignore excellence, especially as all computers have spell and grammar checkers, so it is not so difficult to make sure we express ourselves well. If it is a weak point for you, compose your posts off line and run the spell and grammar checker through it first, then copy and paste. I recently sent out an email to all my contacts to inform them of something and one brother replied and said he thought I had done something that was unwise in terms of internet communication. I didn't respond by saying who do you thing you are telling me what to do. I said thankyou and I really appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
When people come together for any common cause, they need organization and structure. If a community of people is assumed to be permanent and growing then that organization will always be more stable and efficient with a centralized location.
Chapter and verse please?
So with any Church growth at all and because entire families were often converted together at the same time, because of the family size there is no way we could be talking about a home Church supporting more than a single family of that day.
Pure supposition.
We do not need Bible commentary to know that single leader functions better than a committee.
We do not need a bible commentary to ignore the scriptures when it talks about elders (plural) having oversight of the local fellowhip. Can you show me one verse where it says that the church in the NT was led by one paid pastor?
Paul had no problem going to public places to teach, why should we think there anything wrong with doing that?
I have made no comment as to how the church evangelised the unbeliever.
Well at least now you see the problem of basing a view on something that is not explicit, requiring commentators or the opinion of 40 like minded men to support it. And believe it or not all of those positions including prostitution and cannibalisms have been practiced by people claiming to be following scripture. Perhaps they too based it on commentators or the opinions of 40 authors.
This response is so childish and immature it is unbelievable.
We could ask which is more likely, that building these Churches was/would be considered wrong by the Apostles and they did it with no one objecting that the Apostles would consider it wrong or it was considered wrong and no one objected.
Just answer the question "how do you know they didn't?"

Am not the one claiming sound exegesis that requires the support of commentators and a particular group of 40 men (which now it is admitted that even they do not all agree) in order to make a point. Supposition requires the assumption of a fact that is not there. Am not sure how either of us could use exegesis to prove or disprove that they only met in homes. If we relied only on scripture, both are suppositions.In one sentence we have a claim this view is God's Word, the next says it is that of commentators and/or 40 learned men and then we shame others for other following men that disagree. Then an attack on a denomination, though am not sure what RC belief is being referred to here - perhaps this is the view of one of those 40 learned men - if that is the case they obviously are not Catholic. The point is not can I find people, very smart people who have studied a long time to support a view. If I thought it mattered in this thread and on this site, am sure I could find 40 authors that disagree with those who say the early Church ONLY met in homes. That line of reasoning only comes down to which set of learned men do we follow.How do we know no one objected to the building of Churches? It is not written in the NT that they did. It is not recorded ANYWHERE in the first 3 centuries that they did. The fact people making the claim of this thread (and perhaps some of the 40 authors) try to hard to blame the RC (4th century)for this "monstrosity" tells me that they could find nothing in recorded history to the RC of ANY debate on this issue. If they did they would have raised it.

a particular group of 40 men (which now it is admitted that even they do not all agree)
Not by me.
Then an attack on a denomination, though am not sure what RC belief is being referred to here
This statement definitely shows you have got a blockage somewhere. It seems to you that everything is an attack, which it isn't. Secondly it indicates that you do not read what is said or you fail to understand what is said as I set out what belief I was talking about. Go read it again as it is there in black and white. I can see that you have a contentious spirit so all we are going to do is go round in circles arguing meaningless trivia, so once again all I want to know is what you consider to be a 'worship' service?If you can't or won't answer that question, then there is nothing to answer to and would indicate that your contention has no basis in fact but you won't admit it.

(marksman;57077)
Not by me.

about 40 that came to the same conclusion as I did and a couple who didn't.
Sorry you were misunderstood my English training never extended far beyond the sixth grade.
This statement definitely shows you have got a blockage somewhere. It seems to you that everything is an attack, which it isn't. Secondly it indicates that you do not read what is said or you fail to understand what is said as I set out what belief I was talking about. Go read it again as it is there in black and white.
ok
We have a classic example of this in the RC church. Although the scriptures speaks of the way of salvation throughout the whole of the New Testament, they still insist that you can only obtain salvation through christ and the sacraments and obeying church doctrine.
As this is the statement shows a clear distortion of RC teaching on both salvation and teaching in general, am not sure why it should be seen as a problem with my colon and not an attack on a denomination. Again if this thinking is reflected in the 40 authors you quote, it would appear this view of history might be a bit distorted as well rather than a colon "blochage" problem on my part.
I can see that you have a contentious spirit so all we are going to do is go round in circles arguing meaningless trivia, so once again all I want to know is what you consider to be a 'worship' service?If you can't or won't answer that question, then there is nothing to answer to and would indicate that your contention has no basis in fact but you won't admit it.
Ok. A worship service was no doubt held at the burials of both John and Mary at the Church in Ephesus. Without consulting 40 authors or Biblical commentary I would say that at least part of that process constituted a 1st century worship service and I doubt those people buried them in someone's living room. That would be the same place claimed to be beneath a Church today. Did that Church initially meet in someone's home, probably as many began that way. Did it grow and they need more room? I would expect so. Do people wishing to meet in large enough numbers (for any reason) eventually get around to finding and building such a place if they are able? Yes they do. Would it make sense that a Church would do that? Yes it does.If there was an Apostolic edict against building Churches would we expect them to mention it given peoples natural tendency to build things when they have need? Yes, it does.Do we have any such prohibition in the NT? No we do not.Do we have any record of all of any one in the 2nd century, only one or two generations removed from the Apostles teachings, objecting to the Church buildings being constructed?No, none at all and no passing mention of it at all.Is it reasonable to assume that if there was an Apostolic teaching or one of Jesus against this natural human trait that we would have a record of someone objecting or a passing mention of the debate? Yes, it is. We have many such debates and docs from that century recording them or making mention of it?Is this proof?No, but it is sound.

But we could say and I think I have seen that same problem in "home" Churches today. In fact that would be a risk among any group of humans. We are all sinners and likely to make poor choices. That would be no more or less true whether we artificially limited our numbers or not. The reaction to bad behavior should be to correct it, not attempt to avoid large numbers of people because some percentage of them will always behave badly. Is it less likely to happen in a "home" Church? I dunno but I do not think that has been proven or presented here. Would be willing to bet that with no oversight or external administration that any deviance (whether sin or just going off in an odd direction compared to other groups) could happen for a longer time and to a much worse degree in "home" Churches.You know when it is all said and done am reminded of what someone once said about the question "which is the best Bible for me?"? "The one you will read" was the simple reply. If the home Church you are in loves the Lord and teaches the Word, if it keeps you going and your relationship with the Lord is growing then it would be hard for anyone to say that this is a bad thing. It does not however follow that these home Churches are superior to what others are doing. The same thing could be said about any individual actively going to those Churches - for them it is the Church they will go to.

Ok. A worship service was no doubt held at the burials of both John and Mary at the Church in Ephesus. Without consulting 40 authors or Biblical commentary I would say that at least part of that process constituted a 1st century worship service and I doubt those people buried them in someone's living room. That would be the same place claimed to be beneath a Church today.
To make sure that I have got this right, you say that a worship service is when someone is buried?

(marksman;57129)
To make sure that I have got this right, you say that a worship service is when someone is buried?
Perhaps some here are unfamilar with Christian funeral practices or maybe they do not follow those practives in some "home" Churches. For those in doubt or in the dark it is customary for most Christian funerals to include some form of worship, though some Churches leave that up to the family as optional. We must acknowledge that for practical reasons it would be difficult to hold a funeral worship service in someone's home, so perhaps that explains the unfamiliarity with this practice.No, I said
Without consulting 40 authors or Biblical commentary I would say that at least part of that process constituted a 1st century worship service and I doubt those people buried them in someone's living room.
What part of that is not straight?

Well I suspect what some here are doing in "homes" is equivalent to what others are doing in "Churches" with Church buildings, which is why I do not think at least for me that this is an issue of what is worship. I did not see this as a question of the only correct way to worship is "this way" since the OP made it clear that it was not the manner of worship which is consider wrong, but the "evils" (both real and percieved") that is being associated with all, traditional organized Churches today, starting of course with the RC in ancient Rome. The inference is made here that this is not the way it was done in the first century. Clearly there was not enough time and the frequent persecutions would make it difficult to build public Churches in every town in the 1st century. Out of necessity they would have to make do with whatever they had.But does the absence of description of such activity in the NT indicate it was forbidden or wrong to do so? I think it is supposition to say it is, especially absent any explicit restriction and no record of any debate on the topic in the 1st or 2nd century. If it was consider wrong to do this (build public Churches) by the Apostles, then we should reasonably expect that their disciples would see it as wrong. And we should see some discussion of that in the 2nd century when we ABSOLUTELY KNOW they were building and completed very grand structures by the end of that century. Those structures took lifetimes to build in those days, so certainly the concept of building them would have been a topic near the turn of that century. So where is the debate?

my whole point was that none of those verses describe anything any of us would consider a worship service.
This comment is important especially as you now say that a worship service happens in the context of a funeral.On that basis of course none of the verses do describe anything that would be considered a worship service because no one had died so a funeral wasn't necessary. I will continually contend when they met in the home that they were worship services as worship in the scripture means to bend the knee or lay prostrate before your conqueror to acknowledge your defeat and his control over you. As a result, you obey his instructions.The NT believer was someone who did this as they acknowledged Christ the King as their conqueror and Lord so they obeyed his commandments which Jesus said had to happen if anyone was to be a disciple of his. An example of this is Paul's injunction that they were all one in Christ. As a result the Senator, the slave, the man, the woman, the Jew, the Gentile were all treated the same when they met in their homes for the daily "agape" meal. Of course we won't mention the verse in Acts 2 where it says they met DAILY in their HOMES. And of course we won't mention that the scriptures does not say that they met weekly in the Living Waters of Flowing Streams Full Gospel Overflowing Church building. Allowing the Holy Spirit to fill their lives and doing his bidding is their way of saying " I surrender" You can bury someone every day or sing 50 songs and get a warm fuzzy feeling, but if you are not in full surrender to your conqueror and King by being obedient to his commands and most christians aren't, you are not worshiping, you are just going through a religious ritual.

Do we also not mention that not all Churches today have a lengthy, just-feel-good, pep rally with jumbo trons once week on Sunday. And do we not also mention that some Churches today do meet daily, a few even 24/7 365 with respectful and beautiful worship services. And do we not mention that the Catholic Church has always endorsed daily gatherings of the faithful whenever possible. Have never been to any "home" Churches that did any more than Sunday and maybe a couple of Bible studies during the week, certainly none of those were daily. Maybe some of those do meet daily, just not been my experience. Am not sure what the problem is here with funerals. Perhaps some have never been to a Christian funeral service. For those that have not, it can vary from something very similar to what you would see any given Sunday to just some prayer, songs and reading of scripture. But maybe we're not suppose to mention that either or that John and Mary were buried (had a funeral) in a Church or that these were Jews who had a thing about dead bodies and not likely to want to bury someone under the living room floor.