Synagogues and Christian Churches

[waquinas]

(RichardBurger;55836)
To a degee you are right. However, there is so much greed in these world organizations that more than half of the money never gets to those that need it.However, you have to remember that it was the people in the Jewish religion, as a group, that cried out, "crucify Him."
And we should remember that in some sense we each cry out "crucify Him" every time we sin, just as loudly and just as guilty as those shouting it that day. Does that mean we should shun each other as well as organized religion - all becomes reclusive monks?

 

[waquinas]

Marksman,There is a lot of evidence that when and where they could they built structures to worship in. One such structure is mentioned when the Romans burned Jerasulem, digs continue to uncover more such strutures from the 1st century some directly connected to Apostles. The meetings in homes was often a necessity of the times -either the place did not have a Church yet or they could not even gather in any number without great risk. I would not take the fact that a building project or special building fund is never described in the NT as evidence it did not happen. We can see that it did happened and historical writings from the 1st and 2nd century mention both Churhes and buildings. You are correct that most smaller cities had one Church building (or meeting place when they could not build), which makes perfect sense to me since it remained that way for nearly 1500 years. It intuitively makes sense to all of us that God would build/have One Church and not what we have today, which is confusion.

 

[RichardBurger]

(waquinas;55894)
And we should remember that in some sense we each cry out "crucify Him" every time we sin, just as loudly and just as guilty as those shouting it that day. Does that mean we should shun each other as well as organized religion - all becomes reclusive monks?
I have heard that before but I disagree with it.Show me where I have said we should shun each other. I love being with those that are children of God and are proclaiming the love of God shown in what He did on the cross.Are you trying to build a strawman by putting words in my mouth?Organized religion seems to focus on what men do for God. Religious men seem to want to do that. You know why.

 

[marksman]

There is a lot of evidence that when and where they could they built structures to worship in.
Can you show me where it says in the NT that they allocated funds to build a structure or where they actually built a structure as I have to admit I cannot find any reference to either. Please bear in mind that my only authority is the Bible so if it is not there, whatever happened subsequently is not really relevant. If it is, then we can say that paid clergy is in the NT church because it happened when Constantine instituted the idea after 312AD when christiainity became the legal religion of Rome.
I would not take the fact that a building project or special building fund is never described in the NT as evidence it did not happen.
From my own research, this concept is the one that is usually used by denominational leaders to justify what they do that is not in scripture. In many cases, they use it NOT to do what is in scripture as in "there is nothing in scripture that says we cannot put 95% of our income into building projects so we will and ignore that it is far cheaper and more effective to meet in homes as the NT church did."

 

[waquinas]

Richard, I did not put words in your mouth or claim you said something. I simply asked a question which was begged from the logic you used - ie we should not gather in Churches because their are sinners there. Further more, both Jesus (our greatest example) and Paul often taught in synagogues, the later to both Jews and Gentiles. People went there explicitly to LEARN and hear these men speak. So it cannot be true that we have no precedence in the NT for gathering in large numbers to hear the Word and teaching on it. That type of gathering is not possible in homes, at least not my home.Marksman, re-read my post. I explicitly said you will not find those things there, but said the absence of it does not mean they did not build Churches. Did they meet in homes, in the country or where ever possible? Am absolutely positive they did, just as I posted before they often had to do whatever was necessary to avoid detection just to stay alive. I never claimed we had evidence either in the NT or otherwise of grand Cathedrals being built in the 1st and 2nd century. But certainly we have both archaeological and historical documents indicating very large and at least internally ornate structures did exist long before there was a Roman Catholic Church. So whether that is in the NT or not is irrelevant, we know these things existed. And while we do not have 1st century Cathedrals, we do have ample archaeological evidence of 1st century houses with large hidden rooms, that were not part of the "home", not just another part of the living space used as a meeting place but rooms explicitly built for Christian worship (IOW a CHURCH) as well as entire structures (formerly homes) that were converted to that purpose (again a Church). They did not last and can only be seen as rubble today because, in case anyone missed this too in the NT, the Christians were often persecuted. These places were destroyed, burned. Ever wonder why it seems they often find these things under a CHURCH?????????? HELLO!So we can close our eyes and ears to these things and claim they do not exist because the NT does not explicitly talk about them, but I find it difficult to walk through a room without stumbling with eyes shut so I choose to acknowledge these things do exist and I would go one step further to connect them with the locally mentioned Churches in the NT as many of the Christians living in those areas do today. The Jacksonville Baptist Church will be known as that no matter how many times they move it or it burns down and sometimes even when the town name changes, even while they are meeting in alternate locations while the Church is being rebuilt. So it is not a stretch for me to believe people with far older roots than Jacksonville Baptist did and are doing the same from the beginning.

 

[RichardBurger]

"Richard, I did not put words in your mouth or claim you said something. I simply asked a question which was begged from the logic you used - ie we should not gather in Churches because their are sinners there. Further more, both Jesus (our greatest example) and Paul often taught in synagogues, the later to both Jews and Gentiles. People went there explicitly to LEARN and hear these men speak. So it cannot be true that we have no precedence in the NT for gathering in large numbers to hear the Word and teaching on it. That type of gathering is not possible in homes, at least not my home."*******I am talking about the words you used 'ie we should not gather in Churches because their are sinners there" ---- I never said this nor indicated it. It is using what you say to bounce what you have to say off of.Certainly Paul went to the Jewish synagogues. That is where he found religious people that at least thought a God existed.I go to a church Sunday School Class because that is where I find people interested in learning about God. I also attend 2 other Bible study classe for the same reason. These last 2 meet in homes. I am also on forums because that is where I find people that are interested God.What I am against is that many think of the organized, man ran, physical church is a separate entity between them and God. This idea is from man, not God.Acts 28:23-3123 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying,'Go to this people and say:'Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;And seeing you will see, and not perceive; 27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.Their ears are hard of hearing,And their eyes they have closed,Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,So that I should heal them."' 28 "Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!"29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves. 30 Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him,31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.Was Paul wrong by not continuing to go to a synagogue?

 

[waquinas]

Richard,Are you not inserting something in that scripture that is not there. No where in that verse does it indicate Paul did not go to synagogues anymore. In fact in order for me to reach that conclusion I would have to take your word on it that it was so. Does that not then become my taking a teaching of men over God's Word?And actually I believe you are mistaken. The early Christians, when it was tolerated went to the synagogue to hear the OT read and to receive instruction on it. It was the only place one could do so. In these particular verses the people in Acts, including the Gentiles were clearly going to the synagogue to hear Paul teach. When the writer makes statements like - "and then they believed" I doubt he was talking about people that went because they wanted to learn more about God. They went to hear this new message and Paul teaching it. They must have went because they were curious what all the excitement was about.

 

[marksman]

Marksman, re-read my post. I explicitly said you will not find those things there, but said the absence of it does not mean they did not build Churches. Did they meet in homes, in the country or where ever possible? Am absolutely positive they did, just as I posted before they often had to do whatever was necessary to avoid detection just to stay alive.
Not once does the scripture say that they they had to avoid detection to stay alive. The only recorded event of this nature was Paul being let down over the wall to avoid being killed by a mob, but this has no relvance to where they met.Not once does it say they met here, there and everywhere but it does say that they met in homes several times and the jewish church met in the temple court to share the good news, not to have a meeting. The apostles did not go to the synogogue to have a meeting of the saints in Jerusalem or anywhere. They went there to preach the gospel to the unbelievers. Gentiles, unless they were proselytes to the jewish faith were not allowed in the synagogue. You insist that they built churches to meet in. Please can I have some evidence as in book titles or articles.

 

[waquinas]

Marksman,If you have not been yourself, google holy land tours and read about it. Not that you will accept what you find. Think about it, for most of the 1st century these people were having to continuously hide their activities. Most of the leaders were killed. But just as in done today, when the people were able they built real Churches, often on top of what once was the meeting place before. Even wiki concedes 2nd century Church structures which makes them hundreds of years older than the claim made here about such things not coming about until Constantine(4th century). Almost no one (except some here apparently) would deny very grand and elaborate Churches by the end of the second and into the third century (again 100 years before Constantine. So while it makes for a grand sounding claim to blame Rome on an organized and structured Church, history just does not support that claim.True, we can stick our head in the sand and deny any of these things exist because grand structures are not mentioned in the NT. To me that just seems a bit naive, especially when we consider that only one of the NT writers lived to the later part of that century and even his home town claims a Church built on top of his grave which was originally buried after his death IN THE CHURCH established there in John's hometown by the Apostle Paul. It makes since that the people of that Church would have honored both Mary and him in that way. Besides we definitely know the direct disciples, the understudies of these men were alive when Churches we can accurately date to their time were built in the 2nd century. So if one is going to look for a "cause" of why people started building Churches, one would need to look much earlier than the 4th century.Now some here will say this is not proof but only local traditions and legends, to which I would reply there is no doubt some of the claims must be false. If you go to Rome and take a tour you can find two Churches claiming to both have the head of the John the Baptist. Obviously both cannot have it. Does this mean neither of the claims is true? No, but even if it could be shown that neither head dates to the 1st century I have no doubt at one time some Church (a structured building not a home) had his head. People sometimes make things up but there is usually a bit of truth behind these things.As to statement about Greeks in the synagogue, read Acts a little closer. Paul spent a lot of time making his case in those buildings and we have recorded for us that he convinced both some Jews and Greeks there. While I will admit times where none but orthodox were admitted and Jewish Christian conversts were bared, there were obviously other times and places were the Greeks were present. The story in Acts is silent about seating arrangements, but we can probably guess the Greeks were not in the front row. They could at least hear Paul.

 

[marksman]

Think about it, for most of the 1st century these people were having to continuously hide their activities.
Where does it say this in the scriptures?
Most of the leaders were killed.
Where does it say this in the scriptures?
when the people were able they built real Churches, often on top of what once was the meeting place before.
Where does it say this in the scriptures?
Even wiki concedes 2nd century Church structures
Since when has wiki had greater authority than the scriptures?
Almost no one (except some here apparently) would deny very grand and elaborate Churches by the end of the second and into the third century (again 100 years before Constantine.
I am talking about the New Testament Church.
Now some here will say this is not proof but only local traditions and legends, to which I would reply there is no doubt some of the claims must be false.
That is why it is important to stick to the truth of scripture, not based on some speculation as to what could and could not happen.
Paul spent a lot of time making his case in those buildings and we have recorded for us that he convinced both some Jews and Greeks there.
Greeks who were proselytes to judaism and were not barred from the synagogue.
If you have not been yourself, google holy land tours and read about it.
So, if I have been myself, I don't need to Google "holy land tours"? Actually, I was not aware that I was not myself. I still have the same name, the same address, the same phone number, the same email address and attend the same church, am married to the same wife that I have had for 38 years, the same two children and the same four grandchildren, so what has changed? In fact although I am still myself and did google "holy land tours" all I got was commercial organisations promoting holidays to the holy land. As I have a friend who used to own one of these companies, I know that they tell you what they want you to hear. Much of the information is based on tradition, not truth, so you will have to forgive me if I don't consider it information that is more authorative than scripture. Perhaps you would like to give me a more reliable source for your hypothesis.

 

[waquinas]

hey you are comfortable where you are at - God bless

 

[marksman]

I had a feeling that when push came to shove that your ideas were lacking scriptural authority bearing in mind that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable....I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone said that they believe this but....

 

[waquinas]

I be richer if I had one every time someone claimed a certain belief only because the contrary or opposing position is not mentioned in the NT. And the real kicker is they actually believe they are making an argument. And then the second kicker is these same people believe many things not found in either the NT or OT, yet are unwilling to admit that using that criteria as a basis or defense for a belief is selective.No where in the NT does it tell us to not accept what we can see with our own eyes or deny witness testimony if it is not mentioned in the NT. Nor does it say we should reject everything men say on the grounds what is said is not mentioned in the NT. In fact no where in the NT does it even tell us what should be a part of the NT (or the OT).

 

[marksman]

I be richer if I had one every time someone claimed a certain belief only because the contrary or opposing position is not mentioned in the NT.
Yes I admit that I do not believe the bible...and tradition. Mainly because I had prophecy from God through five different men which said that I was to concentrate on the Word. Unfortunately, I have become one of those who would rather obey God than men.
same people believe many things not found in either the NT or OT,
A strange comment as I have been arguing all along that we stick with what is in the NT.
yet are unwilling to admit that using that criteria as a basis or defense for a belief is selective.
The only thing that I am willling to admit is that all scripture is given by God and is sufficient for faith and practice, especially when you get the general revelation of scripture as well as the specific.
In fact no where in the NT does it even tell us what should be a part of the NT (or the OT).
It doesn't need to because it is there in black and white (or red if you have a red letter edition).
No where in the NT does it tell us to not accept what we can see with our own eyes or deny witness testimony if it is not mentioned in the NT. Nor does it say we should reject everything men say on the grounds what is said is not mentioned in the NT.
But a bit of concrete evidence that says the scripture is no longer relevant would be useful.

 

[waquinas]

"Greeks who were proselytes to judaism and were not barred from the synagogue. " Seems you believe other things men tell you that are not in the Bible as well. Seems a bit selective to me. As alluded to before, if we had another topic we would find there are many things we all believe that are not found in the NT. So again, the suggestion that we need to see something in the NT in order to believe it just does not hold water. Sounds nice, but none of us do it. We all pick and choose what we believe and should find no comfort in the claim "but that is not in the NT". In fact Paul (and others) were quite clear that there was so much MORE we should know and believe that IS NOT in the NT, so it should not come as a surprise that we all have elements of our faith not found in the NT.Take the statement"Of course, one can throw into the mix the fact that there was no such thing as 'clergy' in the NT church let alone paid clergy. That was a construct that appeared much later that was introduced by a church that had totally lost its way by turning it into a religious organization based on methods used by civil government." No where in the NT will we find a statement saying clergy were not paid - yet this is assumed as true because it has been taught by men. As there are plenty of inferences in the NT that Apostles, disciples, leaders...etc their basic needs were taken care of by the community (or else they left) to allow a focus on the ministry, there is not much point in saying "well, it never says they were paid". They did not need to get paid because the Church took care of their needs. Meeting needs can be done in many ways, monetary payment being only one. Besides we know from the NTwere they collecting provisions for redistribution and that would be for the leaders in some cases but also for the needy as well. Just because money may not have been the medium of exchange in probably most of these transactions at that time does not mean it had no value. Which makes that a form of payment. There is also plenty of evidence of a Church leadership structure, so the fact there is disagreement on the use/meaning of terms in reference to clergy is rather meaningless to make your point. But since you brought it up am now curious what your Bishop does in your system of home Churches. As to showing you evidence of early Churches, even wiki (which at best is anti-orthodox Christian) claims 1st century Churches existed and as already mentioned most religious tours of the Holy lands, Greece, Italy..etc will show you sites claiming to have been the location of 1st century Churches, some I understand have substantial archaeological backing for such a claim (Ephesus and Jerusalem come to mind). You are free to choose not to believe men in this instance, but don't hide that belief behind a claim of it is not in scripture. You simply choose to believe other men in that case and that is ok with me.

 

[RichardBurger]

(waquinas;56011)
Richard,Are you not inserting something in that scripture that is not there. No where in that verse does it indicate Paul did not go to synagogues anymore. In fact in order for me to reach that conclusion I would have to take your word on it that it was so. Does that not then become my taking a teaching of men over God's Word?And actually I believe you are mistaken. The early Christians, when it was tolerated went to the synagogue to hear the OT read and to receive instruction on it. It was the only place one could do so. In these particular verses the people in Acts, including the Gentiles were clearly going to the synagogue to hear Paul teach. When the writer makes statements like - "and then they believed" I doubt he was talking about people that went because they wanted to learn more about God. They went to hear this new message and Paul teaching it. They must have went because they were curious what all the excitement was about.
If you read for understanding you can see that Paul was giving up on the Jews. Especially since he quoted Isaiah.25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers,26 saying,'Go to this people and say:'Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;And seeing you will see, and not perceive; 27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.Their ears are hard of hearing,And their eyes they have closed,Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,So that I should heal them."' 28 "Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!"

 

[waquinas]

thanks Richard and that does appear to be the case in that instance, but that is not the only occasion a synagogue with both Jews and Gentiles are mentioned. Nor does that address why the Greeks were there (Jewish converts, interested parties...etc).As we know Paul is portrayed in the NT as bringing the message to the non-Jews, I find it hard to believe every reference to “Greeks” in Acts in this regard refers only to Greek converts to Judaism, especially when it sometimes combines those references to Greeks with statements of conversion or belief to Christianity.We also know Paul's main ministry became to the Gentiles. There is some indication from tradition that it was partly out of necessity that he was sent out by the Church leaders as both Jewish leaders and Jewish converts as a whole did not like Paul, some even to the extent of seeking his demise but mostly because of a lack of trust. This makes sense for them to feel that way given what we know of him prior to his own conversion. It also complicated or confounded his ability to get the message out as maybe partially shown in the example Richard gave. He carried too much baggage for some people to overlook (as in he is insulting our (and his own) traditions/beliefs in the case of these Jews). He would not have to deal with that baggage with non-Jews or any people unfamilar with his life.Traditions are the source of much of what we know or think we know about those times, especially things not provided for us in the NT. It helps complete the picture. It is that whole picture combined with archeology, secular and non-secular historical docs, sound reason and some corroboration from the NT of those things which led me away from any notion that structured Churches and buildings did not exist until Constantine. It is a nice and convenient theory to blame Rome, but it is very weak in that well known and documented beautiful cathedrals existed hundreds of years before Constantine, all of which would not have been possible with out a significant and very organized Church structure, one that is not built over night, especially considering the amount of time such structures took to build in those days. So my point was simply that any theory about a lack of structure or buildings in the early Church would need to focus on something happening beginning mid to late 2nd century, not the 4th and Constantine or Rome.I would also question the ability to effectively administer to widows, orphans, the elderly, sick and poor without a very organized Church structure. As that mission is clearly and repeatedly shown as one function of the Church in the NT, am at a loss to conclude how that would work with a loose association of "home" Churches. Nor is there any NT reference to or even an allusion to such an association of "home" Churches existing within what is called a Church, say Corinth for example. But such an association (and a very organized/structured one) would be required for that mission to be effective.Think reference was also made to about 30 people as a reasonable number for a home Church (and am sure it would be today - few houses could contain/support greater numbers). However, we should also note that in those days, with 30 people we would only be talking of one or maybe two extended families. So again I have difficulty seeing one or two family "Churches" supporting widows, orphans, elderly, poor, sick...etc in the community to any effective degree. So again, there are many reasons for me to believe such structure including meeting places (whatever those happened to be at any particular time or place) existed, including when and where possible very large meeting places as well as hidden ones. Do those reasons go beyond what can be read directly from scripture? You bet, but I see no great problem with that and see much more difficulty denying it.

 

[marksman]

I would also question the ability to effectively administer to widows, orphans, the elderly, sick and poor without a very organized Church structure. As that mission is clearly and repeatedly shown as one function of the Church in the NT, am at a loss to conclude how that would work with a loose association of "home" Churches. Nor is there any NT reference to or even an allusion to such an association of "home" Churches existing within what is called a Church, say Corinth for example. But such an association (and a very organized/structured one) would be required for that mission to be effective.
This would suggest your experience of church is very limited and that your argument is 'what I have not experienced cannot happen'. Once again, the NT church met daily in homes. It does not say it met in homes and public church buildings. Once again, there was only one church in each town which met in homes and was presided over by the apostles first with the aid of deacons, and then elders were appointed in every town to assume the oversight of the fellowship. They were the leadership of the church in that town, not in that building. I have consulted over 40 authors and everyone has said the NT church met in homes, not buildings. I am not going to ditch that body of evidence for one contrary view. Having been involved in a home based fellowship more than once, it is the easiest thing in the world to meet the needs of the elderly, poor etc. for the simple reason that it was a relationship based fellowship as the NT church was, not a ritual based fellowship as the NT church wasn't. The main meeting in the NT church involved talking and eating. not preaching, singing and communion. We did the same and through the grape vine we knew everything about every one because we spent most of our time in each other's homes. When a need was obvious, we didn't call 'a pastor' we went and met the need ourselves. As a result the need didn't last for very long. When you rely on organisation and 'a pastor' to deal with all the needs the caring in very thin on the ground as they don't have the time to be 'a pastor'. In fact, in my study of the church, I have found that most pastors are not pastors they are CEOs and most are being run ragged. Research shows that 10,000 of these so called pastors have left the ministry through burnout. In the USA, over 1,000 pastors are resigning or being sacked every month. These figures show that organised church structures are failing badly. Of course you don't hear about these facts unless you go looking as the church doesn't want to admit it is not working. It only wants you to know the success stories. THis doesn't surprise me as 263 job adverts for pastors asked for three things. Experience, a degree and the ability to make things happen. Only three mentioned their spiritual standing. That is why "every member" churches are much more effective because everyone is a pastor and caregiver. It is known as the priesthood of all believers which is the only priesthood recognised by the NT church. Of the ten churches I have been involved with the ones most like the NT church are the ones that did not have a 'paid pastor'.

 

[waquinas]

Marksman,what you are describing sounds much more structured than what you initially claimed, as it would need to be to provide support to the community as a whole (and not just to provide for members of a particular group) which was my point. Have lived all over this country and belonged to several small Churches that would loosely qualify under your last post's definition. One met in the basement of a bank, others in homes. In those experiences these either grew larger, necessitating larger and larger meeting places or died for various reasons usually related to relocation/job change of the primary leader. While we may have known one another better and perhaps helped each other more than in larger Churches because of the intimacy, none of these Churches as a viable community outreach, spiritual or otherwise.No where in the NT will you find it said they met for worship in someone's home. There are meetings in people's houses, one in particular appears to be a memorial service probably for a martyr. Acts 2 describes a communinal type environment, which I do not believe either of is suggesting for a Church, while such a life in general if we all did it would be ideal. In my experience that did not happen and in our own time communes and communial life often end badly. Note even here a TEMPLE is mentioned. Same with chapter 5. In 12 we see people gathering to pray for Peter in a house - no mention this was there regular meeting place. 16 is a conversion story of a man and his house, again no mention that his house was a Church, ditto with the close of that chapter. We could go on, and we do note several later references in the NT to Churches that were specifically said to be in someone's house. Something I never denied did happen, we know it did. We should also note that in those instances other Churches are mentioned in the same verses with no reference to them being in someone's house, which at least begs the question. Also note the references to Churches being "in" someone's house is an odd way to refer to just being held in someone's house as a custom of all Churches. It rather suggests something unique to me in mentioning it, as in at this location the Church is inside so and so's house. Which to me is rather more like the idea I presented that a particular room in that house had been set aside for that purpose rather than representing just holding Church in someone's house. The later way would have been more properly presented by saying the Church at this location MEETS in this house rather than IS IN.Never claimed it was impossible, but you are correct I have never witnessed it working as you describe. Interesting that you now depart from your NT only stance to accepting the word of "40 authors" but that is in keeping with what I said earlier, we all accept the word of other men in many things. In this case we are following different men, and again that is fine with me. Am happy where I am and you obviously where you are.

 

[marksman]

No where in the NT will you find it said they met for worship in someone's home.
In that case we had better delete all these verses from our bible. The word 'church' which in Greek is 'ekklasia' means called out ones making up a congregation and the word 'house' in Greek 'oikos' means a dwelling and by implication a family home. Act 2:2 And suddenly a sound came out of the heaven as borne along by the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 8:3 And Saul just went wild, devastating the church, entering house after house after house, dragging men and women off to jail. Act 2:46 And continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food with gladness and simplicity of heart, Act 5:42 And every day in the temple, and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching the gospel: Jesus Christ. Act 17:5 But the disobeying Jews becoming jealous, and having taken aside some wicked men of the market-loafers, and gathering a crowd, they set all the city in an uproar. And coming on the house of Jason, they sought to bring them out to the mob. Act 20:20 and how I kept back nothing that was profitable, but have shown you and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, Act 28:30 And Paul remained two years in his own hired house. And he welcomed all who came in to him, 1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. Col 4:15 Greet the brothers who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church in his house. 1Ti 3:15 But if I should delay, that you may know how you ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 1Ti 5:13 And with it all they also learn to be idle, going around the houses; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things they ought not. Phm 1:2 and to Apphia the beloved, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house. Act 19:9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of one Tyrannus. NOTE: school does not mean a building it means not being involved in physical labour.I guess 12 verses all using the same greek words doesn't prove anything according to your logic.FOOTNOTE: You mention worship which by the way means to bow or lay prostrate in submission before your conqueror. It relates mainly to prayer and has nothing to do with singing songs which is understandable seeing as the NT church prayed daily.