Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Growth Early Church History

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
The original church was 100% Jewish.
There were many Gentiles who were attracted to the Jewish religion. (The centurion with the dying servant built them a Synagogue.)
So, yes, I can, without reservation, imagine Gentiles having no problem embracing Jewish worship. In fact, Paul had to constantly combat the gentile willingness to submit to circumcision and keep the Law of Moses.
What I can't imagine is that they would suddenly change their habitual manner of worship to resemble a, northern European, Protestant, evangelical service of 1600 years in the future.
That Christian worship in the early church (and up until today among liturgical sects) came from the temple worship and the synagogue practices is well established.
See: The Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy, Eugene J. Fisher, Ed.

I suspect that is because you have unconsciously imposed your personal experience into the scripture.
I remember talking with a Jewish convert to Roman Catholicism. She stated that, when she attended the mass, everything she had been taught as a Jew fell into place and she was completely at home with the liturgy because it was so similar to what she was already familiar.
Remember that the entire church was liturgical, using the format described by Justin, until some time after Luther, Calvin, et. al. who continued the form of the ancient liturgy.
That the Christian liturgy has its source in Jewish, pre-Christian liturgical practices of the temple and synagogue is not even debatable. But, you'll have to go to historical records as the scriptures do not clearly address the topic.
The Corinthian passages do not preclude what Justin described as having been received from the apostles who were taught them by Jesus.

Again: That the early church had a developed liturgy by the second century is attested to by the statements of Justin Martyr.
Justin Martyr: (AD 100-165) The First Apology of Justin Chapter LXVII.—Weekly Worship of the Christians.
…… (1) And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and
(2) the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;
(3) then, when the reader has ceased, the president1 verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
(4) Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended,
(5) bread and wine and water are brought, and the president1 in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and
(6) the people assent, saying Amen;
(7) and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, (the Eucharist) and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons………….
Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples,
(8) He (Jesus) taught them (the apostles & disciples) these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.


Justin described a gathering
(a) of the entire local church,
(b) at a place which would accommodate them,
(c) on Sunday.

He then described the process of the meeting which are easily identified by anyone familiar with liturgical worship as:
A. the Liturgy of the word
(1) The reading of the Gospels or Prophets
(2) The sermon
(3) The prayers of the people

B. The Liturgy of the Eucharist
(4) The consecration of the bread and wine (by the presider, AKA: "priest")
(5) The “great Amen”
(6) The people receive the Eucharist

The source of this form of liturgy:
Justin stated that it was Jesus who taught this form of worship. Thus, Justin refuted the notion that the Mass was a later development.

What Justin describes is the basic format of the liturgy that is followed to this day in all Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Coptic and Assyrian Churches.

Of note: The apostle Thomas established churches in India beginning in AD 52. When the Portuguese arrived in the 1400's, they were astounded to find a Christian church that celebrated the "Mass". The Mar Toma Church had been isolated from the west for almost 1000 years yet their liturgical worship was essentially the same as what was practiced in Rome and Constantinople.

1. The “president” refers to the presiding presbyter or the overseer. The word “presbyter” or “elder” (presbuteros) has come down to us in modern English as “priest” (From Middle English "prestor") and the word overseer (episcopos) has come down to us in English as “bishop.”

Blessings on you and your tribe

jim †

Jim,

You wrote: 'The original church was 100% Jewish'.

You are yodelling to a different tune!:shock

Regarding the Epistle to the Galatians, 'Some students have seen evidence in [Gal] 6:13 that some of the Gentile Christians were accepting circumcision and were becoming at least as avid in their efforts to win over other Gentile believers to the Judaizing cause as were the Jewish Christians who started the propaganda' (Harrison 1971:271).

When Paul and Silas were in Philippi: Acts 16:19-24 (NIV) states,
When her [the slave girl's] owners realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities. 20 They brought them before the magistrates and said, “These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar 21 by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice.”

22 The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten with rods. 23 After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. 24 When he received these orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks.

Note Acts 16:21 (NIV), 'by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice'. Paul and Silas were Jews in Philippi who were advocating customs that were 'unlawful' for a Roman colony. So Philippi (and as a consequence the letter to the Philippians) was dealing with a Gentile colony. Therefore, Harrison comments that,
for the most part the Christian community [in Philippi] that came into being there must have been Gentile. It is significant that Luke makes no mention of opposition from Jewish sources, in contrast to the usual experience of the missionaries' (Harrison 1971:320).

I am really disappointed by the straw man you have erected with your comments about my overview of 1 Cor 12-14, the body of Christ, and diversity of gifts in the body that are there to function when the church gathers, with your statement: 'I suspect that is because you have unconsciously imposed your personal experience into the scripture'.

Your suspicion happens to be dead wrong. I'm an honest exegete of the Scripture and suspicions ('I suspect') are nothing more than your personal response, with no objective base. I've imposed nothing on the text of 1 Cor 12 but obtained my information directly from the text.

Oz

Works consulted
Harrison, E F 1971. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
 
As far as Sunday being the first day of the week where in scripture does God give the names of the week

Well, the first day of the week is the day after the Sabbath (Saturday), so the first day of the week is Sunday.

This is true whether one uses the Jewish calendar, or our modern calendar.

not like the Grecian Calendar we use today

We do not use a "Grecian" calendar. Did you mean "Gregorian"?

Jesus was laid in the borrowed tomb on Wednesday evening

No, this was on Friday.
 
Last edited:
Acts 13:2: “As they ministered the Lord [literally, “as they were in the liturgy of the Lord”] and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul . ..’”

Both the Catholic (USCCB) Bible and the NIV translate "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting." The Greek word has a broad meaning, so "minister" is a good general translation. The word is used in Romans 15:27 to refer to acts of charity. There is no specific reference to liturgy here, as OzSpen has already pointed out.

Also, the passage definitely says to the Lord (dative τῷ κυρίῳ), and there is nothing at all corresponding to the word "in." Your suggested translation "as they were in the liturgy of the Lord" bears no resemblance to the Greek. This suggested translation seems to be a corruption of the footnote in the Orthodox Study Bible on this passage, but the OSB footnote is just wrong, I'm afraid. The verb λειτουργέω does not mean "performed liturgical acts," as Rom 15:26 shows. In fact, this verb also refers to serving the state, or serving a master. The word comes from the noun λειτουργός, which occurs in e.g. Phil 2:25, and means a servant or workman.

That is not to say that early Church worship wasn't liturgical, at least to some extent; the Didache gives us some idea of what early Christian liturgy was like.

We have an altar” reveals the continuation of the altar in New Testament worship."

Does it?

Hebrews 10:15: "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name."

Gregory Nazianzen, Second Oration on Easter, XXIII: "let us sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise upon the heavenly Altar"
 
Last edited:
Well, no. There were Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. Acts 16:3, for example, shows that Timothy was not Jewish. Eph 2:14, Gal 3:28, Rom 11:17, and other passages show that the Church was mixed Jewish/Gentile.
On the day of Pentecost, the first day of the Christian Church, every last believer was a Jew by birth or by conversion.
All the apostles were Jews.
Gentiles were quickly included (Ethiopian Eunuch, the house of Cornelius) but, the original members were all Jews who were "day by day, attending the temple together ". (Acts 2:46 RSV)

We do not have an exact statement of how early Gentiles were joined to the church but it is clear from scripture that the original believers were all Jews.

iakov the fool.
 
I believe you are completely honest.
I'd trust you with my best dog.
And I also believe you are honestly wrong.

blessings

Yes, Jim, I can be wrong - as you can also. But as for the original church being 100% Jewish, both Radagast and I have shown your perspective to fail to line up with the biblical data.
 
Yes, Jim, I can be wrong - as you can also. But as for the original church being 100% Jewish, both Radagast and I have shown your perspective to fail to line up with the biblical data.
Timothy's grandmother and mother were gentile .
 
On the day of Pentecost, the first day of the Christian Church, every last believer was a Jew by birth or by conversion.
All the apostles were Jews.
Gentiles were quickly included (Ethiopian Eunuch, the house of Cornelius) but, the original members were all Jews who were "day by day, attending the temple together ". (Acts 2:46 RSV)

We do not have an exact statement of how early Gentiles were joined to the church but it is clear from scripture that the original believers were all Jews.

iakov the fool.

Jim,

That's not how you introduced the topic back in #60. In #60 you spoke of 'The original church was 100% Jewish'.

Now you are changing the topic: 'On the day of Pentecost, the first day of the Christian Church, every last believer was a Jew by birth or by conversion'. That was not your topic in #60, as I understand what you wrote.

News of the Gentiles being included is long before the Ethiopian eunuch. What did Peter say according to Acts 2:16-21 (ESV)? What was seen on the day of Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 (ESV) and the Spirit was being poured out on ALL flesh (that includes Jews and Gentiles).

Oz
 
Yes, Jim, I can be wrong - as you can also. But as for the original church being 100% Jewish, both Radagast and I have shown your perspective to fail to line up with the biblical data.
What I have been shown in the scriptures is the spread of "Christianity" (it wasn't originally called that) FROM the Jewish believers TO the Gentiles.
When Peter went to the house of Cornelius, he was criticized for going into the home of a Gentile because the church, up to that point, was entirely Jewish.
Yes, the faith was soon shared with the Gentiles, but Scripture shows that the first believers were Jews.
On the day of Pentecost when 3000 were added to the church, they were ALL Jews.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
Peter addressed them as "Men of Israel." (Act 2:22) Men of Israel would be Jews, not Gentiles.
His concluding remark was "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The house of Israel is composed of Jews.
After the apostles and the 120, those were the original church and they were ALL Jews.

Yes, very soon Gentiles were included. But, at first, the Church was 100% Jews.

And here's a link that discusses the liturgical forms of worship in the primitive church which were taken from the Synagogue.
http://holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm#_Toc52771842

jim
 
Timothy's grandmother and mother were gentile .

Jason,

It's his father who is Greek (Acts 16:1-3 ESV), but we are dealing with Jim's incorrect statement that 'the original church was 100% Jewish'. The facts are that the original church (as demonstrated by the Book of Acts and the NT epistles) consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. If Jim wants 'original church' to refer only to the falling of the Spirit on the 12 disciples (Acts 2:1-4 NIV), then we have an example of the first Jerusalem church (Acts 2:5 NIV), but NOT 'the original church'.

If we want to be even more specific, what prevents Mary Magdalene, a Phoenician Gentile, who witnessed Jesus' empty tomb and told the disciples about it (John 20; Matt 28; Luke 24), from being among NT believers in the original church?
 
Last edited:
If Jim wants 'original church' to refer only to the falling of the Spirit on the 12 disciples (Acts 2:1-4 NIV), then we have an example of the first Jerusalem church (Acts 2:5 NIV), but NOT 'the original church'.
What????
The first Jerusalem church WAS the original church.
There was no other congregation of believers in Jesus Christ who had been filled with the Holy Spirit.
I don't understand why you are fighting that fact.
 
What I have been shown in the scriptures is the spread of "Christianity" (it wasn't originally called that) FROM the Jewish believers TO the Gentiles.
When Peter went to the house of Cornelius, he was criticized for going into the home of a Gentile because the church, up to that point, was entirely Jewish.
Yes, the faith was soon shared with the Gentiles, but Scripture shows that the first believers were Jews.
On the day of Pentecost when 3000 were added to the church, they were ALL Jews.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
Peter addressed them as "Men of Israel." (Act 2:22) Men of Israel would be Jews, not Gentiles.
His concluding remark was "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The house of Israel is composed of Jews.
After the apostles and the 120, those were the original church and they were ALL Jews.

Yes, very soon Gentiles were included. But, at first, the Church was 100% Jews.

And here's a link that discusses the liturgical forms of worship in the primitive church which were taken from the Synagogue.
http://holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm#_Toc52771842

jim

Jim,

Of course 'Peter addressed them as "Men of Israel." (Act 2:22) Men of Israel would be Jews, not Gentiles' because as Acts 2:14 (ESV) confirms, Peter is addressing the other 11 Jewish disciples. It is obvious they would be called 'men of Israel'. One doesn't have to be brilliant to understand that.

Acts 2:22 speaks of Jesus of Nazareth as being 'a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and sins that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know'. Come on, Jim! Please don't try to hoodwink us on this one. He is addressing the 11 disciples and speaking of what Jesus did 'in your midst'. These are only a handful of Jewish disciples/apostles. They are not the 'original church' (your language). The Book of Acts and the epistles tell of the breadth of the 'original church' that included Jews and Gentiles.

Oz
 
If we want to be even more specific, what prevents Mary Magdalene, a Phoenician Gentile
Oh please! Some bloggers fantasy!
What was a Gentile woman doing living with the believing Jews who were Jesus' followers?
Peter resisted God's command to go to the house of Cornelius and had to be told three times but you propose that he had no problem with the "gentile" Mary Magdalene being numbered with Jesus followers.
 
Act 16:1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek.
the reason he wasn't circumized.odd if they were all practicing the Jewish tendencies of the torah which required .

However,point noted.Paul did have to circumcize him so that Timothy would be accepted.

If moses was that Central to them it's odd and neither it's a sin to have a son circumized.Paul being a rabbi could and did do it.

The early church was predominantly Jewish but not 100 percent. The word galatia is the Latin pejorative for the people from Gaul.they are my distance ancestors. Celtic.pagans.
 
because as Acts 2:14 (ESV) confirms, Peter is addressing the other 11 Jewish disciples.
Oz. That is utter nonsense. I am very disappointed that you would make such a statement.
Act 2:6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 “And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 “Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 “Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?” 13 Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.


Note that Peter stood up WITH the eleven and addressed the "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem."

jim
 
the reason he wasn't circumized.odd if they were all practicing the Jewish tendencies of the torah which required .
I was responding to you comment "Timothy's grandmother and mother were gentile." and showing it to be incorrect. as the scripture states, Act 16:1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named
Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek.

I said nothing, nada, zero, zip, about Timothy practicing anything.
Please don't out your words in my mouth. That is dishonest.
 
I said that In response to your statements of the church being into the feasts,the torah replete with circumcision ,peshac Yom Kippur, rosh hoshanna,sukkot.
Again:
I was responding to you comment "Timothy's grandmother and mother were gentile." and showing it to be incorrect. as the scripture states, Act 16:1 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named
Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek.
I said nothing, nada, zero, zip, about Timothy practicing anything.
Please don't out your words in my mouth. That is dishonest.
 
Back
Top