How can we?

[renee819]

How can we come out of Babylon?

[Praxeas]

Im not in Babylon, are you in Babylon?

[Disciple4life]

Years ago I read a book called "The Two Babylon's". I was convinced the Roman catholic Church was Babylon. Recently I heard that the real Babylon was Jerusalem and the attitude of not having God as the highest focus of your life.

What I had to do when I was first saved was clean out my life. Something's didn't seem bad or sinful. After thinking about it for a while I realized I was lifting certain things in my life higher than God.

What I learned later is that I have to look at my life frequently. It is a constant battle not to let pride and selfishness slip into my life. We all let this happen if we are not careful.

Just because I say I love God more than anything does not make it true. Some of the questions I ask myself are:
Where do I spend my money?
Where do I spend my time?
What do I talk about with other people?
What are the priorities in my life?

I try to reflect on my life often, so that I can pull Babylon out of my life.

[Praxeas]

Clearly "Babylon" is going to mean different things to different people

[renee819]

I suppose to know how to get out of Babylon, a person has to know what Babylon is. It should be required reading for every Christian to read the book “ The Two Babylon's.” Babylon might mean different things to different people, but it is what it is, in the Bible. And only study and prayer will reveal the interpretation.

From my studies,
That Old Harlot, Babylon has moved 6 times, from Babel to Assyria, Egypt, (forgot the right order) Right now she sits at the Vatican and is getting ready to make another move.
In working with the UN to establish a One World Religion she will make her finale move.

Pope John, in the 60's made the announcement, that any one baptized in the Trinity was a daughter of the RCC and would not have to be re-baptized if they came on back home. Meaning back to the RCC.

As each man-made Denomination rose up out of the RCC, they walked in new light as far as the light shined, but kept many of the RCC rules and practices. Therefore all Christian Denominations still has some of Babylon in them

The Babylon, Harlot of Revelation, is the RCC will join with all Pagan Religions. Including many Christian Denominations that are Trinity and have already signed up with the United Religions Organization. As soft as Pentecost has become, and as much of the world that we have absorbed, I don't know what the Oneness Denominations will do, when it comes to JOIN or get everything taken away from you. Or JOIN or go to prison, or worse.

Then many will realize what they are to do, and will come out. However, since the Pastors have no time to study Prophecy. (I was told that by a Pentecostal minister) and therefore will not or can not teach the church where we are living in time, thousands will not be prepared spiritually to come out, and God will send the STRONG DELUSION, and they will be lost.

There should be a Trumpet Call to “ come out of her” now! In order that people can prepare themselves by getting the worldliness out of their lives. By humbling themselves and crying out to God to show them more truth. By finding what is Babylonish in the churches and return to the model of the early church.

[Praxeas]

I don't attend the RCC and never was a member. I don't need to come out of it.

However I DID read that book and found that most scholars have discredited it


The Two Babylons, subtitled The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife is a religious pamphlet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet) published in 1853 by the Presbyterian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian) Free Church of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_%281843-1900%29) theologian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) Alexander Hislop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop) (1807-65), expanded in 1858, and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon), a product of a millennia-old conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-books.google.com-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-2) It has been generally regarded by scholars as discredited, with one calling it a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-4)
Hislop ultimately traces Catholic doctrines back to the worship of Nimrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod), claiming that the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church) is the Whore of Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon) in the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) 17:5, and that "the Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope) himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar)". He claims that the Christogram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram) IHS really stands for Isis, Horus, Seth.
Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist Protestant Christians.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-books.google.com-1)
The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-5) and other conspiracy theorists.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-6)
Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Woodrow)) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-7)
In 2011 a critical edition was published which also contains the English book by Ralph Woodrow[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-8) as well as the papers by Ralph Woodrow and Dr. Eddy Lanz.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons

[renee819]

Modern Babylon (Rev. 17:5) is the Roman Catholic Church

Where did the practices and beliefs of Roman Catholicism come from? In this scholarly classic, first published over eighty years ago, Alexander Hislop reveals that many Roman Catholic teachings did not originate with Christ or the Bible, but were adopted from ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and given Christian names.

Although difficult reading, this book accurately provides a fascinating historical in-depth examination of the shocking similarities between the practices of ancient Babylonian religion and those of today's Roman Catholic church.

Madonna and Child See how a religion that was started by Nimrod and his wife spread to various regions, taking on different names, but keeping the same pagan rituals and trappings. These same rituals embody the Catholic church of today.

Learn the true origins of:
•The Mother and Child
•The Mass
•The Wafer (Eucharist
•Purgatory
•The Sovereign Pontiff
•Prayers for the Dead
•The Rosary
•The Sign of the Cross
•The Confessional
•Clothing and Crowning of Images
•Priests, Monks, and Nuns
•Relic Worship
•Worship of the Sacred Heart
•Extreme Unction
•and much more!

Where did these things come from? This is just a small list, that although Protestants don't do these things, it shows the Paganism and where it came from. The RCC didn't invent these things.
Of course scholars will condemn the book. It would be interesting to see how many of them practice some of these things.

[renee819]

Ralph Woodrow wrote,
I have since replaced this book with The Babylon Connection? a 128-page book with 60 illustrations and 400 footnote references. It is an appeal to all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel that finding Babylonian origins for present-day customs or beliefs is of great importance. My advice, based on my own experience, is to move cautiously in this area, lest we major on minors. If there are things in our lives or churches that are indeed pagan or displeasing to the Lord, they should be dealt with, of course. But in attempting to defuse the confusion of Babylon, we must guard against creating a new “Babylon” (confusion) of our own making.

I'm going to check on this book

[ILG]

Sometimes I think about going to the Catholic church to visit. That's where I was raised. Would that be better than doing what I am now, which is not going anywhere at all? ;)

[Michael The Disciple]

No way is the Catholic Church the Babylon of Rev. The merchants of the cry when she is burned with fire? How do you burn a system with fire?

The Protestant Evangelical Churches are more dangerous to Apostolics than the RCC. Apostolics are falling everywhere into Evangelical doctrine.

Hardly anyone falls into Catholic Churches.

[renee819]

Modern Babylon (Rev. 17:5) is the Roman Catholic Church

Where did the practices and beliefs of Roman Catholicism come from? In this scholarly classic, first published over eighty years ago, Alexander Hislop reveals that many Roman Catholic teachings did not originate with Christ or the Bible, but were adopted from ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and given Christian names.

Although difficult reading, this book accurately provides a fascinating historical in-depth examination of the shocking similarities between the practices of ancient Babylonian religion and those of today's Roman Catholic church.

Madonna and Child See how a religion that was started by Nimrod and his wife spread to various regions, taking on different names, but keeping the same pagan rituals and trappings. These same rituals embody the Catholic church of today.

Learn the true origins of:
•The Mother and Child
•The Mass
•The Wafer (Eucharist
•Purgatory
•The Sovereign Pontiff
•Prayers for the Dead
•The Rosary
•The Sign of the Cross
•The Confessional
•Clothing and Crowning of Images
•Priests, Monks, and Nuns
•Relic Worship
•Worship of the Sacred Heart
•Extreme Unction
•and much more!

Where did these things come from? This is just a small list, that although Protestants don't do these things, it shows the Paganism and where it came from. The RCC didn't invent these things.
Of course scholars will condemn the book. It would be interesting to see how many of them practice some of these things.

Clearly we don't have to be concerned about the things mentioned above, these things were not brought over into Protestantism. It is the things that was brought over that we need to be concerned about.

[Praxeas]

Clearly we don't have to be concerned about the things mentioned above, these things were not brought over into Protestantism. It is the things that was brought over that we need to be concerned about.
such as?

[Praxeas]

The Two Babylons, subtitled The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife is a religious pamphlet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet) published in 1853 by the Presbyterian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian) Free Church of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_%281843-1900%29) theologian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) Alexander Hislop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop) (1807-65), expanded in 1858, and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon), a product of a millennia-old conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-books.google.com-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-2) It has been generally regarded by scholars as discredited, with one calling it a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-4)

Hislop ultimately traces Catholic doctrines back to the worship of Nimrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod), claiming that the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church) is the Whore of Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon) in the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) 17:5, and that "the Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope) himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar)". He claims that the Christogram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram) IHS really stands for Isis, Horus, Seth.
Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist Protestant Christians.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-books.google.com-1)

The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-5) and other conspiracy theorists.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-6)
Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Woodrow)) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-7)
In 2011 a critical edition was published which also contains the English book by Ralph Woodrow[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-8) as well as the papers by Ralph Woodrow and Dr. Eddy Lanz.

[n david]

Clearly we don't have to be concerned about the things mentioned above, these things were not brought over into Protestantism. It is the things that was brought over that we need to be concerned about.
And what was brought over into Pentecostal churches?

[renee819]

What we should be concerned to day, is what was carried over from the RCC. I read the Letters of the Early Church Leaders, Tertullian, and also Durant's history book , and others, many years ago, before I read Hislop's book or Frank Viola's “Pagan Christianity” therefore I don't remember my sources but will try to find sources.

The earliest idenifiable Christian meeting place was simply a private home remodeled as a Christian gathering place about AD 232, as (I believe it was Prax said, proved there were church buildings) The house at Dura-Europos was a house with a wall torn out between two bedrooms.

In some places, existing Pagan Temples were emptied of their idols and converted into Christian edifices.
Worship became more professional, dramatic, and ceremonial.

All of these features were borrowed from the Greco-Roman culture and carried straight into the Christian church. (Gonzalez--”Story of Christianity” page 25)
Fourth century Christianity was being profoundly shaped by Greek Paganism and Roman imperialism. (Kenneth Scott Latourette---”A History of Christianity” 201-218)
The upshot of it all was that there was of intimacy and open participation. The professional clergy performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators. (White---”protestant Worship and Church Architecture” 56

----Frank Viola

Getting too tired, will get back on this in the morning.

[Michael The Disciple]

Don't get me wrong. The RCC is VERY WICKED. Its influence has been terrible. Im just saying its not THE BABYLON of Rev.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Trinitarian baptism is orthodox Christianity.

Just because a man from the RCC said that whatever he said doesn't mean that everyone is truly connected by Trinitarian baptism and thus, sons and daughters of the RCC.

The Bible talks about not striving over formulas for baptism.

What connects people to the harlot is the condition of their hearts, not the way they were baptized.

[Praxeas]

What we should be concerned to day, is what was carried over from the RCC. I read the Letters of the Early Church Leaders, Tertullian, and also Durant's history book , and others, many years ago, before I read Hislop's book or Frank Viola's “Pagan Christianity” therefore I don't remember my sources but will try to find sources.

The earliest idenifiable Christian meeting place was simply a private home remodeled as a Christian gathering place about AD 232, as (I believe it was Prax said, proved there were church buildings) The house at Dura-Europos was a house with a wall torn out between two bedrooms.



Getting too tired, will get back on this in the morning.
Yes it was converted into a permanent meeting place. This sort of "meeting place" was already in use by the Jews in synagogues.

The fact is the reason why Christians met in homes at first was it was a new religious movement, not an established one like Judaism. They had no place else to meet and most had been kicked out of the synagogues.

Second, most governments were antagonistic towards them, making it hard to buy land and build a place of worship. We actually see that happening today in certain nations where the believers had to meet incogneto

[Praxeas]

The Bible talks about not striving over formulas for baptism.

.
Verse?

[renee819]

Trinitarian baptism is orthodox Christianity.

Just because a man from the RCC said that whatever he said doesn't mean that everyone is truly connected by Trinitarian baptism and thus, sons and daughters of the RCC.

The Bible talks about not striving over formulas for baptism.

What connects people to the harlot is the condition of their hearts, not the way they were baptized.

Jermyn, don't you think it strange, that if Jesus commanded the church to be baptized in the Trinity, that NO ONE was ever baptized that way in the Bible. And history proves that the early church baptized in Jesus name, until some Pagan philosophers joined the ekklesia (church) and started teaching the Trinity?

The question still stands, “How can the church come out of Babylon?” And one way is for those that have received the Holy Ghost and been baptized in the Trinity, is to be baptized as the Bible teaches, in Jesus name.

[renee819]

Buildings matter. It is shown by the Tabernacle in the wilderness. The way that it was set up, controlled how the people worshiped. And speaking of the Tabernacle, here was a displaced group of thousands of peoples, in the wilderness, and God commands them to build a Tabernacle, with gold and all kinds of precious things inside. How were they to do it?

If God had wanted the Early Church to build buildings, don't you think that He would have made a way?
On the Day of Pentecost, there were 3,000 added to the church. Don't tell me that there were no rich Jews among that number. In Acts 4:4 five thousand men were added to the ekklesia. Of this number, some of them already owned property. Probably for a few days, they might have had to meet in their homes, but to meet in homes for 200 years? I believe there is something we should examine.

Do buildings have to be wrong as a method of worship. Probably not! It is the method that is wrong. Most big churches would do better to meet in the kitchen-dining area. There would be more togetherness, of even getting to know one another.

The stage, pulpit area, promotes the idea of a one man show, as well as a place for entertainment. To promote talent instead of the 'gifts of the Spirit,' The audience is to remain quiet. Even congregational singing is being rooted out.

Frank Viola wrote,
The church building was borrowed from pagan culture, “Dignified and sacramental ritual had entered the church services by way of the mysteries (pagan cults) and was justified as so many other things, by reference to the Old Testament.
To use the Old Testament as a justification for the church building is not only innaccurate, but it is self defeating. The old Mosaic economy of sacred priests, sacred buildings, sacred rituals, and sacred objects has been forever destroyed by the cross of Jesus Christ. In addition, it has been replaced by a non hierarchical, nonritualistic, nonliturgical organism called the ekklesia (church)

Mark 14:58, Acts 7:48-49, 17:24,

[n david]

The question still stands, "How can the church come out of Babylon?"
The church isn't in Babylon.

Another thread about buildings. SMH

All this nonsense about buildings is really missing the point. I doubt Jesus is concerned about buildings, yet here we are on thread number two talking about buildings.

:nah

[Esaias]

Babylon is of course being used to represent 'false religion'.

As for what influences the RCC has had on Pentecost, there are in fact many (via Protestantism, which rejected many RCC doctrines and practices but retained some).

One of the most obvious (yet for some reason most often missed) is the whole concept of 'the worship service'.

Others are the 'clergy/laity' system, the 'one man pastorate', the creation of hierarchical church governments over and above the local church, and the whole concept of 'the universal church' - which is more than just speaking about 'all christians everywhere' but has to do with church government, organization, and relationships between local churches and between denominations or 'sects'.

By the way, these things were not brought in by the ROMAN catholic church, but by the CATHOLIC church (the RCC is one part of that, there are at least three - probably more - other 'autocephalic churches' such as Constantinople, Antioch, etc - also the Coptic church, the Russian Orthodox church perhaps, etc etc. All these groups are 'catholic', and catholicism began as a distinct form of Christianity at about the 3rd century with the rise of the 'apologists' and the 'ante-nicene fathers'.)

[n david]

One of the most obvious (yet for some reason most often missed) is the whole concept of 'the worship service'.
What do you mean by "the worship service?"

Others are the 'clergy/laity' system, the 'one man pastorate'
I disagree with this based on Ephesians 4:11, 12. There was definitely a clergy/laity/pastorate outlined in the NT.

the creation of hierarchical church governments over and above the local church
I can see where people would believe this, but the concept of a central denomination headquarters isn't totally an RCC/Catholic thing. I believe even without the RCC/Catholic having the Vatican over the Dioceses, there would be this type of model. One could argue it's based on a business model as well.

[n david]

Clearly we don't have to be concerned about the things mentioned above, these things were not brought over into Protestantism. It is the things that was brought over that we need to be concerned about.What was brought over into Pentecostal churches?

Bump for Renee.

[Esaias]

What do you mean by "the worship service?"

The catholic church (not just the RCC, because remember the RCC is just one part of the 'catholic church') brought in a liturgical form of worship - professional singers (aka the choir and soloists) for instance. But more importantly, the concept of a 'worship service' where people gather at a specified place to 'experience God' via a specific format of music and ritual. Protestantism greatly stripped down the liturgy, of course, limiting it to music, preaching/teaching, and a communion service. However, the trappings survive - it is seen in 'church architecture' which is designed to induce a 'religious state of mind', it is seen in the separation of the people by the platform/pulpit/altar rail on the one hand and the pews on the other - a holdover from Roman judicial courts which were often adopted as church buildings. It survives in the need to 'set the mood' by various artificial means: music, lighting, etc. Ultimately, it survives in the fact that the modern 'worship service' is largely a man-centered event directed by men, rather than by the Spirit. Early Pentecostals abandoned all that, but modern Pentecostals have sunk back into it.


I disagree with this based on Ephesians 4:11, 12. There was definitely a clergy/laity/pastorate outlined in the NT.

And I disagree that the NT outlines a 'clergy/laity' distinction. ;)


I can see where people would believe this, but the concept of a central denomination headquarters isn't totally an RCC/Catholic thing. I believe even without the RCC/Catholic having the Vatican over the Dioceses, there would be this type of model. One could argue it's based on a business model as well.

It's not just a central denomination headquarters thing, is that the word 'church' is applied to a mythical 'universal body of believers' when the NT uses the word for the LOCAL assembly.

As for a business model, of course it is, straight from the Roman Empire. adopted into Christianity by catholicism, kept current today. :heeheehee

[Praxeas]

Buildings matter. It is shown by the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
Buildings don't matter. The Tabernacle and how it was made mattered

If God had wanted the Early Church to build buildings, don't you think that He would have made a way?
Not necessarily. Look I can just as easily say "If God did not want the early church to build buildings don't you think He would have said not to?"

Hmm? Why didn't God condemn the Jews for building synagogues? Why didn't Jesus take them to task over it?

On the Day of Pentecost, there were 3,000 added to the church. Don't tell me that there were no rich Jews among that number.
Oh yes, all Jews have money. That is a stereotype. Second Jews were a MINORITY in their own land, being under Roma Occupation.

Third the Jewish Majority (more than Christians) Persecuted the church. They were never in a position to buy land and start construction projects.

Christianity was never a recognized religion for the first 3 centuries by Rome

In Acts 4:4 five thousand men were added to the ekklesia. Of this number, some of them already owned property. Probably for a few days, they might have had to meet in their homes, but to meet in homes for 200 years? I believe there is something we should examine.
You don't know what they owned. You don't know what the climate was like in Palestine. The Jews couldn't even build their own temple. Herod had to build it for them

Do buildings have to be wrong as a method of worship.
Buildings aren't a method of worship. They are places to meet, just as homes were (which are also buildings)

Probably not! It is the method that is wrong. Most big churches would do better to meet in the kitchen-dining area. There would be more togetherness, of even getting to know one another.
So now the issue is size? Not the buildings?

The stage, pulpit area, promotes the idea of a one man show, as well as a place for entertainment.
Stages are for people to be able to SEE who is speaking. The Pulpit is so they can place their notes and bibles in sight

You don't think when Jesus spoke to all those 5000 or so people it would have been advantageous to stand on a hill above them? Or Moses? Or when Paul addressed the people? It's amazing how you guys pick apart every little issue

Act 21:40 When the commanding officer had given him permission, Paul stood on the steps and gestured to the people with his hand. When they had become silent, he addressed them in Aramaic,

To promote talent instead of the 'gifts of the Spirit,' The audience is to remain quiet. Even congregational singing is being rooted out.
So now remaining quite while someone sings or talks is considered bad?

:throwrock

[Ferd]

The new testement doesnt say one single word about using instruments to make music.

not one word.


anyone who wants to get rid of buildings want to get rid of the piano too?

[navygoat1998]

The new testement doesnt say one single word about using instruments to make music.

not one word.


anyone who wants to get rid of buildings want to get rid of the piano too?

Can anybody say Church of Christ :heeheehee

[Ferd]

Hmm? Why didn't God condemn the Jews for building synagogues?
in addition to this question, why did the Apostles contiune to go to the synagogues to worship if buildings were bad?

[Esaias]

The new testement doesnt say one single word about using instruments to make music.

not one word.


anyone who wants to get rid of buildings want to get rid of the piano too?

Actually, we'd probably be better off without the instruments, too.

:highfive

[Praxeas]

I was gonna post this on Facebook but it seems like everyone needs or wants an enemy to focus on

For some it's religious and others it's politics. I am always amazed at how some continually rail against the UPC after they leave while others seem content and never look back. Everyone has a target of opposition the focus on and nobody is really reaching out to the lost despite telling everyone else we need to reach the lost.

That is another peculiarity. Like my friend said once to someone that criticized others on that issue..."Lead the way"

[navygoat1998]

I was gonna post this on Facebook but it seems like everyone needs or wants an enemy to focus on

For some it's religious and others it's politics. I am always amazed at how some continually rail against the UPC after they leave while others seem content and never look back. Everyone has a target of opposition the focus on and nobody is really reaching out to the lost despite telling everyone else we need to reach the lost.

That is another peculiarity. Like my friend said once to someone that criticized others on that issue..."Lead the way"

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/833275/Get_252520Along.jpg

[renee819]

in addition to this question, why did the Apostles contiune to go to the synagogues to worship if buildings were bad?

Ferd, they didn't go to the synagogues to have a worship service. they went to preach to sinners. They met in their homes.

[Praxeas]

Ferd, they didn't go to the synagogues to have a worship service. they went to preach to sinners. They met in their homes.

Didnt they also meet in the temple?

[renee819]

Didnt they also meet in the temple?

Are you talking about the Jews before Pentecost or after?

[Praxeas]

Are you talking about the Jews before Pentecost or after?

I was talking about the church

[renee819]

Where did Christians meet?

Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1 Corinthians 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.

[Praxeas]

Nobody denies the EARLY church met in homes

[Praxeas]

The issue is why?

BTW several verses you posted show they met in a permanent

[renee819]

The church isn't in Babylon.

Another thread about buildings. SMH

All this nonsense about buildings is really missing the point. I doubt Jesus is concerned about buildings, yet here we are on thread number two talking about buildings.

:nah

No, the church is not in Babylon, but Babylon is in the church.

I didn't start this thread to talk about buildings, but it was some of you that jumped on buildings. However, it was inevitable, because of the structure of the churches, leads the way that people worship. Dividing the clergy from the laity. with very little participation from the audience. Very little fellowship with one another. Very little chance of using the 'gifts of the Spirit.” Just to mention a few.

[Praxeas]

What we should be concerned to day, is what was carried over from the RCC. I read the Letters of the Early Church Leaders, Tertullian, and also Durant's history book , and others, many years ago, before I read Hislop's book or Frank Viola's “Pagan Christianity” therefore I don't remember my sources but will try to find sources.

The earliest idenifiable Christian meeting place was simply a private home remodeled as a Christian gathering place about AD 232, as (I believe it was Prax said, proved there were church buildings) The house at Dura-Europos was a house with a wall torn out between two bedrooms.



Getting too tired, will get back on this in the morning.
As far as I can see, you raised the issue about buildings

[Praxeas]

Where did Christians meet?

Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1 Corinthians 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.

Nobody denies the EARLY church met in homes

The issue is why?

BTW several verses you posted show they met in a permanent

Act 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819
Buildings matter. It is shown by the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

Prax wrote,
Buildings don't matter. The Tabernacle and how it was made mattered.

That was my point. We are both right, you know. For a Christian meeting, in the Early Church, it didn't matter if it was a home, cave, woods etc, because Jesus no longer requires sacred buildings.
God set the Tabernacle and then the Temple, as sacred buildings, and that controlled how the people worshiped. But Jesus did away with all of that when He told us, thru Paul, “God does not dwell in Temples made by hands.---ye are the temple of the living God.”

And by Constantine building large so-called sacred buildings, this also controls how the people worship. And the Protestants carried thru with the same type.

Renee wrote,
If God had wanted the Early Church to build buildings, don't you think that He would have made a way?

Prax wrote,
Not necessarily. Look I can just as easily say "If God did not want the early church to build buildings don't you think He would have said not to?"

You left out the context of what I said, “God commanded Moses to make the Tabernacle, even though they were in the wilderness, and He supplied gold, silver and precious stones to make what He commanded. Even while fighting many wars.
And the Tabernacle controlled how the people worshiped, just as the Temples that the Christians took over and also that Constantine built, controlled how the Christians worshiped.

Prax wrote,
Hmm? Why didn't God condemn the Jews for building synagogues? Why didn't Jesus take them to task over it?

I think you know the answer to that. God commanded them to build the Tabernacle and then the Temple, and they were sacred. As people scattered they built synagogues, which were also sacred.

Today, after the cross,..
Acts 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jesus could say very little about the Temple or synagogue, because He came to confirm the spirit of the Law, and to finish it, which was finished on the cross. Until the cross, they were still under the Law.
TO BE CONTINUED

[renee819]

Renee wrote,
On the Day of Pentecost, there were 3,000 added to the church. Don't tell me that there were no rich Jews among that number.

Prax wrote,
Oh yes, all Jews have money. That is a stereotype. Second Jews were a MINORITY in their own land, being under Roma Occupation.

Third the Jewish Majority (more than Christians) Persecuted the church. They were never in a position to buy land and start construction projects.

Christianity was never a recognized religion for the first 3 centuries by Rome

What is being recognized got to do with it? Neither were the Israelites recognized, but had to fight their way thru. And the Christians did own land, or they couldn't have been selling it in Acts 4 and 5.

Renee wrote,
In Acts 4:4 five thousand men were added to the ekklesia. Of this number, some of them already owned property. Probably for a few days, they might have had to meet in their homes, but to meet in homes for 200 years? I believe there is something we should examine.

Prax wrote,
You don't know what they owned. You don't know what the climate was like in Palestine. The Jews couldn't even build their own temple. Herod had to build it for them

The Temple was built before Christ. If I remember my history, many, many years before, and Herod remodeled for them.
And in Acts 4, when 5,000 was added to the church, it also tells us that they began to sell some of their property. It wasn't a requirement to sell, however, if it had been a requirement to have church buildings they could have taken that money and built some. Or they could have charged tithes.

Renee wrote
Do buildings have to be wrong as a method of worship.

Prax wrote,
Buildings aren't a method of worship. They are places to meet, just as homes were (which are also buildings)

What I actually said, is also in agreement with what you wrote, but again you didn't give the whole context. I wrote,

Do buildings have to be wrong as a method of worship. Probably not! It is the method that is wrong. Most big churches would do better to meet in the kitchen-dining area. There would be more togetherness, of even getting to know one another

TO BE CONTINUED

[Esaias]

Prax asked why the early church met in homes, then suggests it was because it was impractical to do otherwise. This implies they would have immediately began construction of special buildings (synagogues?) if they had the opportunity.

I, however, would maintain they met in homes for a different reason. Namely, that it was natural for them to meet in one another's homes because of the nature of early new testament Christianity itself.

Obviously, there is disagreement as to the utility and expediency and appropriateness of house churches vs the church meeting in a building. But I do not think it can be denied that home meetings tend to be structured differently than 'in a building' meetings.

A lot of people seem to think that by promoting home meetings one is simply suggesting moving the existing church meeting from a special building into the living room. But that is not the case.

Meeting in the home involves a different approach to the nature, purpose, and the 'mechanics' of the meeting altogether. It involves getting rid of the 'platform/pulpit' approach. It often (though not always) involves a redefinition of the role of pastors and what their job description is. It involves a redefinition of what people are doing and trying to accomplish by 'going to the meeting', and how they go about it.

It's much more than just a change of venue. In fact, it's almost like a whole different approach to Christianity.

[n david]

No, the church is not in Babylon, but Babylon is in the church.
Not sure what congregation you attend, but Babylon is not in any congregation of which I've been a part.

....the structure of the churches, leads the way that people worship. Dividing the clergy from the laity. with very little participation from the audience. Very little fellowship with one another. Very little chance of using the 'gifts of the Spirit.” Just to mention a few.
Again, I haven't seen this in my congregation. People worship how they choose to worship from where I am. The structure of leadership doesn't control or lead how they do so at all.

We have a Pastor; we even have a youth minister and other ministry leaders, but there's no division such as you're trying to make. I'm aware that there are congregations whose Pastors fit themselves as kings - but they're truly few and far between.

You still haven't shown where Babylon is in Pentecostal or Apostolic churches.

[Ferd]

Ferd, they didn't go to the synagogues to have a worship service. they went to preach to sinners. They met in their homes.

Sister, I am all for home church where that fits the people involved. However, it is not entirely true that "they met in their homes".
Nor is it true that the Apostles went to synagogue to "preach to sinners."


What we know of home meetings was that this happened in Jerusalem. We have no record or what took place in other locations. We only know of the record in Acts concerning the church in Jerusalem.

We know that Paul established Bishops and decons in other locations. We know that James the brother of Jesus was at one point the head of all the Apostles. Thus we know they had church government and a hirarchy of leadership.

We also know of the many of the Apostles and early Christians that were from Jewish backgrounds, that they considered Christianity to be a sectof Judism. They went to Synagogue because that is what a Jewish person did. Now the Apostles certainly did contend for the faith in the synogogue but to suggest their only reason for going was to "preach to sinners" is absolutly incorrect according to the well established record.

[Aquila]

Here's my understanding of the following practices...



Learn the true origins of:

•The Mother and Child (PAGAN)
•The Mass (PAGAN)
•The Wafer (Eucharist) (CULTURAL INNOVATION)
•Purgatory (PAGAN)
•The Sovereign Pontiff (PAGAN)
•Prayers for the Dead (PAGAN)
•The Rosary (PAGAN)
•The Sign of the Cross (PAGAN)
•The Confessional (BIBLICAL ROOTS, MISSAPPLIED)
•Clothing and Crowning of Images (PAGAN)
•Priests, Monks, and Nuns (PAGAN)
•Relic Worship (PAGAN)
•Worship of the Sacred Heart (CULTURAL INNOVATION/PAGAN)
•Extreme Unction (BIBLICAL ROOTS, MISSAPPLIED)
•and much more! (MOSTLY PAGAN)

[n david]

As each man-made Denomination rose up out of the RCC, they walked in new light as far as the light shined, but kept many of the RCC rules and practices. Therefore all Christian Denominations still has some of Babylon in them
Pentecostals or Apostolics kept many RCC rules and practices? Such as?

As soft as Pentecost has become, and as much of the world that we have absorbed, I don't know what the Oneness Denominations will do, when it comes to JOIN or get everything taken away from you. Or JOIN or go to prison, or worse.
SMH

By finding what is Babylonish in the churches and return to the model of the early church.
I asked this before and haven't really received an answer. What is "Babylonish" about Pentecostal/Apostolic churches? Thus far you've been talking about the RCC/Catholic churches, which (as was previously stated) no one is leaving to join the Catholic church.

And what is the model of the early church you're speaking about? Don't say home churches, because that's not accurate.

[Ferd]

Prax asked why the early church met in homes, then suggests it was because it was impractical to do otherwise. This implies they would have immediately began construction of special buildings (synagogues?) if they had the opportunity.

I, however, would maintain they met in homes for a different reason. Namely, that it was natural for them to meet in one another's homes because of the nature of early new testament Christianity itself.

Obviously, there is disagreement as to the utility and expediency and appropriateness of house churches vs the church meeting in a building. But I do not think it can be denied that home meetings tend to be structured differently than 'in a building' meetings.

A lot of people seem to think that by promoting home meetings one is simply suggesting moving the existing church meeting from a special building into the living room. But that is not the case.

Meeting in the home involves a different approach to the nature, purpose, and the 'mechanics' of the meeting altogether. It involves getting rid of the 'platform/pulpit' approach. It often (though not always) involves a redefinition of the role of pastors and what their job description is. It involves a redefinition of what people are doing and trying to accomplish by 'going to the meeting', and how they go about it.

It's much more than just a change of venue. In fact, it's almost like a whole different approach to Christianity.

Esaias, the early church was not allowed by law in many instances to own property for the purpose of religious activity. Lets not forget that part. They did not live in America where any yahoo can gather some folk together and build a building and call it religious activity.


Secondly the Apostles in the aftermath of the Day of Pentecost, considered themselves to be Jewish first and Christianity was simply an extension of that. They didnt think there was any need to create a seperate meeting location apart from the rest of the jewish community. We see this played out in the various conflicts between Paul and Peter and the other early Jewish-Christians.

We do however know that during the 3rd century, Christians were taking over houses, and renovating them to be used as meeting places. We also know that even in the first generation, The established very clear (maybe more clear than we have today) lines of authority.

The Apostles picked one of their own to be their leader. James the brother of Jesus.

Paul established a clear hierarchy of leadership and we know from the earliest writtings that bishops were over-pastors to large areas. PAUL established this. Home churches were not autonomous works that were free to determine their own doctrine and practice.

Paul is quite clear that anyone stepping outside of the doctrinal teachings he had delivered were ANATHAMA (his word not mine).

[Esaias]

Esaias, the early church was not allowed by law in many instances to own property for the purpose of religious activity. Lets not forget that part. They did not live in America where any yahoo can gather some folk together and build a building and call it religious activity.

That is incorrect. There was no law prohibiting Christians from buying property and using it for religious meetings. I'd like to see some evidence of that. There was at one time a theory floating around which suggested that all religions in the Empire were 'licensed' (religio licita), and that Christianity was not licensed, therefore prohibited, but this theory has been proven false. It is based upon a misunderstanding of something Tertullian said.


Secondly the Apostles in the aftermath of the Day of Pentecost, considered themselves to be Jewish first and Christianity was simply an extension of that. They didnt think there was any need to create a seperate meeting location apart from the rest of the jewish community. We see this played out in the various conflicts between Paul and Peter and the other early Jewish-Christians.

There is nothing 'Jewish' about a family eating together. Nor is there anything 'Jewish' about having friends over for dinner. Yet that is the heart of the early Christian meetings, the Lord's Supper. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently 'Jewish' about having people over for dinner, to hear an exposition of some philosophical or religious topic, or to gather for prayers. These things have been done by most cultures everywhere in all times.



We do however know that during the 3rd century, Christians were taking over houses, and renovating them to be used as meeting places.

Also during the 3rd century, the apostacy that is known as 'catholicism' was taking over Christianity, bringing in the episcopal form of church government, Sunday-keeping as a form of 'replacement Sabbathism', the trinity, the construction of 'global church government', the priesthood (clergy/laity distinctions), the Mass, infant baptism, monastic orders, veneration of relics, veneration of the dead and of angels, veneration of images, and the old philosophical speculations and gnostic theories were becoming more in vogue. The order of worship was changing from the original apostolic order of assembly to a liturgical ritualism requiring implements and temples.

We also know that even in the first generation, The established very clear (maybe more clear than we have today) lines of authority.

The Apostles picked one of their own to be their leader. James the brother of Jesus.

Scripture for this election?

Paul established a clear hierarchy of leadership and we know from the earliest writtings that bishops were over-pastors to large areas. PAUL established this.

Bishops (overseers), elders, and 'pastors' are used synonymously. Each church had multiple elders once it reached maturity. Paul clearly stated that he had ZERO authority over any church not planted by him, and he established the procedure for eldership to replace him when he was finished with his life and ministry (no 'retirement' for him, by the way).

Home churches were not autonomous works that were free to determine their own doctrine and practice.

The local churches were autonomous but perhaps not in the sense you think. Nobody is 'free to determine their own doctrine and practice', yet it should be remembered when the church at Corinth strayed from correct doctrine and practice the apostolic response was not an assertion of denominational authority but rather CORRECT TEACHING. Paul exercised his authority as an apostle through TEACHING, 'winning hearts and minds', and urging the local church to correct errant individuals by excommunication, shunning, admonitions, reproofs, etc. The modern concept of 'church government' found in what are called 'institutional churches' are not the same as what is found in Scripture. Elders were specifically commanded to function NOT as 'lords', which is how episcopal 'bishops' and many modern Protestant 'pastors' and 'overseers' function, unfortunately.

Paul is quite clear that anyone stepping outside of the doctrinal teachings he had delivered were ANATHAMA (his word not mine).

Exactly. And he also warned everyone not to 'go beyond what is written'. :thumbsup

The idea that 'house churching' is an anarchistic rebellion against any and all authority or doctrinal orthodoxy is a straw man. Any group that wants to go THAT route isn't a church. but a heresy.

[Ferd]

Esaias, I have already stipulated in this thread that I have no problem with house church.

As a matter of fact, I have suggested to people on AFF right here that they needed to house church as they lived in a place where there wasnt a church they felt they could become a part of.

my issue with what has been presented is that the mode of church operation, that includes churches in large buildings with platforms etc. is somehow wrong.

[Esaias]

Regarding church buildings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_church_buildings

The oldest, first known 'church building' is the 'Duro-Europos' structure. The date of it's oldest part is 235 AD (3rd century). Interestingly, it is listed as a 'house church', meaning it was not a building constructed specifically as a 'christian temple'. It was a house which had a wall knocked down to make a larger 'living room', obviously to accomodate more people than would otherwise be comfortable. Interestingly, Hebrew parchment scrolls containing 'eucharistic prayers' were found on site, indicating the group meeting there spoke Hebrew. also interesting is that there was a synagogue unearthed in town also, and is one of the oldest known synagogues. Looks to me like some Jewish Christians were meeting in a home. Possibly they attempted to replicate a synagogue (the qahal, not the building itself).

So we see then that even in the early-mid 3rd century, Christians still uniformly met in one another's houses.

The next oldest 'church building' appears to be the so called 'Megiddo church', fund near Megisso, Israel. It appears this was a Roman building converted to a church at a later date. This building dates from the early 4th century (early 300s AD).

The big basilica in the Vatican was constructed around 330 AD. So from the oldest known actual church building (the Megiddo church, around 300-320 AD, to the 'St Peter's' basilica (seat of the pope of Rome), in around 330 AD, is about 30 years.

It should be obvious who was building these buildings - catholics.

[Esaias]

Esaias, I have already stipulated in this thread that I have no problem with house church.

As a matter of fact, I have suggested to people on AFF right here that they needed to house church as they lived in a place where there wasnt a church they felt they could become a part of.

Oh I understand. I'm just building my post count!

my issue with what has been presented is that the mode of church operation, that includes churches in large buildings with platforms etc. is somehow wrong.

I DO believe it is 'wrong' in the sense that it is a 'decline' from the original intent of the apostles, and also in the sense that it seems to have become somewhat 'fossilized', but that goes beyond the 'building' issue and into the whole 'how we do church' issue.

I do not condemn people because they prefer the current way of doing church.

If it works for you (or whoever), go for it!

Doesn't mean it's 'right', tho, either...

:heeheehee

[Ferd]

Regarding church buildings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_church_buildings

The oldest, first known 'church building' is the 'Duro-Europos' structure. The date of it's oldest part is 235 AD (3rd century). Interestingly, it is listed as a 'house church', meaning it was not a building constructed specifically as a 'christian temple'. It was a house which had a wall knocked down to make a larger 'living room', obviously to accomodate more people than would otherwise be comfortable. Interestingly, Hebrew parchment scrolls containing 'eucharistic prayers' were found on site, indicating the group meeting there spoke Hebrew. also interesting is that there was a synagogue unearthed in town also, and is one of the oldest known synagogues. Looks to me like some Jewish Christians were meeting in a home. Possibly they attempted to replicate a synagogue (the qahal, not the building itself).

So we see then that even in the early-mid 3rd century, Christians still uniformly met in one another's houses.

The next oldest 'church building' appears to be the so called 'Megiddo church', fund near Megisso, Israel. It appears this was a Roman building converted to a church at a later date. This building dates from the early 4th century (early 300s AD).

The big basilica in the Vatican was constructed around 330 AD. So from the oldest known actual church building (the Megiddo church, around 300-320 AD, to the 'St Peter's' basilica (seat of the pope of Rome), in around 330 AD, is about 30 years.

It should be obvious who was building these buildings - catholics.

You might also note that the "upper room" spoken of in Acts was in fact some synogogue.

dont forget that Acts records Paul preaching so long that someone fell out of a window high enough that he fell to his death. that indicates to me that the place was larger than someones house.

i still say that there is nothing that precludes having churches. I believe that where believers gather together, God shows up. I believe that we can have church in our homes or in gigantic buildings and God is pleased.

preaching can be done by a great orator from a pulpit, or it can be done sitting around a kitchen table or even quietly in a starbucks.

what matters is preaching the gospel and responding to it. period.

all this stuff is silliness. where? how? who? i dont think God cares or gets impressed.

[Esaias]

all this stuff is silliness. where? how? who? i dont think God cares or gets impressed.

That's the real heart of the issue.

Is there a Bible way to do 'church'?

Or should we each do whatever is good in our own eyes?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by renee819

That was my point. We are both right, you know. For a Christian meeting, in the Early Church, it didn't matter if it was a home, cave, woods etc, because Jesus no longer requires sacred buildings.

Temple worship should not be confused with Christian worship. They slaughtered animals and other things we don't do yet Hebrews still worshiped God outside of that temple.

God set the Tabernacle and then the Temple, as sacred buildings, and that controlled how the people worshiped.
It wasn't really the building that was sacred. What was sacred was the meeting of God with man there.

But Jesus did away with all of that when He told us, thru Paul, “God does not dwell in Temples made by hands.---ye are the temple of the living God.”
Right, yet the first Church regularly met in the temple.

And by Constantine building large so-called sacred buildings, this also controls how the people worship. And the Protestants carried thru with the same type.
No it doesn't. Constantine is dead. He has no control over me. Buildings aren't sacred. They are meeting places for the church to gather. The central church building is no more sacred than the Home that is turned into a central meeting place

You left out the context of what I said, “God commanded Moses to make the Tabernacle, even though they were in the wilderness, and He supplied gold, silver and precious stones to make what He commanded. Even while fighting many wars.
So?

And the Tabernacle controlled how the people worshiped, just as the Temples that the Christians took over and also that Constantine built, controlled how the Christians worshiped.
No it didn't. It was simply a part of their worship. Hebrews did not travel to the Temple once a week. They rarely traveled there at all for special holy days.

Constantine is dead, not that you ever presented evidence to support what he supposedly did.

I think you know the answer to that. God commanded them to build the Tabernacle and then the Temple, and they were sacred. As people scattered they built synagogues, which were also sacred.
Yet the bible never condemns the Synagogues as a central meeting location...no the synagogues were not sacred as far as I know

Today, after the cross,..
The met at the Temple. The met in Homes. They often met in one specific home that became their gathering place

Jesus could say very little about the Temple or synagogue, because He came to confirm the spirit of the Law, and to finish it, which was finished on the cross. Until the cross, they were still under the Law.
TO BE CONTINUED
That is not true. Jesus had 3 years to say "Synagogues are wrong. Worship in homes"

Any of God's prophets could have condemned Synagogues as a central meeting place. The Apostles could have condemned having a central meeting place dedicated to church activities.

They could have warned against using One persons house solely as the central meeting place but instead they commended then for doing that.

[Praxeas]

What is being recognized got to do with it? Neither were the Israelites recognized, but had to fight their way thru. And the Christians did own land, or they couldn't have been selling it in Acts 4 and 5.
We are talking about why it took them so long to begin building large buildings. They were NOT recognized as a valid legal religion under Roman Law until years later.

Go to China and see how hard it is to build a large structure and have services in it when your religion is not recognized

The Temple was built before Christ. If I remember my history, many, many years before, and Herod remodeled for them.
When it was build is irrelevant. We were discussing your claim about how the Jews all had money enough to build churches.

It takes a lot of money to BUY land from someone and build a church, not to mention if that land is owned by an Unbelieving Jew he would not sell it.

But that is irrelevant again as I pointed out the Christians were always persecuted. See what is going on in Egypt? They burn the Christian's buildings down.

And in Acts 4, when 5,000 was added to the church, it also tells us that they began to sell some of their property. It wasn't a requirement to sell, however, if it had been a requirement to have church buildings they could have taken that money and built some. Or they could have charged tithes
The church just started. It was barely days old and you expect them to start building projects already instead of evangelizing?

BTW Since nobody argued "It was a requirement to have church buildings", you are grasping at straws there. The topic is NOT our view that the bible teaches we MUST have a church building.

The topic is YOUR view we must not have church buildings.

But as I said before, the verses you posted proved the early church had one persons home as a permanent central meeting place

[n david]

Regarding church buildings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_church_buildings

The oldest, first known 'church building' is the 'Duro-Europos' structure. The date of it's oldest part is 235 AD (3rd century). Interestingly, it is listed as a 'house church', meaning it was not a building constructed specifically as a 'christian temple'. It was a house which had a wall knocked down to make a larger 'living room', obviously to accomodate more people than would otherwise be comfortable. Looks to me like some Jewish Christians were meeting in a home.

So we see then that even in the early-mid 3rd century, Christians still uniformly met in one another's houses.
From the Duro-Europos church link within your own link is this:

"The building consists of a house conjoined to a separate hall-like room, which functioned as the meeting room for the church."

Doesn't sound like this was a "house church" as you're trying to claim. They weren't meeting in the "living room" as you said above.

[Praxeas]

Prax asked why the early church met in homes, then suggests it was because it was impractical to do otherwise. This implies they would have immediately began construction of special buildings (synagogues?) if they had the opportunity.

I, however, would maintain they met in homes for a different reason. Namely, that it was natural for them to meet in one another's homes because of the nature of early new testament Christianity itself.

Obviously, there is disagreement as to the utility and expediency and appropriateness of house churches vs the church meeting in a building. But I do not think it can be denied that home meetings tend to be structured differently than 'in a building' meetings.

A lot of people seem to think that by promoting home meetings one is simply suggesting moving the existing church meeting from a special building into the living room. But that is not the case.

Meeting in the home involves a different approach to the nature, purpose, and the 'mechanics' of the meeting altogether. It involves getting rid of the 'platform/pulpit' approach. It often (though not always) involves a redefinition of the role of pastors and what their job description is. It involves a redefinition of what people are doing and trying to accomplish by 'going to the meeting', and how they go about it.

It's much more than just a change of venue. In fact, it's almost like a whole different approach to Christianity.
Except they DID meet in the Temple.

They met often in One person's home. Yes they transformed one persons home into a church.

There is nothing in the bible that supports your view that it was natural

but the fact is:

The church was just starting out and had they devoted all their time to raising money, buying land and construction they never would have spread the gospel

Smaller local churches made more sense since they did not have cars. When the bible says "4000 were added to the church" that does not mean all in one city. They were people from various locations that traveled back home afterwards

Christianity was illegal In the Roman empire.

Christianity was a persecuted religion by both Jews and Romans. They were forced to meet incognito as happens in other countries today

The fact is the bible never EVER gives instruction on what kind of building one can meet in

[houston]

Really, who cares??? If people want to meet in a million dollar building or in a 250K house.... Really not an issue.

What I don't understand is why this thread keeps going...

[Praxeas]

Regarding church buildings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_church_buildings

The oldest, first known 'church building' is the 'Duro-Europos' structure. The date of it's oldest part is 235 AD (3rd century). Interestingly, it is listed as a 'house church', meaning it was not a building constructed specifically as a 'christian temple'. It was a house which had a wall knocked down to make a larger 'living room', obviously to accomodate more people than would otherwise be comfortable. Interestingly, Hebrew parchment scrolls containing 'eucharistic prayers' were found on site, indicating the group meeting there spoke Hebrew. also interesting is that there was a synagogue unearthed in town also, and is one of the oldest known synagogues. Looks to me like some Jewish Christians were meeting in a home. Possibly they attempted to replicate a synagogue (the qahal, not the building itself).

So we see then that even in the early-mid 3rd century, Christians still uniformly met in one another's houses.

The next oldest 'church building' appears to be the so called 'Megiddo church', fund near Megisso, Israel. It appears this was a Roman building converted to a church at a later date. This building dates from the early 4th century (early 300s AD).

The big basilica in the Vatican was constructed around 330 AD. So from the oldest known actual church building (the Megiddo church, around 300-320 AD, to the 'St Peter's' basilica (seat of the pope of Rome), in around 330 AD, is about 30 years.

It should be obvious who was building these buildings - catholics.
I already posted this

The fact is though it was a central building designed as a meeting place. It USED to be someone's house

But as already pointed out earlier the bible shows us certain homes were turned into permanent meeting places.

This made perfect sense in a society where not everyone was a Christian and not everyone had transportation to far reaching areas.

Jews probably built synagogues in areas with large Jewish populations. And in fact before doing that they may have simply met in homes as I've seen Muslims and others do when they have smaller numbers

The oldest dated evidence of a synagogue is from the 3rd century bce, but synagogues doubtless have an older history. Some scholars think that the destruction of Solomon’s Temple in 586 bce gave rise to synagogues after private homes were temporarily used for public worship and religious instruction.

Other scholars trace the origin of synagogues to the Jewish custom of having representatives of communities outside Jerusalem (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/302812/Jerusalem) pray together during the two-week period when priestly representatives of their community attended ritual sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/302895/Temple-of-Jerusalem).
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578206/synagogue

[Praxeas]

That's the real heart of the issue.

Is there a Bible way to do 'church'?

Or should we each do whatever is good in our own eyes?
there is no bible "way" to construct or have a building. There IS a bible "way" to conduct meetings

[Praxeas]

Not having any new updates on your Lawnmower, we are bored :throwrock

[Esaias]

Except they DID meet in the Temple.

Evangelism.

They met often in One person's home. Yes they transformed one persons home into a church.

No they didn't. The homeowner knocked out a wall to allow for more members of the church to meet there, ie to allow for a larger church (ie MORE PEOPLE). They did not 'transform a house into a church'. lol

There is nothing in the bible that supports your view that it was natural

Jesus met in people's homes. The disciples met in one another's homes. The early church simply continued what Jesus had been doing. And I don't need the bible to tell me it is 'natural' to eat dinner with my family in our home, or that it is 'natural' for people to invite friends over for supper.

but the fact is:

The church was just starting out and had they devoted all their time to raising money, buying land and construction they never would have spread the gospel

Right. They also didn't pine away about 'some day we will be able to do what God wants us to do by buying land and building temples.' It simply wasn't part of their world view.

Smaller local churches made more sense since they did not have cars. When the bible says "4000 were added to the church" that does not mean all in one city. They were people from various locations that traveled back home afterwards

And?

Christianity was illegal In the Roman empire.

Wrong. 'Religio licita' is a disproven myth based on a misunderstanding of something Tertullian said.

Christianity was a persecuted religion by both Jews and Romans. They were forced to meet incognito as happens in other countries today

While it is true Christians were persecuted at various times, it was not 'outlawed' from day one. In fact, there never was a LAW outlawing Christianity in the Roman empire that i have been able to find, at least not prior to the Edict of Milan. I don't know if Julian the Apostate 'made a law' or if he just persecuted Christians but that's later anyways and irrelevant.

The apostles were repeatedly in public preaching. Evangelists preached publicly. They weren't 'in hiding' except during the several persecutions.

They did not meet in homes BECAUSE they were persecuted. The Romans viewed them as a sect of Judaism, which enjoyed special legal protections under Roman law.

They met in homes because they were the household of God, and were continuing the tradition established by Jesus and his original disciples - the original 'church'.

The fact is the bible never EVER gives instruction on what kind of building one can meet in

The issue isn't 'what kind of building can one meet in'. The issue is 'what is the church, and how should it meet?'

The apostasy known as catholicism brought in 'new theologies', and a new 'order of worship' (a new way to meet), and being made 'legitimate' by Constantine's approbation they needed temples to vie with the pagan religions.

The relics of those days are still with us in a stripped down 'reformed' version via the current understanding of the church, it's nature and mission, the order of worship, and the ever-present ongoing need for temples made with hands.

BTW, if you're happy with your version of church, more power to you. Many others however want something they feel is more Biblical, more apostolic, more in keeping with 'the blueprint' of the Bible.

:icecream

[Esaias]

From the Duro-Europos church link within your own link is this:



Doesn't sound like this was a "house church" as you're trying to claim. They weren't meeting in the "living room" as you said above.

If I knock out the wall in my hosue to make the living room bigger to accomodate more people, is my house still a house?

BTW, most houses back then did not have a 'lving room' as we often think of it, rather there was a 'main room' like a dining hall for entertaining guests (assuming the person wasn't poor living in a simple mud hut).

In any event, it was a house, the church met there, the house got too small, so rather than take up a collection and start a building fund to build a synagogue the people just knocked out a wall to make a bigger room for meetings to take place in.

Oh... and the evidence indicates these were 'proto-catholic Jewish Christians'. The secular world claims they were what would be known as 'Eastern Orthodox', as evidenced by the iconography present in the home.

So even if they were trying to go cheap on a new temple structure, it simply indicates the catholics wanted their buildings.

lol

[Praxeas]

Evangelism.
Act 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Act 3:1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time for prayer, at three o'clock in the afternoon.

No they didn't. The homeowner knocked out a wall to allow for more members of the church to meet there, ie to allow for a larger church (ie MORE PEOPLE). They did not 'transform a house into a church'. lolYes they DID. Knocking out the wall and using it for a church meeting place tranformed it from a home to a church meeting place ROFL. It clearly became a permanent central meeting place. Rather than just open up another home this home was turned into a church building

Jesus met in people's homesHe also met in the Temple and Synagogues

The disciples met in one another's homes.They also met in the Temple and Synagogues. You realize nobody denies they met in homes right? Nobody is arguing against meeting in homes so showing they met in homes is not proving anything to me

The early church simply continued what Jesus had been doing. You are assuming that. Jesus ALSO went to the temple AND to Synagogues

And I don't need the bible to tell me it is 'natural' to eat dinner with my family in our home, or that it is 'natural' for people to invite friends over for supper. We aren't talking about dinner. We are talking about gathering of the church

Right. They also didn't pine away about 'some day we will be able to do what God wants us to do by buying land and building temples.' It simply wasn't part of their world view.Strawman. Nobody argued it was God's will. The bible simply does not say WHERE the church can ONLY meet at (ie in homes). It's not US that is forming a teaching on this issue.

And?And they did not NEED large meeting places at first

Wrong. 'Religio licita' is a disproven myth based on a misunderstanding of something Tertullian said.http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/rome_and_christianity.htm

INTRODUCTION

Rome burned in July, A.D. 64. Needing a scapegoat, Emperor Nero blamed the Christians. Persecution began. From that time onward until the days of Constantine and A.D. 325, Christianity was an illegal religion. To complicate matters further, the Jewish rebellion against Rome was rising. Christianity’s connection with the Jews was well known, a fact which added to the guilt of every Christian in the eyes of the imperial authorities.
Paul was known widely as a leader of the Christians. When the Christians were branded as public enemies, Paul’s name would be first on the list for extermination. Nero’s administration would be aware of his long prison record—in Rome, Philippi, Caesarea, and elsewhere. It would not take them long to track him down and on a charge of sedition or treason get court orders for his execution.
The teacher's Bible commentary. 1972 (F. H. Paschall & H. H. Hobbs, Ed.) (766). Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers.

From Nero’s killing of Christians in Rome in A.D. 64 until 250, persecution of Christians was mostly local, including the persecutions of Hadrian (117–138) and Marcus Aurelius (176–180). The correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Roman emperor Trajan (111–112) shows that although Christianity was illegal, the law was not routinely enforced. After 250 the persecutions were empire-wide, with the objective of ridding the domain of all Christians; included were persecutions under Decius (250), Gallus (251–253), Valerian (257–260), and the extended persecution begun by Diocletian in 303. The accession of Constantine to a share of the throne in 306 (sole emperor in 323) marked the beginning of a new experience of toleration and even power for Christians in the Roman world
Myers, A. C. (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (814). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

The political charge was much more serious, because no Roman official wanted to be guilty of permitting illegal activities that would upset the “Pax Romana” (Roman Peace). Rome had given the Jews freedom to practice their religion, but the Roman officials kept their eyes on them lest they use their privileges to weaken the Empire. When Tertullus called Paul “an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the Roman Empire” (WUEST), he immediately got the attention of the governor. Of course, his statement was an exaggeration, but how many court cases have been won by somebody stretching the truth?
Tertullus knew that there was some basis for this charge because Paul had preached to the Jews that Jesus Christ was their King and Lord. To the Romans and the unbelieving Jews, this message sounded like treason against Caesar (Acts 16:20–21; 17:5–9). Furthermore, it was illegal to establish a new religion in Rome without the approval of the authorities. If Paul indeed was a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” then his enemies could easily build a case against him.
At that time, the Christian faith was still identified with the Jews, and they were permitted by the Romans to practice their religion. There had been Gentile seekers and God-fearers in the synagogues, so the presence of Gentiles in the churches did not create legal problems. Later, when the number of Gentile believers increased and more of the congregations separated from the Jewish synagogues, then Rome saw the difference between Jews and Christians and trouble began. Rome did not want a rival religion thriving in the Empire and creating problems.
Tertullus’ third accusation had to be handled with care because it implicated a Roman officer who had saved a man’s life. For the most part, Roman officials like Felix did not want anything to do with cases involving Jewish Law (John 18:28–31; Acts 16:35–40; 18:12–17). The fewer Jews who ended up in Roman courts, the better it would be for the Empire. Tertullus had to present this third charge in a way that made the Jews look good without making the Romans look too bad, and he did a good job.
To begin with, he softened the charge. The accusation given by the Asian Jews was that Paul had polluted the temple (Acts 21:28), but Tertullus said, “He even tried to profane the temple” (Acts 24:6, NKJV). Why the change? For at least two good reasons. To begin with, Paul’s accusers realized that the original charge could never be substantiated if the facts were investigated. But even more, the Asian Jews who started the story seemed to have vanished from the scene! If there were no witnesses, there could be no evidence or conviction.
When you compare Luke’s account of Paul’s arrest (Acts 21:27–40) with the captain’s account (Acts 23:25–30) and the lawyer’s account (Acts 24:6–8), you can well understand why judges and juries can get confused. Tertullus gave the impression that Paul had actually been guilty of profaning the temple, that the Jews had been within their rights in seizing him, and that the captain had stepped out of line by interfering. It was Claudius, not the Jews, who was guilty of treating a Roman citizen with violence! But Felix had the official letter before him and was more likely to believe his captain than a paid Hellenistic Jewish lawyer.
Tertullus knew that the Jews had authority from Rome to arrest and prosecute those who violated Jewish Law. True, the Romans thought that the Jews’ devotion to their traditions was excessive and superstitious; yet Rome wisely let them have their way. The Jews were even permitted to execute guilty offenders in capital cases, such as Paul’s “offense” of permitting Gentiles to cross the protective barricade in the temple (Acts 21:28–29). Tertullus argued that if Claudius had not interfered, the Jews would have tried Paul themselves, and this would have saved Felix and Rome a great deal of trouble and expense.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Ac 24:1). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

While it is true Christians were persecuted at various times, it was not 'outlawed' from day one. Never said that.

In fact, there never was a LAW outlawing Christianity in the Roman empire that i have been able to find, at least not prior to the Edict of MilanWhat did the Edict of Milan do?
I don't know if Julian the Apostate 'made a law' or if he just persecuted Christians but that's later anyways and irrelevant.


The apostles were repeatedly in public preaching. Evangelists preached publicly. They weren't 'in hiding' except during the several persecutions. They were persecuted even then. Please explain how someone goes about undertaking buying property and construction in an antagonistic society? You understand it had to be near impossible to do right? Buildings get vandalized and burned down.

BTW Many local congregations don't have their own building and met where ever there is a place available. It could be houses or a meeting hall they rent. They don't do that because they feel it's against God's will to have a building.

In my area it's near impossible to buy land and build not just because of the cost but because of the government.

Second, there is very little land left that isn't reserved for farming or owned by a developer

Why does the first church have to be any different? They had to deal with a Jewish majority that has proven antagonistic and in some cases they were killed

And they had to deal with the Roman bureaucracy.


They did not meet in homes BECAUSE they were persecuted. The Romans viewed them as a sect of Judaism, which enjoyed special legal protections under Roman law.I think they did, at least for a while it contributed to why they did not build special building that stood out as their meeting place

We already established that the persecution by Jews and Rome had nothing to do with Christianity not being a recognized religion

They met in homes because they were the household of God, and were continuing the tradition established by Jesus and his original disciples - the original 'church'.What does THEY being the household of God have to do with meeting in homes?

Jesus ALSO went to temple and Synagogues. We meet in homes too and do what Jesus did. We have bible studies and we eat food. But guess what? We also meet at restaurants and coffee shops...you think maybe they did not because it was against God's will or maybe because there was not a Denny's on every corner then?

The issue isn't 'what kind of building can one meet in'. The issue is 'what is the church, and how should it meet?'Yes it is what kind of building. Homes vs a building constructed for meetings. That is EXACTLY what the issue is

The apostasy known as catholicism brought in 'new theologies', and a new 'order of worship' (a new way to meet), and being made 'legitimate' by Constantine's approbation they needed temples to vie with the pagan religions.So having a building made for meetings is Pagan?

The relics of those days are still with us in a stripped down 'reformed' version via the current understanding of the church, it's nature and mission, the order of worship, and the ever-present ongoing need for temples made with hands.

BTW, if you're happy with your version of church, more power to you. Many others however want something they feel is more Biblical, more apostolic, more in keeping with 'the blueprint' of the Bible.

:icecreamExcept that those with your desire are NOT simply content to do what you believe is "more biblical"...right? That is why these last two threads were started. It was aimed AT those that don't believe the bible ordains churches can only meet in homes..

[Praxeas]

If I knock out the wall in my hosue to make the living room bigger to accomodate more people, is my house still a house?

BTW, most houses back then did not have a 'lving room' as we often think of it, rather there was a 'main room' like a dining hall for entertaining guests (assuming the person wasn't poor living in a simple mud hut).

In any event, it was a house, the church met there, the house got too small, so rather than take up a collection and start a building fund to build a synagogue the people just knocked out a wall to make a bigger room for meetings to take place in.

Oh... and the evidence indicates these were 'proto-catholic Jewish Christians'. The secular world claims they were what would be known as 'Eastern Orthodox', as evidenced by the iconography present in the home.

So even if they were trying to go cheap on a new temple structure, it simply indicates the catholics wanted their buildings.

lol
Your house is a house that is being used as a church meeting place.

And if it becomes a permanent meeting place then YES it has been transformed into a church building especially by the modifications made

BTW that church in Dura-Europos church also had a baptistry

The church is profusely decorated with frescoes commemorating OT and NT themes. A large baptistry, a chapel, a courtyard, and a large room with what appears to be a pulpit are contained within its walls.

. Vol. 1: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. 1979–1988 (G. W. Bromiley, Ed.) (998). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

[renee819]

I know, I'm not making any points here. But I'm not interested in making points to sacrifice truth.

N David wrote,
And what is the model of the early church you're speaking about? Don't say home churches, because that's not accurate.

David, where is the proof, that, that is not accurate. The first recorded use of the word 'ekkesia' to refer to a Christian meeting place. Was penned around AD 190 by Clement of Alexandria.

Renee wrote
Where did Christians meet?

Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

1 Corinthians 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.

They saw themselves as family, and acted like it. In most large churches, unless you are in the ministry or worship team, people don't even know or barely know one another.

Galatians 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
:2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
1 Corinthians 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

Granted this would take a different kind of Ekkleisa, than any of us are used to. Even though I know that this is right, I would have a hard time with it. But isn't that, what the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers and Pastors are for? To perfect the saints for the work of the ministry. To minister to one another? Or to pay a Pastor to do it all? And when he gets burned out, get another one?

We have all been taught to be individualistic, I'm one of the worst. Can you imagine living in such a way, that each member knew the other intimately, warts and all, and yet LOVED each other? This would take a lot more doing, than DOING CHURCH.

This could only happen with people, FULL of the Holy Ghost. And willing to learn to love with unfeigned love. Because if Jesus is the HEAD, and they are being led by the Holy Ghost, it is the Holy Ghost that gives us love. We have some natural love, and at times we feel agape love, but the majority of us, know that when the Pastor says, “Shake hands and greet each other,” it is just an excuse of habit, standing in the place of real love.

I'm not talking about any kind of commune. People have to live a normal life while learning to care deeply and yet live and let live.

I believe that God is speaking to a lot of people to make just such a change. And that is why, even on this site, we see so much dissatisfaction. As long as people are satisfied, they will not make a change. Others are so entrenched in Religious practices, that they also will not make a change.

I believe that God is preparing a group of people for the Religious Persecution, that is just ahead. Don't let anyone tell you that Jesus will come and get us out of here before the Persecution. There is not one scripture for that in the Bible.

[Esaias]

Your house is a house that is being used as a church meeting place.

And if it becomes a permanent meeting place then YES it has been transformed into a church building especially by the modifications made

Ah, but you said it had been 'transformed into a church'. Period. Full stop. lol

BTW that church in Dura-Europos church also had a baptistry

So? Any church that has any sense would make sure there was water for baptisms. If there was no river immediately nearby, then of course they would have a 'baptistry'. It was probably the bathtub, anyway. (yes, yes, I'm being facetious about that. I am not sure how common 'bathtubs' were in ancient Syria. Although if it was the house of a relatively well to do person it may indeed have had a 'bath'... which would be used to baptise people...Keep in mind the iconography found in the house. This wasn't an 'apostolic' church anyway, it seems to have been a proto-catholic church.

The church is profusely decorated with frescoes commemorating OT and NT themes. A large baptistry, a chapel, a courtyard, and a large room with what appears to be a pulpit are contained within its walls.

Uh, yeah... so it's a house, with a bath, a prayer room, a courtyard (???!!!), and a large dining hall with what... a stand? Made of wood? Perhaps it was an altar... this was, after all, a catholic type group...

My entire point is that this was a proto-catholic (Syriac? Byzantine?) type of group, who began to renovate the house sometime around the early 3rd century. THIRD CENTURY, Prax. Within about 50 years of this building 'churches' so called would spring up all over the empire, used by BISHOPS of a sacerdotal priesthood, replete with sacraments, relics, popes, and so forth.

It was the catholics who began the 'church buildings' thing, not the apostles.

[Praxeas]

I know, I'm not making any points here. But I'm not interested in making points to sacrifice truth.

N David wrote,
.
David, where is the proof, that, that is not accurate. The first recorded use of the word 'ekkesia' to refer to a Christian meeting place. Was penned around AD 190 by Clement of Alexandria.

What does that have to do with the assertion that HOME churches form the basis of a biblical model of how church meetings should be done? Honestly I don't see how that is relevant at all

They saw themselves as family, and acted like it. In most large churches, unless you are in the ministry or worship team, people don't even know or barely know one another.
So now the topic isn't home churches it's LARGE congregations?

Hey, sign me up. I don't personally believe in large congregations. I believe churches should reach a minimum if possible and then sprout a new work in another part of town if possible.

But that and the argument about house churches are not the same

Granted this would take a different kind of Ekkleisa, than any of us are used to. Even though I know that this is right, I would have a hard time with it. But isn't that, what the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers and Pastors are for? To perfect the saints for the work of the ministry. To minister to one another? Or to pay a Pastor to do it all? And when he gets burned out, get another one?
What does that have to do with church buildings?

We have all been taught to be individualistic, I'm one of the worst. Can you imagine living in such a way, that each member knew the other intimately, warts and all, and yet LOVED each other? This would take a lot more doing, than DOING CHURCH.

Christians met in the temple in Jerusalem. That shows they simply met where ever they could. And if all they had was a house they met there just as we do today.

And as I said the last couple times, your verses PROVE they had a permanent place to meet, in one person's home. For all intents and purposes that was a church building.

We also teach from house to house. That is how we evangelize and teach.

But even in the church then, not everyone locally can fit in one house. So the had multiple houses with multiple congregations...do you think they ALL knew each other?

How do you think Paul would have met with all the local congregations if he was short on time?

Many places had large upper rooms that could be rented for meetings or weddings etc etc

People try to compare what it was like to today. It just can't be done. Many customs they had were not because the bible commanded it.

This could only happen with people, FULL of the Holy Ghost. And willing to learn to love with unfeigned love. Because if Jesus is the HEAD, and they are being led by the Holy Ghost, it is the Holy Ghost that gives us love. We have some natural love, and at times we feel agape love, but the majority of us, know that when the Pastor says, “Shake hands and greet each other,” it is just an excuse of habit, standing in the place of real love.[/QUOTE]
That is your opinion not a fact. You don't KNOW that. You SUSPECT that

[QUOTE]I'm not talking about any kind of commune. People have to live a normal life while learning to care deeply and yet live and let live.
You can be in a large church and have that. Most large churches have small groups

I believe that God is speaking to a lot of people to make just such a change. And that is why, even on this site, we see so much dissatisfaction. As long as people are satisfied, they will not make a change. Others are so entrenched in Religious practices, that they also will not make a change.
people being dissatisfied may not have anything at all to do with God speaking to people.

I believe that God is preparing a group of people for the Religious Persecution, that is just ahead. Don't let anyone tell you that Jesus will come and get us out of here before the Persecution. There is not one scripture for that in the Bible.
What does that have to do with home churches?

[Praxeas]

Ah, but you said it had been 'transformed into a church'. Period. Full stop. lol

It HAD rofl. Yes it had been transformed into a church. What do you think that means?

So? Any church that has any sense would make sure there was water for baptisms.
So it was a church now? So now you agree it was not just a home but had been transformed into a church building?

If there was no river immediately nearby, then of course they would have a 'baptistry'.
So they BUILT a baptistry INTO the building? Sure sounds like there was a transformation going on


It was probably the bathtub, anyway. (yes, yes, I'm being facetious about that. I am not sure how common 'bathtubs' were in ancient Syria. Although if it was the house of a relatively well to do person it may indeed have had a 'bath'... which would be used to baptise people...Keep in mind the iconography found in the house. This wasn't an 'apostolic' church anyway, it seems to have been a proto-catholic church.
This was the building YOU were referring to. The one you denied was transformed INTO a church building.

This was BEFORE Constantine supposedly brought in the idea of having church buildings

Uh, yeah... so it's a house, with a bath, a prayer room, a courtyard (???!!!), and a large dining hall with what... a stand? Made of wood? Perhaps it was an altar... this was, after all, a catholic type group...
It's a house that has been transformed INTO a church building...a building for the church to meet in.

My entire point is that this was a proto-catholic (Syriac? Byzantine?) type of group, who began to renovate the house sometime around the early 3rd century.
So now you AGREE the house was transformed (renovated) INTO a church building?

THIRD CENTURY, Prax. Within about 50 years of this building 'churches' so called would spring up all over the empire, used by BISHOPS of a sacerdotal priesthood, replete with sacraments, relics, popes, and so forth.
BEFORE Constantine supposedly introduced paganism into the church according to Renee

BTW this is merely what we've discovered and survived antiquity. As I pointed out the bible supports that there was often one single house that was used as a church meeting place

It was the catholics who began the 'church buildings' thing, not the apostles.
What catholics? What is a catholic? How do you prove that it was "the catholics" that converted this building?

That seems like a circular argument

[shag]

My local church just burnt $50,000 on better carpet and a few things... It was decided by our leader, and he let the congregation know what was going to happen,( no church voting)Now and then I hear the butchering, I mean preaching, of 1 Cor. 16 into taking up offering to keep the lights on and pay for bldg "necessities" (and unnecessities), when contextually they were actually giving offering to the poor and needy Jerusulem saints in the famine, prophesied also by Agabus, in 1 Cor.16.

They were taking care of the house of God, the real (NT)Gods House, the church :D
Us, well..??






not saying this is exactly the discussion at hand here.. Just reminds me that church bldgs wherever they meet, like anything can get waaaay outa hand concerning wasted money put into them, while there's a much better investment to be made, the poor needy etc... Not saying the poor aren't given too in fancy bldg settings, just that obviously the focus area is not what it could/should be, when folks are trying to keep up w having a fancy bldg.


carry on...

[Esaias]

It HAD rofl. Yes it had been transformed into a church. What do you think that means?

I dunno. What is the meaning of the word 'church'? lol


So it was a church now? So now you agree it was not just a home but had been transformed into a church building?


So they BUILT a baptistry INTO the building? Sure sounds like there was a transformation going on



This was the building YOU were referring to. The one you denied was transformed INTO a church building.

This was BEFORE Constantine supposedly brought in the idea of having church buildings

*I* never claimed Constantine 'brought in the idea of having church buildings'. In fact I have pointed out church buildings were being built PRIOR to Constantine.


It's a house that has been transformed INTO a church building...a building for the church to meet in.

So now you AGREE the house was transformed (renovated) INTO a church building?

I agree the house was used for meetings. I agree renovations were made to the house to accomodate those meetings.

I have never been against THAT. I believe houses should still be used for meetings. And, yes, gasp, lo and behold, I would welcome and encourage a 'house church' to make sure they have a batpistry available (either a garden tub, a swimming pool, or a watering trough if necessary) if there isn;t a close by source of water like a river or lake or pond.

I would NOT like to see 'frescoes' or icons on the walls, 'pulpits' or 'altars', bowls of holy water, candelabras and incense burners, statues of dead 'saints', any dead saint's bones or remains (relics) on display, wafers, teachers wearing funny looking robes, etc etc etc. :thumbsup


BTW this is merely what we've discovered and survived antiquity. As I pointed out the bible supports that there was often one single house that was used as a church meeting place

What do you mean 'ONE single house'? Not sure what the point of that is... seems the Bible also only recognizes one church in any city, even though there may be more than one 'meeting' going on (in different houses)...


What catholics? What is a catholic? How do you prove that it was "the catholics" that converted this building?

I did not 'prove', I do however suspect, the building was used by catholics. Not 'roman catholics', mind you, but 'catholics'. The frescoes on the walls are to me a big give away, indicating early iconography - a hallmark of eastern catholicism. The 'pulpit' so called (I supsect it may have been an altar) is another - if it was in fact an altar, that would seal the deal, for me anyway.


That seems like a circular argument

How so? The argument is 'earliest church buildings appear to be catholic in usage, suitable to catholic order of worship. The earliest church buildings are found at the same time as the rise of catholicism, some 150-200 years after the apostles. Therefore, church buildings were introduced by catholics, not the apostles.'

My premises do not assume the conclusion, therefore it is not circular.

[Praxeas]

Lots of local churches have the means of raising money for the poor...unless of course your church IS the poor.

[Esaias]

And this peanut brittle thing... absolute heresy, I tell you!

Peanut brittle should be FREEEEEEEE!

[Ferd]

That's the real heart of the issue.

Is there a Bible way to do 'church'?

Or should we each do whatever is good in our own eyes?

Get the message right. The rest is fluff

[Praxeas]

Mmmmmmm...Peanut Brittle

[renee819]

Get the message right. The rest is fluff

AMEN----But you might have to get rid of the FLUFF---for the message to come thru.

For you that are satisfied where you are----stay where you are.

I see many dissatisfied, Holy Ghost filled, hurting people, that are still hungry for fellowship and the word of God. For you, I believe there is an alternative, which if you can find it or start a house church, going by the Word, not another baby church, with some of the same FLUFFF, but letting the Holy Ghost lead.

And you may end up more in the will of God, than you ever were before.

[n david]

In any event, it was a house, the church met there, the house got too small, so rather than take up a collection and start a building fund to build a synagogue the people just knocked out a wall to make a bigger room for meetings to take place in.
As has been noted, Christianity was not a legal religion until the 4th century. Therefore, they had to meet in homes.

What you, renee and others claim is that the people met in homes and if they were too small, they just knocked out a wall to make it bigger; but it was primarily a home where people would live. The fact that people met for worship was just secondary.

However, according to everything you can read about Dura-Europos, that is incorrect. Yes, there was indeed a home with other rooms laid out around a central courtyard. But this was not primarily a home where people just met in a "living room" as you say. This was a home with rooms built around it primarily for religious functions. They built a baptistry and had paintings and religious decor. This was a place that was once a home, but was renovated into the first church building.

The building consists of a house conjoined to a separate hall-like room, which functioned as the meeting room for the church. The surviving frescoes of the room serving as the baptistry are probably the most ancient Christian paintings. We can see the "Good Shepherd" (this iconography had a very long history in the Classical world), the "Healing of the paralytic" and "Christ and Peter walking on the water". These are considered the earliest depictions of Jesus Christ.[2]

From Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture: “Inconspicuousness was both prudent and ideologically desirable for Christianity, and could be best achieved behind the façade of domestic middle-class architecture.”

They saw themselves as family, and acted like it. In most large churches, unless you are in the ministry or worship team, people don't even know or barely know one another.
That's not always the case with large churches, it's completely up to each individual whether they know others or not. I haven't been part of any real large or mega churches, but I've spoken with people who are part of them, and have mentioned this allegation that large/mega churches don't allow for closeness or people getting to know each other and they've said it's largely a myth; that it depends upon the individuals.

The church I'm with now is around 90-100 people, it's not a big church. Yet there are some people who have been coming for a long time who arrive right when the service starts and leave immediately after the message is done. I haven't been able to really meet them or get to know them -- and it's their fault. So this thing about large/mega churches vs small/house churches is not accurate.

[MarieA27]

If I knock out the wall in my hosue to make the living room bigger to accomodate more people, is my house still a house?

BTW, most houses back then did not have a 'lving room' as we often think of it, rather there was a 'main room' like a dining hall for entertaining guests (assuming the person wasn't poor living in a simple mud hut).

In any event, it was a house, the church met there, the house got too small, so rather than take up a collection and start a building fund to build a synagogue the people just knocked out a wall to make a bigger room for meetings to take place in.

Oh... and the evidence indicates these were 'proto-catholic Jewish Christians'. The secular world claims they were what would be known as 'Eastern Orthodox', as evidenced by the iconography present in the home.

So even if they were trying to go cheap on a new temple structure, it simply indicates the catholics wanted their buildings.

lol

So I just have a question. If you have a city, where there are 500-1000 church members in that city, that live anywhere from the outskirts to the middle of the city, what do you do? Is it alright to build a "church" building then to accommodate all the members? Do you split the people up, and they all have separate meetings in several homes of the members, instead of coming all together as one and unified? Do you think that if the apostles were here today, do you think that they would have a building built to accommodate a big and growing church, as well as having it built so that they can bring in new members, and for a place for the new members to go to?

By having and using "only" homes, or something small or similar in this day and age as a meeting place stunts growth, and it seems to me that it mostly serves to keep the church small, especially if people only really know about the place, is if they are given some type of invite.

I don't have any thing against meeting in homes or such, if the number of church members is small. But trying to say that we should only, or mainly meet in places where there can't be a big gathering, kind of defeats the purpose, if that purpose is to try and reach and save as many souls as possible, and to edify the saints as one unified whole, instead of branching everyone into these small individual sects...

[Praxeas]

AMEN----But you might have to get rid of the FLUFF---for the message to come thru.

Let's see...Lead the way. Start a home church and evangelize the world. As my friend said recently to someone else who was criticizing others.. "Lead the way"

For you that are satisfied where you are----stay where you are.
Im not trying to be flippant here but honestly I don't need anyone's approval after all I AM satisfied

I see many dissatisfied, Holy Ghost filled, hurting people, that are still hungry for fellowship and the word of God.
And abandoning a building for someone's home will turn them into non hurting people? I find that people are often "hurting" for MANY reasons not having to do with the type of building or size of the congregation. People will always be hurt for various reasons. Often they are dissatisfied because of their own expectations they place on others and when others don't live up to their standard of expectations they are unhapppy.


For you, I believe there is an alternative, which if you can find it or start a house church, going by the Word, not another baby church, with some of the same FLUFFF, but letting the Holy Ghost lead.
Why can't the Holy Ghost "lead" in a building that is not someone's house? Why does someone have to sleep in a building in order for God to lead?

And you may end up more in the will of God, than you ever were before.

Or you may just believe you are more in the will than before

[Praxeas]

So I just have a question. If you have a city, where there are 500-1000 church members in that city, that live anywhere from the outskirts to the middle of the city, what do you do? Is it alright to build a "church" building then to accommodate all the members? Do you split the people up, and they all have separate meetings in several homes of the members, instead of coming all together as one and unified? Do you think that if the apostles were here today, do you think that they would have a building built to accommodate a big and growing church, as well as having it built so that they can bring in new members, and for a place for the new members to go to?

By having and using "only" homes, or something small or similar in this day and age as a meeting place stunts growth, and it seems to me that it mostly serves to keep the church small, especially if people only really know about the place, is if they are given some type of invite.

I don't have any thing against meeting in homes or such, if the number of church members is small. But trying to say that we should only, or mainly meet in places where there can't be a big gathering, kind of defeats the purpose, if that purpose is to try and reach and save as many souls as possible, and to edify the saints as one unified whole, instead of branching everyone into these small individual sects...
Split them up onto really small congregations...

[Esaias]

So I just have a question. If you have a city, where there are 500-1000 church members in that city, that live anywhere from the outskirts to the middle of the city, what do you do? Is it alright to build a "church" building then to accommodate all the members? Do you split the people up, and they all have separate meetings in several homes of the members, instead of coming all together as one and unified? Do you think that if the apostles were here today, do you think that they would have a building built to accommodate a big and growing church, as well as having it built so that they can bring in new members, and for a place for the new members to go to?

By having and using "only" homes, or something small or similar in this day and age as a meeting place stunts growth, and it seems to me that it mostly serves to keep the church small, especially if people only really know about the place, is if they are given some type of invite.

I don't have any thing against meeting in homes or such, if the number of church members is small. But trying to say that we should only, or mainly meet in places where there can't be a big gathering, kind of defeats the purpose, if that purpose is to try and reach and save as many souls as possible, and to edify the saints as one unified whole, instead of branching everyone into these small individual sects...

The early church met in one another's homes. One church in the city, meeting in each other's homes. Multiple meetings at multiple locations, yet one church.

[Esaias]

Also, Marie, notice : you seem to be thinking that church growth has to do with having big gatherings where everyone can come together.

Biblically, church growth is due to preachers going into the highways and byways and preaching the gospel to the lost. A 'go to them' approach, instead of an 'invite them to come to us' approach.

I do not understand how multiple meetings in multiple homes would prevent the saints being unified as a whole. Did the early church have that problem? Do we know better than they did how to 'do church'?

Maybe they were doing it the right way, and it is we that have gone astray from the pattern God intended, not the other way around?

[Praxeas]

The early church met in one another's homes. One church in the city, meeting in each other's homes. Multiple meetings at multiple locations, yet one church.
As I pointed out three times now that is not always the case. It appears often one person's home served as a permanent location for the church to meet

[Praxeas]

Also, Marie, notice : you seem to be thinking that church growth has to do with having big gatherings where everyone can come together.

Biblically, church growth is due to preachers going into the highways and byways and preaching the gospel to the lost. A 'go to them' approach, instead of an 'invite them to come to us' approach.

I do not understand how multiple meetings in multiple homes would prevent the saints being unified as a whole. Did the early church have that problem? Do we know better than they did how to 'do church'?

Maybe they were doing it the right way, and it is we that have gone astray from the pattern God intended, not the other way around?
The bible speaks about the church being gathered together and unbelievers being there

[Esaias]

The bible speaks about the church being gathered together and unbelievers being there

Of course. Which is why I am generally leaning towards open communion as biblically correct as opposed to closed communion.

But it doesn't change the fact the primary evangelistic method is supposed to be active not passive.

[Esaias]

As I pointed out three times now that is not always the case. It appears often one person's home served as a permanent location for the church to meet

I don't see how what either of said contradicts the other????

[Aquila]

I believe that we can come out of Babylon by trying to drop man made traditions and doctrines of men.

In addition, we can begin to see church more like a family than a "non-prophet corporation" with "members".

[Esaias]

As has been noted, Christianity was not a legal religion until the 4th century. Therefore, they had to meet in homes.

As has been noted, this premise is historically incorrect.

What you, renee and others claim is that the people met in homes and if they were too small, they just knocked out a wall to make it bigger; but it was primarily a home where people would live. The fact that people met for worship was just secondary.

However, according to everything you can read about Dura-Europos, that is incorrect. Yes, there was indeed a home with other rooms laid out around a central courtyard. But this was not primarily a home where people just met in a "living room" as you say. This was a home with rooms built around it primarily for religious functions. They built a baptistry and had paintings and religious decor. This was a place that was once a home, but was renovated into the first church building.

Which bolsters my theory it was the first catholic temp- er, I mean church building.



That's not always the case with large churches, it's completely up to each individual whether they know others or not. I haven't been part of any real large or mega churches, but I've spoken with people who are part of them, and have mentioned this allegation that large/mega churches don't allow for closeness or people getting to know each other and they've said it's largely a myth; that it depends upon the individuals.

The church I'm with now is around 90-100 people, it's not a big church. Yet there are some people who have been coming for a long time who arrive right when the service starts and leave immediately after the message is done. I haven't been able to really meet them or get to know them -- and it's their fault. So this thing about large/mega churches vs small/house churches is not accurate.

Actually, not quite. In a 'house church' you pretty much cannot BUT 'get to know' one another. Accountability is a key aspect. It is possible to 'blend in and disappear' in a typical institutional church setting, including a small (5-10 people) congregation. Accountability is much harder to establish and maintain in a setting where the order of worship is more of a 'spectator sport'.

Keep in mind something here - a congregation will only be what the congregation works to be. A house church can fail miserably. So can a traditional church. A house church can succeed. A traditional church can succeed (within the limiting parameters of it's system) as well.

I however believe the apostolic, house church approach is more biblical, and more conducive or more 'expedient' to accomplishing the stated (biblical) goals of the church than the traditional approach. There are problems with the traditional approach that simply don't exist (or are mitigated immensely) by a proper, biblical house church approach.

Biblical house churches, of course, have their own set of problems. Problems that quite honestly are often (if at all!) not apparent in a traditional church.

Those of us moving towards a more biblical, apostolic house church approach usually see those problems as welcome challenges which give God's grace an opportunity to give us spiritual growth that otherwise we would not find in a traditional, 'modern' environment.

Also, this isn't just about 'where to meet'. As I have said several times, it's about 'how and why' to meet more so than just where. I believe a house setting is more conducive to accomplishing the how and why than an institutional, traditional, or 'modern' setting provides.

[navygoat1998]

Its about time for me to get ready to go to the house of the Lord. :happydance

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go into the house of the Lord.” :heeheehee

Don't have to go but want to go.

[Praxeas]

Of course. Which is why I am generally leaning towards open communion as biblically correct as opposed to closed communion.

But it doesn't change the fact the primary evangelistic method is supposed to be active not passive.
Inviting people to church is active not passive.

Not sure how this relates to whether someone is sleeping in the church building or not :heeheehee

[Praxeas]

I don't see how what either of said contradicts the other????
You said house to house and clearly it was often one permanent location

BTW any one have an idea as to why one house was always used?

[Praxeas]

As has been noted, this premise is historically incorrect.
Proof?

[Timmy]

How can we come out of Babylon?

Tomtom?

[Esaias]

Proof?

Ah, you guys have been making the assertion that Christianity was an 'illegal religion', so... proof?

lol

Seriously, where is the proof that Christianity was an 'illegal religion' and therefore they had to meet in one another's homes for fear of being ... what, arrested?

I am not saying there never was persecution, but there was no Roman law that made Christianity illegal (at least not prior to the Edict of Milan). I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

BTW, I already stated, this mistaken idea is due to a misunderstanding of a statement made by Tertullian.

[Esaias]

You said house to house and clearly it was often one permanent location

BTW any one have an idea as to why one house was always used?

I must have missed your post where you showed how in the bible they always met in ONE house, and how 'clearly it was often one permanent location'...

[Praxeas]

Tomtom?
Gumgum dumdum

[Praxeas]

I must have missed your post where you showed how in the bible they always met in ONE house, and how 'clearly it was often one permanent location'...
"Always" should be "often"

So any ideas?

[Praxeas]

I believe that we can come out of Babylon by trying to drop man made traditions and doctrines of men.

In addition, we can begin to see church more like a family than a "non-prophet corporation" with "members".
Lead the way. BTW what is Babylon according to the bible?

[Praxeas]

Ah, you guys have been making the assertion that Christianity was an 'illegal religion', so... proof?

I already did that

I am not saying there never was persecution, but there was no Roman law that made Christianity illegal (at least not prior to the Edict of Milan). I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong.I asked once before, what did the edict do? What is an edict?

BTW, I already stated, this mistaken idea is due to a misunderstanding of a statement made by Tertullianand Im waiting for proof of that

[Timmy]

Gumgum dumdum

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9p96hnQVc1qgy3iwo1_500.gif

[Esaias]

I already did that

I missed it, I'll go back and check.

I asked once before, what did the edict do? What is an edict?

Again, don't remember you asking about the Edict. I thought you knew what it was? I was using it as a benchmark for time dating purposes. The Edict itself provided for an end to persecution of Christians.

and Im waiting for proof of that

I'm waiting for proof Christianity was 'illegal' under Roman law.

;)

[Praxeas]

I missed it, I'll go back and check.



Again, don't remember you asking about the Edict. I thought you knew what it was? I was using it as a benchmark for time dating purposes. The Edict itself provided for an end to persecution of Christians.

So an EDICT is a law?


I'm waiting for proof Christianity was 'illegal' under Roman law.
I already posted the references. When will you post yours for it being a myth based on what Tertullian said?

[Esaias]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/rome_and_christianity.htm

From that time onward until the days of Constantine and A.D. 325, Christianity was an illegal religion.

...


[LEFT]The teacher's Bible commentary. 1972 (F. H. Paschall & H. H. Hobbs, Ed.) (766). Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers.

The correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Roman emperor Trajan (111–112) shows that although Christianity was illegal, the law was not routinely enforced.

...

Myers, A. C. (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary (814). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Furthermore, it was illegal to establish a new religion in Rome without the approval of the authorities.

Interesting claims.

"Philip Francis Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke–Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1989, 1996), p. 211, begins his analysis of the religio licita theory "by immediately scotching the idea that Rome had some process for licensing foreign religions. There is no historical support for this whatsoever; … there never was a juridical category of religio licita." See also Rüpke, Religion of the Romans, p. 35; Solomon Grayzel, "The Jews and Roman Law," Jewish Quarterly Review, 59 (1968), pp. 93-117; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 542; John J. O'Keefe, entry on "Religio licita," in A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 371." (from the wikipedia article on 'religio licita', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio_licita#cite_note-4 )

Tertullian's statement - CHAP. XXI. But since we have stated that this sect is supported by most ancient Jewish documents, though very many know on our own declaration also that it is comparatively new, belonging as it does to the time of Tiberius, perchance on this ground a further inquiry may be made into its nature, viz. that it conceals some of its own arrogance under the shadow of a most famous religion, or one that is at any rate permitted by law, or because in addition to the question of its age we have no relation with the Jews either with regard to distinctions of meats, or the sanctity of special days or the distinctive bodily mark itself or the sharing of the name with them, which would of course be our duty if we were the property of the same god. Even the common people now know Christ as a human being, such as the Jews judged him (to be), so that it is easier for any one to believe that we are worshippers of a man.

From Apologetic, ch21:1. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/mayor_apologeticum/mayor_apologeticum_07translation.htm

The phrase 'permitted by law' used by Tertullian is 'religio licita'. It occurs only there, in that writing. It is never found in any roman legal document, statute, ordinance, etc, at least not prior to the Edict of Milan.

Therefore, the idea that Christianity was an ILLEGAL religion, or that all 'new religions had to be licensed by the Roman authorities' is nonsense.

Some religions were repressed, not because they were unlicensed, but because they were viewed by the authorities as subversive to either the state or public order or morals. Thus, Druidism was repressed, on account the Druids practiced human sacrifice.

Judaism was not repressed, legally (as Druidism for example was). Thus, it was 'permitted' (licita), according to Tertullian. However, there was no 'Roman law' that Empire-wide gave license to Judaism. Instead, there were various decrees etc made by governors, procurators, and Emperors prohibiting people from repressing Judaism. This is a big difference from the idea of 'licensed religions'.

The early Christians suffered numerous persecutions, by both Jews and Romans. By Jews, for 'heresy' and 'blasphemy', although such charges were both false and unsupportable at law. By Romans, often because Christians were simply classed as a sect of Judaism, and when various Roman authorities decided to repress Jews or expel Jews or persecute Jews (sometimes illegally) Christians were lumped in with Jews and they suffered together. Sometimes, as in the case of NEro and Domitian, for example, Christians were directly targeted. But not because Christianity was de jure 'illegal', but because some Emperor or some local authority got a wild hair up their demon-possessed butts to harass and murder God's children.


Now, let's look more closely at one of your claims.

The correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Roman emperor Trajan (111–112) shows that although Christianity was illegal, the law was not routinely enforced.

Here's Pliny's letter to Trajan - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

Here's the opening statement:

"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent."

If Christianity were outlawed by LAW, then how can Pliny claim not to know 'what offenses ... to punish or investigate'? If Christianity were outlawed BY LAW, then the mere fact of being a Christian would be the offense to investigate, and punish.

More from Pliny:

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished."

He punished Christians, not because Christianity itself was 'religio illicita', but because he considered them stubborn, and that was warrant enough for punishment.

" Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations."

It wasn't Christian meetings which had been forbidden by Pliny, but 'political associations'.

[Esaias]

Now as to the claim the early church met in one another's homes purely as a pragmatic matter, on account of either poverty, or persecution, we should ask a simple question:

Did the early church have an expectation of being wealthy enough to build special buildings, and of being freed from persecution so as to build buildings for their meetings?

Or, in other words, did they have any reason to look forward to the day they could 'grow up' and have temples, special places for worship meetings, like all the other religions of the world (including Judaism)?

If they did, then we must ask 'where did they get such an idea?' Surely it would have been taught by the apostles, by Jesus...? Where is it to be found?

If they did not, why not? Why then was it not included in their religious concepts? It is a PRIMARY THOUGHT in the minds of most 'church planters' today, and in the minds of most 'Christians' today, is it not? If a new church is planted, and meets in someone's home, because of necessity, is it not the PRIMARY GOAL of the new work to 'grow big enough to get a building'? Does not the leadership look forward to such a day, making plans as they can, hoping and expecting the day they can have a building?

I would suggest that due to the Lord's teachings concerning the Temple, and concerning locations for worship (as per His conversation with the Samaritan woman), and in light of the apostle Paul's teaching concerning the 'temple of God' being the ecclesia, and in light of Stephen's testimony concerning 'God dwells not in houses made with hands', and in light of the fact that one of the most common, recurring accusations made by the Jews against the early church was that they 'spoke against the Temple', I would suggest in light of these things it would appear the original church had an 'ecclesiology' that essentially paid no mind to special buildings, recognized no need for them, had no expectation of them, and harbored no desire for them.

The bringing in of false doctrines, pagan philosophical concepts, gnostic heresies, and worldliness in all manner of compromises, led to a change in Christianity. The result included trinitarianism, sacramentalism, sacerdotalism, politicizing of the 'church' beyond measure, greed and 'filthy lucre', perversions both religious and moral, and right along with all those changes came the temples, cathedrals, and basilicas, as 'Christianity' apostasized into a worldly religion like all the other religions of man... just as the apostles said would happen.

[Praxeas]

Keep reading Pliny

And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.



Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.



They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
Trajan to Pliny the Younger

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

[Esaias]

I did read Pliny. I read the entire thing. But thanks for posting it. I also interacted with the pertinant parts in my post on it.

[Praxeas]

BTW it's not so much that Christianity was MADE illegal. It's that it was NOT a recognized or sanctioned religion. It was considered, at one point, a part of Judaism.

Not being recognized means it did not have certain rights and protections, which is why the Edict needed to pass