Rejoicing In the Sabbath:

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

No where, and that's the whole point we're trying to make...

So, technically we don't have to go to church. I know that Jesus states that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is in their midst. I also know that we are not to foresake the assembling of the brethren.

So... a Christian family could choose to house church themselves. Correct?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, technically we don't have to go to church. I know that Jesus states that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is in their midst.

Those words of Jesus do not refer to that. Jesus is speaking about going to a brother, and then taking two more with you if he refuses to repent. Why? Because if we do this in his name, it is like Him being there.

I also know that we are not to foresake the assembling of the brethren.

So... a Christian family could choose to house church themselves. Correct?

No. They need other believers than just their own family.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Those words of Jesus do not refer to that. Jesus is speaking about going to a brother, and then taking two more with you if he refuses to repent. Why? Because if we do this in his name, it is like Him being there.

No. It's not because "it is like Him being there"... He IS there.

Second, if it's true in one context... going to a brother... it's true in others. Else we are burdened with having to know exactly what number a valid "gathering" of believers must be comprised of before Jesus shows up. Duh. That would be stupid. God knows that missionaries often find themselves miles from large groups of believers in hostile countries and by the grace of God find two or maybe three locally to gather with. Remember, this is a KINGDOM... the traditional "church" model is man made.

No. They need other believers than just their own family.

I disagree. Many pioneer families didn't have a chapel for miles and circuit riding preachers sometimes didn't show up in that territory but once a month. A strong family unit is truly all that's needed. After all... God might burden that family to travel somewhere where there are no Christians and their home is the only "church" they have.

If I'm wrong... give me chapter and verse about how many people it takes to gather as the church.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. It's not because "it is like Him being there"... He IS there.

He is there, but THAT IS NOT what the context means. That is a traditional error.

Second, if it's true in one context... going to a brother... it's true in others. Else we are burdened with having to know exactly what number a valid "gathering" of believers must be comprised of before Jesus shows up. Duh. That would be stupid. God knows that missionaries often find themselves miles from large groups of believers in hostile countries and by the grace of God find two or maybe three locally to gather with. Remember, this is a KINGDOM... the traditional "church" model is man made.

Has nothing to do with tradition.

I disagree. Many pioneer families didn't have a chapel for miles and circuit riding preachers sometimes didn't show up in that territory but once a month. A strong family unit is truly all that's needed. After all... God might burden that family to travel somewhere where there are no Christians and their home is the only "church" they have.

If I'm wrong... give me chapter and verse about how many people it takes to gather as the church.

Oh please. That is a no-brainer.