Growth Early Church History

[OzSpen]

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.

The original church consisted of churches across the Jewish and Gentile world, as demonstrated by the Book of Acts and the NT epistles. You are wanting 'church' to be understood in the very narrow sense of a Jerusalem congregation. That is not the wording you gave from #60 when you spoke of the 'original church'. If that is what you meant, you should have stated it more clearly as: the original congregation was entirely Jewish.

 

[OzSpen]

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

Jim,

I did get that wrong. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

However, what Peter said to the 'men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem' (Acts 2:14) does not state that he is referring to Jews only. The NIV translates Acts 2:14 (NIV) as: 'Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say'. 'All of you who live in Jerusalem' does not state that all of these were Jews only.

In fact, the translation, 'Men of Judea' (Ac 2:14) is incorrect because it is
Ἄνδρες Ἰουδαῖοι, andres ioudaioi, i.e. men Jews, thus 'Jews, those identified with the entire Jewish nation' (Lenski 1934:71).

Oz

Works consulted
Lenski, R C H 1934. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (originally published by Lutheran Book Concern 1934; assigned 1944 to The Wartburg Press; assigned 1961 to Augsburg Publishing House; Hendrickson limited edition 2001, licensed by special permission of Augsburg Fortress).

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Where is your evidence that Mary Magdalene was a Jew?

 

[for_his_glory]

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.



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



No, this was on Friday.

My mistake, I did mean Gregorian Calendar. The rest I stand by as I showed the time line earlier

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.



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



No, this was on Friday.

Sorry, I did mean the Gregorian Calendar. I did explain all this in post #21. The first day of the week is Sunday, but not the seventh day of rest or what is know as the Sabbath day that we are commanded to keep holy, Exodus 20:8-11. It was not God, but man who declared we set aside Sunday as being the holy day that takes away from Sat being the Sabbath day of rest. In all reality we worship God everyday of the week as when the Apostles went out on their mission trips and set up Gods Church (not denominations) no where in scripture that I know of states any specific day we are to gather.

 

[for_his_glory]

Duplicate

 

[brewmama]

What difference does it make if the early Church was all Jewish or had some Gentiles in it? The Church was founded by the Apostles, who were definitely Jewish, and they were the ones who set up the worship procedure, not people like Mary Magdelene. I find it much more believable that they would have based worship on the Jewish worship, as that is what God had given them, centered on the Eucharist, which Christ had given them, and that this apostolic teaching was handed on down, not that a generation or 2 totally changed it without reason a little later. Evidently some of you find the latter more believable for whatever reason.

 

[Radagast]

the Apostles went out on their mission trips and set up Gods Church (not denominations)

Oh, it's like that, is it?

 

[Jim Parker]

Where is your evidence that Mary Magdalene was a Jew?

You have not presented compelling evidence that she was not a Jew.

The scriptures nowhere state that she was a gentile and there are no examples in scripture of anyone but Jews being among the band of disciples. She was not only a member of the inner circle of followers but, a prominent person among the women who supported the disciples out of their own means. (Luk 8:1-3) Within the four Gospels she is named at least 12 times, more than most of the apostles.

In the four Gospels, Mary Magdalene is regularly distinguished from other women named Mary by adding "the Magdalene" (ἡ Μαγδαληνή) to her name. (Mat 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mar 15:40,47; 16:1, 9; Luk 24:10; Jhn 19:25; 20:1,18) This has most often been interpreted to mean "Mary from Magdala", a town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.
"Most Christian scholars assume that she was from the place the Talmud calls Magdala Nunayya, and that this is also where Jesus landed on the occasion recorded by Matthew." (Merk, August. "Magdala." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 31 Oct. 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09523a.htm>.)

Luk 8:2 says that she was actually "called Magdalene".

Again, I find it highly unlikely that a gentile woman would be included as a member of the band of disciples. Luk 8:1-3) And, of greater significance to this discussion, to suggest that a single (allegedly) gentile woman would prevent the continuance of their habitual, Jewish manner of worship common to all the disciples of Jesus, into the primitive, Jewish church is far too great a leap. Considering the place of women in that society, let alone a gentile woman, it would have been an impossibility.

Consider: Act 9:1-2 (NKJV) Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Is it logical that Saul would go to the Jew's High priest to get warrants to arrest Gentiles in the Jewish synagogues of Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem? The fact that he went to the synagogues to arrest members of "the Way" attests to the fact that the the church at that time (those of "the Way") were Jews. It is also a fulfillment of Jesus prediction.

Jhn 16:2 (NKJV) They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

The uniformity between early Christian worship with that of the contemporary synagogues is far to great to have been a coincidence. And that the Eucharist replaced the animal sacrifices of the Jewish temple is also an obvious conclusion.
The historic evidence supports the conclusion the primitive church drew her forms of worship from the synagogue and the temple.

jim

 

[Radagast]

And that the Eucharist replaced the animal sacrifices of the Jewish temple is also an obvious conclusion.

Given what Hebrews 10 teaches about the sacrifice of Christ being a once-for-all replacement for the animal sacrifices of the Jewish temple, such an idea would be totally opposed to the teaching of the early Church.

 

[for_his_glory]

Oh, it's like that, is it?

Why do you cut out the whole of my post that explains the snippet you copied?

 

[Jim Parker]

Given what Hebrews 10 teaches about the sacrifice of Christ being a once-for-all replacement for the animal sacrifices of the Jewish temple, such an idea would be totally opposed to the teaching of the early Church.

Christ is the "once for all" sacrifice and that sacrifice is made present in the Eucharist. All the events of Christ's sacrifice, the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present.

"...the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (I, 10 f.) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist."
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition, pages 196-198, published by Harper Collins.
http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/08/eucharist-as-sacrifice.html

iakov the fool