'Altars' in 'Christian' churches

[handy]

Handy by using only what the NT uses we can agree in and have unity. Jesus prayed for unity. Its when we go beyond what is written we allow all sorts of scary things in the door. This is what creates division.

I'm not so sure. We can't know really what the NT churches used at all, as was mentioned they went to both homes and synagogues and sat beside rivers.

Did they use musical instruments? Doesn't say that they did, but then, it doesn't say that they didn't. Musical instruments were certainly an important part of playing the psalms in the worship of the OT, but there are those who can and most certainly will make the argument that since the NT doesn't specifically mention them, they shouldn't be used.

Since the Old Testament is part of the Scriptures that are to be used for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, and the OT describes what God desired in worship...surely it counts as "what is written", does it not?

It was the practice of both our Lord and the apostles to go to the synagogues and I know that the liturgy dates back to the order of worship practiced in the synagogues. It could very well be that the liturgical churches are the ones that are closest in form of worship to the early church.

 

[handy]

Hi Dora :waving

Nope, we don't have alters or crosses or incense or robes or anything else.. Nothing special about our building at all matter of fact.

But we do have a Table that says, "This, do in remembrance of me"

Ohh, and as far as Churches of Christ and "Chrislam".... well, they would need to be baptized of course

Yep, I knew you were the "go to" guy for the answer to that question!

 

[cyberjosh]

Perhaps church practice or terminology differs but in the Baptist (and even non-denominational) churches that I have been to the so-called "alter" is really just referring to the steps of the elevated pulpit and provides a place for people to kneel and receive group prayer by laying on of hands or even to pray by themselves before God. Often "alter calls" are people coming to the front to kneel at those steps to pray to God for forgiveness of sins and pledge repentance. You could do this from your seat or pew - sure - but coming up front demonstrates your willingness to seek forgiveness and is also where you can go to receive group prayer. I have gone to the front of a Church many times to receive group prayer at the steps before and see nothing wrong with it at all. Many a person has given their life to Christ at steps such as that before, from my past observations. With or without an 'alter' though such prayer is effectual if sincere and righteous. An 'alter' though just provides a communal, versus isolated, place to gather together for prayer inside a church building.

If your church is small though and meets in a basement or home to hold prayer meetings and you don't have an alter that will neither approve nor disapprove your prayers lifted up before God. The Church is living, the alters and buildings the Church may utilize or gather in are not.

I assume that you may be thinking of some kind of stand-alone alters, Asyncritus, like I have seen in Catholic Churches in front of a statue of Mary or something? Or were you also referring to the steps "alter" as well?

 

[Asyncritus]

Try this link, and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

These, of course, are not the only ones.

The point about Jesus and the disciples going to the synagogues is not really relevant, as Hebrews and Galatians are entirely about getting out from under the Law of Moses and its observances.

Does anybody know of a synagogue having an altar in it? Didn't think they did. Those were in the temple in Jerusalem, but I may be wrong.

CJ, I hadn't thought of the 'steps' altar. But even the Law of Moses said:

Ex 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Not good.

 

[Webb]

Handy

If the NT does not authorize it by direct command, approved example or necessary inference its safe not to use it. Jesus' plea and prayer for oneness (as well the apostles) is not an unimportant matter.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

“Try this link, and you'll see what I meanâ€

Yes. Some are quite ornate. Some are quite beautiful to look at. And if one understands the symbolism, there is even more there than just the physical beauty. But there must be discernment. Some are so ornate as to have hidden a great deal of meaning.


“Does anybody know of a synagogue having an altar in it? Didn't think they did. Those were in the temple in Jerusalem, but I may be wrong.â€

The synagogues do have alters in a sense. Related to holding a copy of the Torah in a special place in the synagogue. And a podium where the Torah is read. But not in the sense of the altars in the Tabernacle/Temple.

Revelation speaks to the future when in the New Jerusalem God and the Lamb will be the temple. And as part of the Body of Christ, the ones who are in Christ are a part of the temple also, as living stones. A living Temple.

We are to be the same today, living expressions of the Temple as the residence of God. But in Christianity, there isn’t that understanding as common knowledge. So physical Temples are built in the form of buildings and the sense of being stones in a Temple is lived symbolically in those physical Temples. Some Temples are ornate, with much symbolism. Some are plain being simply a building to gather in. But it’s the same. The sense of a reality that isn’t quite being realized. You emphasize the alters. But it’s connected to that unrealized reality.

You no doubt gather in a special building for the purpose. That isn’t Biblical. The New Testament believers gathered in the Temple or in their own homes until the Temple was destroyed. Then they only gathered in homes. There is no record they gathered in the synagogues. Only that as a pattern, Paul first preached in the Synagogues and then to the Gentiles.

Christian symbolism comes, not from the synagogues, but from the Tabernacle/Temple ritual as it is understood in relation to Christ’s fulfillment of it. It has a long history and some historical development as more symbols were added. In most Protestant Churches, the sermon is the central ritual. But it has not always been so. Historically, the Lord’s Table has been the central Christian ritual. The symbolism is usually tied to that ritual.

In the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the symbolism is centered in the Lord’s Table. The Table is an Altar and the central focus of all symbolism, including the Crucifix that is placed right behind the Altar in the Catholic Churches. In the Orthodox Church, there are crucifixes and crosses everywhere so that it is the central symbol of what Christ has done for us that is connected to whole of the Liturgy. The cross is the symbol of the crucifixion and death of Christ, as well as our own Baptism into the death of Christ. (Rom 6) The Orthodox emphasize the resurrection more than the birth of Christ that has become the emphasis in the West. Simply because in their symbolism, the purpose for the cross is that he is risen. Jesus Christ is risen and we are risen in him. Christian symbolism and the experience it symbolizes has meaning when you understand it.


“Hebrews and Galatians are entirely about getting out from under the Law of Moses and its observances.â€

Your interpretation has been influenced by a segment of Protestantism. The only thing we’re not under the Law for is salvation because salvation today is in Christ, who fulfilled that part of the Law. The Jews made a mistake and emphasized the Law above all else, including for salvation. They forgot the little matter of faith, that same faith that allowed God to account that faith as righteousness to Abraham. The Psalms are full of references against such an emphasis on the Law. Because without the faith, the ritual means nothing. So also today. Apart from our faith in God and the faith of Christ that becomes a part of the one who is in Christ, there is no salvation.

Paul shows in Galatians that they were trying to complete in the flesh what they had gotten through the Spirit. Paul shows in Hebrews that the Tabernacle ritual had been fulfilled by Christ. That ritual is a shadow that points to and is completed in that fulfillment. There is no mention of the moral, social, dietary aspects of the Law whatsoever. Only reference is made to the Tabernacle ritual. But like the Jews, you want to emphasize. To go to the other extreme and nullify the Law altogether. We are no less under the Law of Moses than ever, as a guide to know the nature of sin (moral Law), as a guide to know how to love one another as Christ loved us (social Law), as a guide to keep us from eating certain animals that are not conducive to good health (dietary Laws). The observances relating to Christ as the one who paid for our sin, we are no longer under because they have been fulfilled by Christ and are fulfilled in us who are in Christ. Those who are in Christ are not Lawless.


Ex 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Here is that verse in its context:

22 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven:
23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
24 "’Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you.
25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.
26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.’
(NIV)


I understand your point of view having been associated with Churches who also hold that view. But I also understand that it is an emphasis on the wrong thing. Altars and symbolism is only wrong if they are used wrongly or symbolizing something that we feel isn’t true. And what is true is that some within the denominations that use altars and symbols use them wrongly and don’t understand their meaning.

For example, the use of icons in Orthodoxy (two dimensional representations of certain ones considered examples of faith) and statues in Catholicism (three dimensional representations of same). Protestants are against such representations. But if one understands the idea behind their use, it changes the matter altogether. Orthodox/Catholics believe there is a connection between the living and those who are in Christ who have gone before. They also believe that those who die in Christ die physically, but their souls go to heaven. We are connected together as members of the Body of Christ. That seems reasonable enough. Like having pictures of our loved ones in our wallet. The misuse arises when the these representations take on more meaning than the persons themselves, or become replacements for our relationship with Christ or God. Then it becomes akin to idolatry. And both denominations are against that sort of thing. The misuse and the misunderstanding of their use doesn’t nullify the symbolism involved. The connection is real. Even to those who believe in soul death. After the resurrection all will be together in a realized fashion.

What the Protestant generally denies, is that those represented can’t be communicated with. Orthodox/Catholics believe that there is a form of communication among the living and those who have gone on before. Protestants being believers in the Bible alone, have representations in their mind of certain ones in the Bible that are examples of faith. They just don’t use physical representations. And they don’t attempt to communicate with them. It is just a difference of opinion as to the extent that the symbolism can be taken. And even more a difference of opinion as to the extent of the relationship between all who are in Christ, past and present.

FC

 

[handy]

Handy

If the NT does not authorize it by direct command, approved example or necessary inference its safe not to use it. Jesus' plea and prayer for oneness (as well the apostles) is not an unimportant matter.

Webb, I have no idea how you worship, so this isn't directed to you, personally...I'm just going to point out that to follow what you are saying then when the Church worships, there can be no:

church building
musical instruments
pews
furniture of any kind, except a table
candles
flowers
microphones
electricity
banners
crosses
hymn books
paper of any kind

As far as I know, the only things directly commanded, shown for example or necessarily inferred as to the worship of the early church is:

They met in personal homes, synagogues or by rivers.
There was a table.
There was a scroll of Scriptures to be read from.
They prayed.
They took communion.
They sang songs, hymns, spiritual songs (but no mention of instruments.)
They took a collection for the poor.

That's it.

No, the call to unity isn't unimportant. This why, in addition to unity, there is also a call to giving freedom within the church body for things that are not essential to our faith. As a matter of fact, one can say that an insistence that things must be only as it was 2000 years ago can be just as dividing as an insistence that one must "move with the times" and open a coffee shop rather than have a church.

Even the Scriptures themselves give us a clue that the idea that worship can only be as it was 2000 years ago might not be correct. For instance, the fact that it was our Lord's habit, as well as the habit of the apostles to go to the synagogues for worship...

...there is no mention of a synagogue in the Old Testament. There was the temple, yes, and the tabernacle. But no synagogues. Somehow, between the Old Testament and the New, the practice of God's people meeting in synagogues for worship came into being. And, clearly it wasn't unholy, or Jesus would never have stepped into one, nor would the apostles have done so.

I just believe that it is an area in which we should allow for freedom in. Myself, the idea that a piano, guitar, or organ is somehow "sinful" flies in the face of God's Word...but, I'm not going to insist that Jeff and his family need to worship with instruments. I also find the contemporary idea of a "coffee house" format, as opposed to a worship service to be both worldly and distasteful, but I know that there are many sincere Christians that find true worship in that format. Who am I to judge them? And, who is anyone to judge me or the way my church worships, as our worship is very close to what we know about how worship was conducted in the synagogues...the worship Christ and the apostles joined in?

Our call to unity is best summed up in Ephesians 4:1-6:

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Part of this call to unity is "showing tolerance for one another in love" and "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." If we determine that others worship in Spirit of our Lord and Savior is somehow "not safe" or "scary" and insist (which Webb doesn't seem to be doing...this is just a discussion) that only that which people did 2000 years ago is acceptable, or insist (as I have personally seen happen) that the "old people" better get with the new program or they can just leave...then we violate this portion of Scripture.

 

[handy]

The synagogues do have alters in a sense. Related to holding a copy of the Torah in a special place in the synagogue. And a podium where the Torah is read. But not in the sense of the altars in the Tabernacle/Temple.

Yes, this is my understanding as well. In the synagogues there was usually a table or pedestal called a "bimah" upon which the Torah was placed for reading and it also served at a pulpit for teaching. There were also Menorahs (candelabrum) as well as an "Eternal Lamp". Many of these elements within the synagogues show up in traditional church, including the table which now serves as an important symbol that Christ is the final sacrifice and the elements of His sacrifice rest upon that table...hence the "altar".

Revelation speaks to the future when in the New Jerusalem God and the Lamb will be the temple. And as part of the Body of Christ, the ones who are in Christ are a part of the temple also, as living stones. A living Temple.

We are to be the same today, living expressions of the Temple as the residence of God. But in Christianity, there isn’t that understanding as common knowledge. So physical Temples are built in the form of buildings and the sense of being stones in a Temple is lived symbolically in those physical Temples. Some Temples are ornate, with much symbolism. Some are plain being simply a building to gather in. But it’s the same. The sense of a reality that isn’t quite being realized. You emphasize the alters. But it’s connected to that unrealized reality.

I disagree. Christians across all denominations, including Orthodox and Catholic, look at the individual's body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. There are no "built" temples in Christianity for the simple fact that the primary purpose of the Temple was for the sacrifices and in Christianity there is naught but one sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ. The only real Temple left is the one in heaven. I believe that Christians most emphatically "realize" the reality of Christ's death being the penultimate sacrifice and hence no earthly temples except our physical bodies. The place of meeting is far more to compared to a synagogue as opposed to a Temple or Tabernacle.

You no doubt gather in a special building for the purpose. That isn’t Biblical. The New Testament believers gathered in the Temple or in their own homes until the Temple was destroyed. Then they only gathered in homes. There is no record they gathered in the synagogues. Only that as a pattern, Paul first preached in the Synagogues and then to the Gentiles.

Again, I disagree. That Jesus and the Apostles went to both the Temple and the synagogues is certainly true. I would submit that the reason why we see Peter and James going to the Temple and Paul and Barnabas going to the synagogues is for the very simple reason that Peter and James were in Jerusalem where the Temple was...and Paul and Barnabas traveled throughout Asia Minor...hence the gathering in the synagogues. To say that only Paul preached in the synagogues might be a bit misleading. Often, when speaking of the apostles going to the synagogues, it is said that "they" went in.

We know that other believers besides Paul and his personal attendents also went to the synagogues. In Acts 18 we see that Apollos went into the synagogue at Ephesus and began to boldly proclaim the word of God. However, he was only preaching the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla heard him (because obviously they were there) and took him aside to teach the gospel to him more fully.

 

[Asyncritus]

I may have missed something along the way handy, but I can't make out whether you are supporting the existence of 'altars' or not.

Are you?

And FC. I can't make out whether you are supporting the practice or not either.

Are you?

It would seem to me that the violent overthrow of the temple in Jerusalem in AD70 was a very loud signal that God had finished with all that it stood for in terms of rituals, altars, sacrifices, legalisms and whatever else.

Why then, do Christian churches seek to re-import these vain symbols into worship that never used anything of the sort as far as we can tell from the NT?

 

[Webb]

Hi Handy

I think you have lots of truth in your post #27 but still lacking. We all need to study more as to what pleases God in worship and not we ourselves. I continue to maintain if we try to stay as close to the church in the NT as we can it would be more pleasing to God and to us as well. God bless.

 

[handy]

Webb, I certainly agree that all that is specifically mentioned in the NT about their worship should be incorporated...it's just that really...not much is. I honestly do believe that is because God knew, even expected, that as the Church moved throughout the world, became established, even dominate, and especially as thousands of years went by...things would change.

Which, as long as the essentials of faith are held to, I don't think is a problem...any more than God had a problem with His people worshiping in synagogues which were never once mentioned in the Old Testament.

;) And, hey, I'm lacking in a lot of things.

Asyncritus, am I "for it" or "against it"? Really, neither. I could worship just as easily in a church that had no altar as I do in my church which has one. I certainly don't have a problem with them...otherwise I wouldn't have become a member of the church I'm now at.

It would seem to me that the violent overthrow of the temple in Jerusalem in AD70 was a very loud signal that God had finished with all that it stood for in terms of rituals, altars, sacrifices, legalisms and whatever else.

Why then, do Christian churches seek to re-import these vain symbols into worship that never used anything of the sort as far as we can tell from the NT?

Well, certainly there are no sacrifices at any Christian altar except the body and blood of the Lamb and of the praises of God's people. Rituals? By definition communion is a ritual that Christ instituted.

Legalisms? We need to be careful with this one. Here is a decent working definition of "legalism":

Legalism, in Christian theology, is a sometimes-pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of the law over the spirit.

The "over emphasis on discipline of conduct" can work both ways as can the "misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, (and) the neglect of mercy". One can become just as legalistically burdened in stating that one's own form of worship is "biblical" whereas another's isn't as stating that one must follow the letter of the Law.

Myself...(with hugs to Jeff)...I find the idea of having no organs and pianos in church because there is no mention of them in the NT to be overly legalistic. I find anything that is stressed, beyond what is essential to our faith, to the point of calling into question why another of God's servants would do such a thing to be heading towards legalism and that one needs to proceed with caution.

This isn't to say that we should never question or discuss issues like this...just that we shouldn't use issues like this to divide over.

 

[Webb]

Hi Handy

I am familiar with the concept of the church being in the world and as the world changes the church should do so to adapt. However, God's word remains even if heaven and earth passes away. And, we will be judged by that word, Jn.12:48. I believe God intended the Bible as it is to be for man as he is in any age. I must conform to His will, not His will (the Bible) to me. Paul told the Phillippian church it was His good pleasure, certainly not mine. God is God, I am the sinner. Therefore it behooves me to conform as closely as I can to the instruction He has given.

What we do know from the NT is that the 1st century church assembled. They sang psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. The word was read. The word was given exhortation. They prayed. They took the Lord's supper ( and I believe it can be shown it was each Lord's day). They took up the collection as needs arose. This much we CAN unite on. Jesus did not pray for unity in vain. That prayer was made in the dark shadows of the cross and cannot be taken casually by any. Paul told the Ephesians we had to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace, that word "endeavor" carries the meaning of steadfalstliy giving diligence to do it.

I continue to maintain it is absolutely in keeping with His prayer to do the best I can to not go beyond that which is written, for I have NO OTHER rule of faith to go by. Anything else opens the door to all kinds of practaces and resulting divisions which is obvious in the religious world today.

God bless

 

[Free]

What we do know from the NT is that the 1st century church assembled. They sang psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. The word was read. The word was given exhortation. They prayed. They took the Lord's supper ( and I believe it can be shown it was each Lord's day). They took up the collection as needs arose. This much we CAN unite on. Jesus did not pray for unity in vain. That prayer was made in the dark shadows of the cross and cannot be taken casually by any. Paul told the Ephesians we had to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace, that word "endeavor" carries the meaning of steadfalstliy giving diligence to do it.

I continue to maintain it is absolutely in keeping with His prayer to do the best I can to not go beyond that which is written, for I have NO OTHER rule of faith to go by. Anything else opens the door to all kinds of practaces and resulting divisions which is obvious in the religious world today.

But I think her points are, we already have much that wasn't in the NT church and we don't really know much about their practices, other than what you state above and also that they still attended synagogue. I can imagine that in the synagogues a lot went on that they adhered to. So should we do that as well?

You are holding to a much too narrow, albeit all too common, view of Scripture. The Scripture is far from exhaustive about the Christian life, it's beliefs and practices. It is error to say that if it isn't found in Scripture it is wrong or we shouldn't do it. That might be the case but it might not.

 

[handy]

It's a common point of discussion/dispute in the church....

Should we only do what is found in the Scriptures?

Should we only go by "if it isn't condemned, then it's OK"?

I've been around for about 50 years now...37 of them being born-again.

What I tend to find brings the most unity among the various believers is this attitude:

If it's commanded, we all need to do it.
If it's forbidden, we all need to abstain.
If there is a clear principle to apply...apply it.
If there is silence...allow your brother freedom to do as his conscience dictates and follow your own conscience in the matter.

The NT is very silent on much of what happened when believers gathered 2000 years ago. Now, for my brothers and sisters who desire to only do what we do see was part of the worship service...be at peace. For me, who finds that God abundantly blesses me with many blessings in the liturgy...I'm at peace as well.

 

[felix]

Altars in churches are infact wrong. While many say it is a symbolic representation, we are not supposed to symbolize anything that is not given in Scripture.

How about hanging a gold cube at the roof of every church and call it New Jerusalem since it symbolizes it descending from heaven?

 

[felix]

Webb, I have no idea how you worship, so this isn't directed to you, personally...I'm just going to point out that to follow what you are saying then when the Church worships, there can be no:

church building
musical instruments
pews
furniture of any kind, except a table
candles
flowers
microphones
electricity
banners
crosses
hymn books
paper of any kind

As far as I know, the only things directly commanded, shown for example or necessarily inferred as to the worship of the early church is:

They met in personal homes, synagogues or by rivers.
There was a table.
There was a scroll of Scriptures to be read from.
They prayed.
They took communion.
They sang songs, hymns, spiritual songs (but no mention of instruments.)
They took a collection for the poor.

That's it.

Church is not a building. It was never mentioned as a building anywhere. Church is His body and His people. The issue above has nothing to do with location.

Even the Scriptures themselves give us a clue that the idea that worship can only be as it was 2000 years ago might not be correct. For instance, the fact that it was our Lord's habit, as well as the habit of the apostles to go to the synagogues for worship...

...there is no mention of a synagogue in the Old Testament. There was the temple, yes, and the tabernacle. But no synagogues. Somehow, between the Old Testament and the New, the practice of God's people meeting in synagogues for worship came into being. And, clearly it wasn't unholy, or Jesus would never have stepped into one, nor would the apostles have done so.

Synagogues are mentioned in Exod 12:16 and also in Neh 8:18 which is nothing but a holy convocation (a public gathering) which is instituted by God Himself in the law.

 

[handy]

Church is not a building. It was never mentioned as a building anywhere. Church is His body and His people. The issue above has nothing to do with location.

Of course the Church is the Body of Christ...and His Temple is in our own physical body. We are speaking of how the church corporately worships.

While the bible never once refers to a building as a church...there is a differentiation between the whole Body and the local congregations. This thread is centered far more about how local congregations worship.

Synagogues are mentioned in Exod 12:16 and also in Neh 8:18 which is nothing but a holy convocation (a public gathering) which is instituted by God Himself in the law.

Exodus 12:16 and Neh 8:18 merely mention the assembling together on the first day and last day of the week.

Synagogues in the New Testament could refer to either the assembly or the buildings for the set purpose of such assemblies. The texts speak of going into them and coming out of them. I don't think there is any mention of such buildings in the OT...just the temple. But there certainly were such buildings by the time of Jesus and Jesus went into them.

From Strongs:

3) b. the buildings where those solemn Jewish assemblies are held. Synagogues seem to date their origin from the Babylonian exile. In the times of Jesus and the apostles every town, not only in Palestine, but also among the Gentiles if it contained a considerable number of Jewish inhabitants, had at least one synagogue, the larger towns several or even many. These were also used for trials and inflicting punishment.

 

[Former Christian]

Handy

“I disagree. Christians across all denominations, including Orthodox and Catholic, look at the individual's body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. There are no "built" temples in Christianity for the simple fact that the primary purpose of the Temple was for the sacrifices and in Christianity there is naught but one sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ. The only real Temple left is the one in heaven. I believe that Christians most emphatically "realize" the reality of Christ's death being the penultimate sacrifice and hence no earthly temples except our physical bodies. The place of meeting is far more to compared to a synagogue as opposed to a Temple or Tabernacle.â€

The Orthodox still build their Churches on the pattern of the Tabernacle. Three sections and all. It is adapted to Christian beliefs. The Temple of the Old Testament was the residence of God. The development of using buildings was an imitation of the Temple. The synagogues were also an imitation of the Tabernacle as much as possible. Naturally the sacrifices couldn’t be a part of that imitation. That we are individually the residence of the Holy Spirit doesn’t contradict that the residence of God in the temple as the community, which is intended to be expressed in each ekklesia.

The Tabernacle is the pattern of what is in heaven. It seems reasonable to me that if any pattern of symbolism is to be followed it would be that pattern. And how that pattern relates to us today under the New Covenant. It is why I prefer the pattern of symbolism in the Orthodox Church above any patterns found in the West. Not just the pattern of the physical church itself, but the symbolism of it’s version of the sign of the cross as an acknowledgement of our baptism into the death of Christ, as it’s acknowledgement of its teaching on the Trinity in the three fingers held together, the dual nature of Christ in the remaining two fingers held toward the palm, ending the sign of the cross by touching our fingers to our heart as an acknowledgement of our love for God . It’s use of light and incense as a sign of the light of Christ and prayers rising to heaven. It’s use of Icons as symbolizing our unity with all in the Body of Christ, past and present. The symbol of the cross everywhere acknowledging what Christ has done on our behalf. The readings of Scripture as a sign of Christ’s presence as teacher. The participation in the Eucharist as the sign of Christ’s presence as life. The Orthodox Church is the ultimate in it’s use of symbolism.

Unfortunately, it only works to the greatest effect to one who is an adherent of the Orthodox denomination. At least according to the Orthodox themselves. Being a former Christian, that is something I’ll never be. Symbolically speaking, it’s a personal preference. It is not intended to belittle the pattern you prefer today or the pattern you may prefer in the future as you continue to grow in your understanding of your connection to the supernatural.

“Again, I disagree. That Jesus and the Apostles went to both the Temple and the synagogues is certainly true. I would submit that the reason why we see Peter and James going to the Temple and Paul and Barnabas going to the synagogues is for the very simple reason that Peter and James were in Jerusalem where the Temple was...and Paul and Barnabas traveled throughout Asia Minor...hence the gathering in the synagogues. To say that only Paul preached in the synagogues might be a bit misleading. Often, when speaking of the apostles going to the synagogues, it is said that "they" went in.
We know that other believers besides Paul and his personal attendents also went to the synagogues. In Acts 18 we see that Apollos went into the synagogue at Ephesus and began to boldly proclaim the word of God. However, he was only preaching the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla heard him (because obviously they were there) and took him aside to teach the gospel to him more fully.â€

I understand and will hold comment until I hear further on the matter. Perhaps my words have surpassed my understanding. And if so, that would make what I said an interpretation.

FC

 

[Webb]

Reply to Free, post 33
Free wrote: "---WE ALREADY HAVE MUCH THAT WASN'T IN THE NT CHURCH---". Yes indeed have! And because of such it has contributed much to our religious division. Nice for the eyes of the atheist>

About synagogues. Paul and others went to them not for worship or fellowship but to preach the Christ to Christ denying Jews. Although not a preacher, give me the opporunity for such and I will gladly do the same.

Free wrote: ''YOU ARE HOLDING TO A MUCH TOO NARROW, ALBEIT ALL TO COMMON VIEW, OF SCRIPTURE. THE SCRIPTURE IS FAR FROM EXHAUSTIVE ABOUT CHRISTIAN LIFE, ITS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES.'' I deny your concept. It makes Jesus, Peter and every other inspired writer liars ( Jn,.14:26; 16:13; II Pet.l:3 eg. ). If as you say ''THE SCRIPTURE IS FAR FROM EXHAUSTIVE---", By what authority do you so claim??? What STANDARD of authority shall we then use? We will be judged by His words, Jn.12:48, no other. When disciples began to walk with Jesus no more He said to the 12 "will ye also go away?" I like Peter's answer: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life", John 6. I accept Peters conclusion, and those who do are in the best of company. Again, what about God? Its a matter of authority. If the Bible is not ''EXHAUSTIVE'' Enough for you what is? This matter of "do your own thing" in religion, "what ever pleases me" "if I do it in the name of Christ then it must be o.k." IS "will worship" and as such is condemned by none other than the NT, Col.2:20-23.

This may sound harsh to some, but if the Scripture is not suffiecient I need to chuck it and find something that is or someone other than the Christ which the scripture exalts. HE HAS BEEN GIVEN ALL AUTHORITY: Matt.28:18!

 

[Free]

Altars in churches are infact wrong. While many say it is a symbolic representation, we are not supposed to symbolize anything that is not given in Scripture.

Please provide Scriptural support.