-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
How did you get introduced to Apologetics?
- Thread starter cyberjosh
- Start date
Mike
Member
- Mar 13, 2010
- 15,286
- 1,475
I just copied the beginnings of these posts to give mine some reference point. Former Christian, I think your posts were quite profound, and I agree with both of Josh's responses. I haven't read your whole body of work, but I must say from what I've read, one word comes to mind: authentic. It pains me to see you label yourself as "Former Christian", but I get the feeling this isn't your faith you're referring to; rather the people who bring the Name of Christ down by the way they behave. That's certainly understandable, and I agree that most often we are bickering with our brothers. For better or for worse, I wonder if that might be because we find ourselves dealing with believers more than non-believers. I have to be honest and say it's often easier for me to strike up an apologetics conversation with someone that has a similar perspective and isn't likely to be offended that I bring it up.
FC, just between you and me, would you say you are a Former Christian, but a Current Servant of Christ? Don't worry about others reading our private conversation here. Most people have learned to skim past my uninspiring posts.
The first time I caught Hank Hanegraaff on the radio, I was fascinated with apologetics. I loved listening to his approach, but that wasn't me for a long time... too long. I was more the "tell me about your problems, and I'll tell you how I got through mine" kind of messenger. Not to knock it, though. It's awesome to just let people unload their problems and then share how Christ makes me whole. But skilled apologists have a great way of eliminating the stigma that Christians check their grey matter in at the door. I'm way behind the curve now at 44, but when I grow up, I hope to be effective.
I was really impacted by Josh McDowell too.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Mike
I’ve written a lot on this forum about why I consider myself a Former Christian. Summarily, it’s because I believe that Christianity is a man-made religion and I no longer consider myself a part of it.
Christianity is denominational, institutional and historical in nature. Very human in nature. The term Christian doesn’t even have its origin with the Apostles. It was non-believers who called the believers at the time, “followers of Christ”, a Christ considered a sectarian religious leader by the Jews and a religious philosopher by everyone else. The term was later adapted to be a self-denotation. Those who are in Christ are much more than just “followers of Christ”.
I did something apparently unique. I rejected Christianity, but I didn’t reject the Bible. Those who reject Christianity, in agreement with Christians themselves, consider the Bible and Christianity to be one thing, one out of the other, which is which depending on the point of view. Against this common consensus, I consider Christianity and the Bible to be two different things, the source of Christianity to be man, the source of the Bible to be God.
And I went a step beyond Martin Luther. He only considered the Pope to be a human authority and replaced that authority with another that they considered in common to have a Divine source. Thus Luther’s idea of the Bible alone. But Luther lived in the 16th century and didn’t have the benefit of seeing the progress of what he began.
Luther perpetuated something that made him, and his fellow Protestants, new Popes. Not his fault really. He picked up a practice from the Church he came from. The practice of Biblical interpretation. Other Protestants of the era did the same as Martin Luther. They practiced Biblical interpretation. With devastating results. Protestantism today is the best example of the denominational nature of Christianity. It didn’t start with Luther nor Protestantism. The denominational nature was there all along. Protestantism merely expanded on an already present theme.
I don’t believe in the idea of the authority of the Bible alone, the Protestant idea. The Bible alone is just a written document, the human writers of which are long dead. Any document alone requires an interpreter. Just common sense. Even the framers of the American Constitution knew that interpreters of the Constitution would be necessary, hence, the Judiciary that is described in the document itself.
The Bible is a tool. Christianity uses this tool as if it’s the tool of man. This is seen most clearly in the practice of Textual Criticism that has become a modern science in Christianity. Through the practice of Biblical interpretation, the interpreter becomes the life of the Bible. Any attempt to interpret changes what is interpreted. Otherwise there would be no reason to interpret in the first place. Just state what is said without interpretation. Interpretation doesn’t help anyone to understand better what has already been stated, which is the perceived purpose of Biblical interpretation.
God specifically gave the Bible to be a tool of Jesus Christ. There is an obvious affinity between Christ the Word of God and the Bible the written word of God. Jesus Christ is the legitimate life and teacher of the Bible through the Holy Spirit in our human spirit. From the human spirit it goes into the mind of man and from there into the experience of man. The one who interprets the Bible has put the cart before the horse, so to speak, and changed what the Bible actually says. The one who is in Christ and interprets what Jesus has taught has changed what he was taught.
I realize the problems with denying the legitimacy of the practice of Biblical interpretation. But if the practice is legitimate, which is the common consensus in Christianity, it proves that the Bible is as man-made as is Christianity. Interpretation is an action of the human mind. It must be practiced in cases where an author is absent or dead. The practice of Biblical interpretation is basically acknowledging that the human writers of the Bible are dead. It acknowledges that the only authors of the Bible are the human writers, and that a Divine author behind these authors doesn’t in fact exist.
Am I guilty of interpretation? That’s the question isn’t it. If so, then I’m already prepared to move on. For if I, one who denies the practice of interpretation, in fact interprets the Bible, it only shows that the Bible can’t be understood in any other way than by interpretation. But it will also prove to me that the Bible is only as human as its human writers.
I’ve finally realized that the New Testament writers appear to have practiced interpretation of the Old Testament writers. In spite of Peter’s claim that, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet 1:20-21 KJV) And the Greek word translated “interpretation” does in fact mean interpretation. Was Peter, like Paul, only referring to the Old Testament writers? If they interpreted the Old Testament, doesn’t that imply the exact same thing that I’m saying about interpretation by Christians of the Bible as a whole? It is a current personal dilemma. Was I wrong to go against the Christian consensus that the Bible and Christianity are the same thing? But to go on.....
The ekklesia as portrayed in the New Testament is far different from “the Churches” of Christianity. The English word “Church” comes from a Greek phrase that means “the Lord’s house”. While the ekklesia expresses the residence of God, that isn’t all it expresses. The English word “Church” is an interpretive translation of the Greek word “ekklesia”. There is no English word comparable to the Greek word. The best translation isn’t a translation at all, but a transliteration.
The Ekklesia are expressions of the Body of Christ (Eph 1), of the residence or house of God (Eph 2), of the Mystery of Christ (Eph 3), of the Kingdom of the Son (Col 1:13), of the Priesthood in Christ (1 Pet 2:1-10), and more. And the ekklesia are only referred to by the name of the city in which they exist (Rev 1-3). Those verses used as a basis for the idea that “the Church” is a universal entity, the context is always in relation to a local ekklesia. They are only interpreted to refer to a universal entity. And the thing about interpretation. Having its source in the human mind, it can be as expansive and as imaginative as the human mind needs it to be. The human mind can be very creative. In other words, one can interpret just about anything to mean just about anything. The practice of interpretation and its results are nothing to base one’s life or one’s future on.
Granted some say that the “Church” of the first century is of the first century, and the “Church” of today is for today. But that only shows their practical opinion of the Bible and the ekklesia. That they are limited by time. And where the rubber meets the road, that would make both Christianity and the Bible man-made.
To me, the Bible and the ekklesia are timeless simply because of their connection to and source from the Divine. And so far, only Christianity is limited by and to human history.
Anyway, that’s the way I see it.
I only had one personal experience with Hank Hanegraaff in my younger days. I asked him a rather simple question (don’t even remember what it was anymore). I made the mistake of questioning his answer and he shut me down. Not an attitude that generates confidence. But it did have the effect of starting my questioning of the nature of Christianity. I understand the family of Walter Martin, the originator of CRI, don’t much care for him. I saw something on YouTube where he came out in favor of Witness Lee and his “Recovery” (of Christianity, not from alcoholism). Strange, because from my experience with that group, Lee was a practicing Modalist. Since CRI supposedly backs the position of a historically accurate Christianity, from a Protestant perspective, that seems to take a bite out of Hanegraaff’s integrity as a Protestant apologist. He has this air of controlled humility that seemed to me too exaggerated to be real. He wrote a book about Evolution, but doesn’t seem to understand Evolutionism very well. Apparently your experience with Hanegraaff has been better than mine.
John Ankerberg is another one I don’t have much use for. He likes to bring people on his show he doesn’t agree with under the guise of a debate situation, and then gang up on them.
Josh McDowell seems to be a pretty straight apologist. I like to listen to Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig on occasion. They always have interesting things to say apologetically. Greg Koukl has an interesting approach. The Orthodox/Catholics emphasize a historical approach from their respective perspectives.
I read once that apologetics in the modern sense isn’t ministering, it’s trying to win an argument. I tend to agree with that assessment. Apologetics has become for the most part a lucrative business. But as always, there are exceptions.
FC
I’ve written a lot on this forum about why I consider myself a Former Christian. Summarily, it’s because I believe that Christianity is a man-made religion and I no longer consider myself a part of it.
Christianity is denominational, institutional and historical in nature. Very human in nature. The term Christian doesn’t even have its origin with the Apostles. It was non-believers who called the believers at the time, “followers of Christ”, a Christ considered a sectarian religious leader by the Jews and a religious philosopher by everyone else. The term was later adapted to be a self-denotation. Those who are in Christ are much more than just “followers of Christ”.
I did something apparently unique. I rejected Christianity, but I didn’t reject the Bible. Those who reject Christianity, in agreement with Christians themselves, consider the Bible and Christianity to be one thing, one out of the other, which is which depending on the point of view. Against this common consensus, I consider Christianity and the Bible to be two different things, the source of Christianity to be man, the source of the Bible to be God.
And I went a step beyond Martin Luther. He only considered the Pope to be a human authority and replaced that authority with another that they considered in common to have a Divine source. Thus Luther’s idea of the Bible alone. But Luther lived in the 16th century and didn’t have the benefit of seeing the progress of what he began.
Luther perpetuated something that made him, and his fellow Protestants, new Popes. Not his fault really. He picked up a practice from the Church he came from. The practice of Biblical interpretation. Other Protestants of the era did the same as Martin Luther. They practiced Biblical interpretation. With devastating results. Protestantism today is the best example of the denominational nature of Christianity. It didn’t start with Luther nor Protestantism. The denominational nature was there all along. Protestantism merely expanded on an already present theme.
I don’t believe in the idea of the authority of the Bible alone, the Protestant idea. The Bible alone is just a written document, the human writers of which are long dead. Any document alone requires an interpreter. Just common sense. Even the framers of the American Constitution knew that interpreters of the Constitution would be necessary, hence, the Judiciary that is described in the document itself.
The Bible is a tool. Christianity uses this tool as if it’s the tool of man. This is seen most clearly in the practice of Textual Criticism that has become a modern science in Christianity. Through the practice of Biblical interpretation, the interpreter becomes the life of the Bible. Any attempt to interpret changes what is interpreted. Otherwise there would be no reason to interpret in the first place. Just state what is said without interpretation. Interpretation doesn’t help anyone to understand better what has already been stated, which is the perceived purpose of Biblical interpretation.
God specifically gave the Bible to be a tool of Jesus Christ. There is an obvious affinity between Christ the Word of God and the Bible the written word of God. Jesus Christ is the legitimate life and teacher of the Bible through the Holy Spirit in our human spirit. From the human spirit it goes into the mind of man and from there into the experience of man. The one who interprets the Bible has put the cart before the horse, so to speak, and changed what the Bible actually says. The one who is in Christ and interprets what Jesus has taught has changed what he was taught.
I realize the problems with denying the legitimacy of the practice of Biblical interpretation. But if the practice is legitimate, which is the common consensus in Christianity, it proves that the Bible is as man-made as is Christianity. Interpretation is an action of the human mind. It must be practiced in cases where an author is absent or dead. The practice of Biblical interpretation is basically acknowledging that the human writers of the Bible are dead. It acknowledges that the only authors of the Bible are the human writers, and that a Divine author behind these authors doesn’t in fact exist.
Am I guilty of interpretation? That’s the question isn’t it. If so, then I’m already prepared to move on. For if I, one who denies the practice of interpretation, in fact interprets the Bible, it only shows that the Bible can’t be understood in any other way than by interpretation. But it will also prove to me that the Bible is only as human as its human writers.
I’ve finally realized that the New Testament writers appear to have practiced interpretation of the Old Testament writers. In spite of Peter’s claim that, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet 1:20-21 KJV) And the Greek word translated “interpretation” does in fact mean interpretation. Was Peter, like Paul, only referring to the Old Testament writers? If they interpreted the Old Testament, doesn’t that imply the exact same thing that I’m saying about interpretation by Christians of the Bible as a whole? It is a current personal dilemma. Was I wrong to go against the Christian consensus that the Bible and Christianity are the same thing? But to go on.....
The ekklesia as portrayed in the New Testament is far different from “the Churches” of Christianity. The English word “Church” comes from a Greek phrase that means “the Lord’s house”. While the ekklesia expresses the residence of God, that isn’t all it expresses. The English word “Church” is an interpretive translation of the Greek word “ekklesia”. There is no English word comparable to the Greek word. The best translation isn’t a translation at all, but a transliteration.
The Ekklesia are expressions of the Body of Christ (Eph 1), of the residence or house of God (Eph 2), of the Mystery of Christ (Eph 3), of the Kingdom of the Son (Col 1:13), of the Priesthood in Christ (1 Pet 2:1-10), and more. And the ekklesia are only referred to by the name of the city in which they exist (Rev 1-3). Those verses used as a basis for the idea that “the Church” is a universal entity, the context is always in relation to a local ekklesia. They are only interpreted to refer to a universal entity. And the thing about interpretation. Having its source in the human mind, it can be as expansive and as imaginative as the human mind needs it to be. The human mind can be very creative. In other words, one can interpret just about anything to mean just about anything. The practice of interpretation and its results are nothing to base one’s life or one’s future on.
Granted some say that the “Church” of the first century is of the first century, and the “Church” of today is for today. But that only shows their practical opinion of the Bible and the ekklesia. That they are limited by time. And where the rubber meets the road, that would make both Christianity and the Bible man-made.
To me, the Bible and the ekklesia are timeless simply because of their connection to and source from the Divine. And so far, only Christianity is limited by and to human history.
Anyway, that’s the way I see it.
I only had one personal experience with Hank Hanegraaff in my younger days. I asked him a rather simple question (don’t even remember what it was anymore). I made the mistake of questioning his answer and he shut me down. Not an attitude that generates confidence. But it did have the effect of starting my questioning of the nature of Christianity. I understand the family of Walter Martin, the originator of CRI, don’t much care for him. I saw something on YouTube where he came out in favor of Witness Lee and his “Recovery” (of Christianity, not from alcoholism). Strange, because from my experience with that group, Lee was a practicing Modalist. Since CRI supposedly backs the position of a historically accurate Christianity, from a Protestant perspective, that seems to take a bite out of Hanegraaff’s integrity as a Protestant apologist. He has this air of controlled humility that seemed to me too exaggerated to be real. He wrote a book about Evolution, but doesn’t seem to understand Evolutionism very well. Apparently your experience with Hanegraaff has been better than mine.
John Ankerberg is another one I don’t have much use for. He likes to bring people on his show he doesn’t agree with under the guise of a debate situation, and then gang up on them.
Josh McDowell seems to be a pretty straight apologist. I like to listen to Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig on occasion. They always have interesting things to say apologetically. Greg Koukl has an interesting approach. The Orthodox/Catholics emphasize a historical approach from their respective perspectives.
I read once that apologetics in the modern sense isn’t ministering, it’s trying to win an argument. I tend to agree with that assessment. Apologetics has become for the most part a lucrative business. But as always, there are exceptions.
FC
FC,
For the most part, I agree with your post, man has changed Christianity, our church buildings today are not as they were supposed to be. We were intended to be like the Acts church, and we are not. We are the church, His Body, many parts and we were intended to be working together, not divided as we are now. It has become an organized religious affiliation, asking one another - which one do you belong to? When, in fact, we only belong to His Body, the true church.
The Kingdom of God is within us, and around us, it permeates us, but most of us do not realize this. I hear all the time that the Kingdom of God is not here, when the Bible tells us differently. We are dying to ourselves daily, carrying our cross daily, conforming to the image of Christ, yet we are also blind to this. We are not striving to be Holy as He is Holy, be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. We are too worried about entertaining at our church services and having fun. The Kingdom of God is not easy, it was never intended to be easy, but sacrificial, it's painful to die to ourselves, giving up all for the sake of Christ.
The Bible is the written Word of God, it is to interpet US, not the other way around, it's discerning, sharper than a two edged sword - it's discerning US, a human doesn't discern the Bible. That's why we have the Holy Spirit.
We are not supposed to live in a book, the Bible tells us to go and walk in the Spirit, making disciples of nations, not live in a book OR live in a church building, we are the light of the world. The Bible tells us we are a city on a hill, meaning many parts, making up His Body, being the light of the world - together, not divided, but in unity as Eph 4, until the Body is built up and in unity, with one mind. We are far from being that.
I may be young, but I have experienced alot and I have already seen what you have seen with Christianity.
For the most part, I agree with your post, man has changed Christianity, our church buildings today are not as they were supposed to be. We were intended to be like the Acts church, and we are not. We are the church, His Body, many parts and we were intended to be working together, not divided as we are now. It has become an organized religious affiliation, asking one another - which one do you belong to? When, in fact, we only belong to His Body, the true church.
The Kingdom of God is within us, and around us, it permeates us, but most of us do not realize this. I hear all the time that the Kingdom of God is not here, when the Bible tells us differently. We are dying to ourselves daily, carrying our cross daily, conforming to the image of Christ, yet we are also blind to this. We are not striving to be Holy as He is Holy, be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. We are too worried about entertaining at our church services and having fun. The Kingdom of God is not easy, it was never intended to be easy, but sacrificial, it's painful to die to ourselves, giving up all for the sake of Christ.
The Bible is the written Word of God, it is to interpet US, not the other way around, it's discerning, sharper than a two edged sword - it's discerning US, a human doesn't discern the Bible. That's why we have the Holy Spirit.
We are not supposed to live in a book, the Bible tells us to go and walk in the Spirit, making disciples of nations, not live in a book OR live in a church building, we are the light of the world. The Bible tells us we are a city on a hill, meaning many parts, making up His Body, being the light of the world - together, not divided, but in unity as Eph 4, until the Body is built up and in unity, with one mind. We are far from being that.
I may be young, but I have experienced alot and I have already seen what you have seen with Christianity.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Rockie
“The Bible is the written Word of God, it is to interpet US, not the other way around, it's discerning, sharper than a two edged sword - it's discerning US, a human doesn't discern the Bible. That's why we have the Holy Spirit.â€
Interesting and good way to put it.
“We are not supposed to live in a book, the Bible tells us to go and walk in the Spirit, making disciples of nations, not live in a book OR live in a church building, we are the light of the world. The Bible tells us we are a city on a hill, meaning many parts, making up His Body, being the light of the world - together, not divided, but in unity as Eph 4, until the Body is built up and in unity, with one mind. We are far from being that.â€
True, we aren’t suppose to live in a book. That is especially a Protestant problem due to their emphasis on “Bible aloneâ€. And living in a church building is common to the Catholics and Protestants alike. Gathering in special buildings built for the purpose of gathering is not a New Testament idea. It’s a historical development that has its roots in the Temple of Old Testament Judaism. There are at least four places in the letters that show that they gathered in homes as community expressions of the larger community of the ekklesia after the Temple was destroyed.
We must keep the balance. We gather together to Worship God, and experience the Life of God in Christ as a community. So that we might incite one another to love and good works in relation to one another and to the world. (Heb 10:19-25, 1 Pet 2:1-10)
Christians know the story in Genesis. How God put Adam in the garden to tend it, to take care of it. Yet Christians are among the least as activists in that regard, in taking care of our planet today. And I’m not talking about feeding the world. If Steven Seagall, a Buddhist, sees the need to be actively trying to right a wrong and save animals from extinction, help people to eat in one locality, or help the world to be a better place to live, with his time and his money; and Christians at most want to preach to the world about Christ, one has to wonder who got the revelation. Jesus preached rightly enough. But he also went about doing good (Ac 10:38). Paul preached as he was commissioned as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. There is no record that he went around doing good. But he shouldn’t have to. The ekklesia already existed by that time. Not everyone is an Apostle.
Mankind has no ability to look inside a person. He can only see the outward. Some people rightly look at a persons actions before he’ll hear his words. All through the Gospel of John, Jesus said things like this, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.†(John 10:37-38 KJV) It’s by our unity that we are seen to actually be in Christ (John 17:20-23). It’s by our works, our selfless acts of kindness, that we are seen to be of the God who is reconciling humanity and the world to himself.
FC
“The Bible is the written Word of God, it is to interpet US, not the other way around, it's discerning, sharper than a two edged sword - it's discerning US, a human doesn't discern the Bible. That's why we have the Holy Spirit.â€
Interesting and good way to put it.
“We are not supposed to live in a book, the Bible tells us to go and walk in the Spirit, making disciples of nations, not live in a book OR live in a church building, we are the light of the world. The Bible tells us we are a city on a hill, meaning many parts, making up His Body, being the light of the world - together, not divided, but in unity as Eph 4, until the Body is built up and in unity, with one mind. We are far from being that.â€
True, we aren’t suppose to live in a book. That is especially a Protestant problem due to their emphasis on “Bible aloneâ€. And living in a church building is common to the Catholics and Protestants alike. Gathering in special buildings built for the purpose of gathering is not a New Testament idea. It’s a historical development that has its roots in the Temple of Old Testament Judaism. There are at least four places in the letters that show that they gathered in homes as community expressions of the larger community of the ekklesia after the Temple was destroyed.
We must keep the balance. We gather together to Worship God, and experience the Life of God in Christ as a community. So that we might incite one another to love and good works in relation to one another and to the world. (Heb 10:19-25, 1 Pet 2:1-10)
Christians know the story in Genesis. How God put Adam in the garden to tend it, to take care of it. Yet Christians are among the least as activists in that regard, in taking care of our planet today. And I’m not talking about feeding the world. If Steven Seagall, a Buddhist, sees the need to be actively trying to right a wrong and save animals from extinction, help people to eat in one locality, or help the world to be a better place to live, with his time and his money; and Christians at most want to preach to the world about Christ, one has to wonder who got the revelation. Jesus preached rightly enough. But he also went about doing good (Ac 10:38). Paul preached as he was commissioned as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. There is no record that he went around doing good. But he shouldn’t have to. The ekklesia already existed by that time. Not everyone is an Apostle.
Mankind has no ability to look inside a person. He can only see the outward. Some people rightly look at a persons actions before he’ll hear his words. All through the Gospel of John, Jesus said things like this, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.†(John 10:37-38 KJV) It’s by our unity that we are seen to actually be in Christ (John 17:20-23). It’s by our works, our selfless acts of kindness, that we are seen to be of the God who is reconciling humanity and the world to himself.
FC
I agree, when the new covenant came into play, we are the temple now, yet we returned to a few old testament practices, with this being one of them. I dont' think it's the idea people meet in the church building that is incorrect, what I have seen, is the inclusion and exclusion which has developed. In addition to, the political and worldly idealogies which have entered.
Yet, it's not easy to find a home group either.
Yes! It's the James and Paul conflict that comes into play, not that they are in conflict, but many people will argue is it faith that saves, or is it faith and works?I think it was A.W. Tozer who said something about in our anxiety over proving we are not saved by works, we forgot about obedience. Doing good works is obedience, through faith.
peace -
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
He copied me.
(it's not really my car, I just would like to own it one day).
LOL, well, you prolly had your avatar before mine... But my pile of stove bolts has been sitting in my garage since you were cutting your teeth
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
I've underlined and put in bold the section I have an interest in. As yyou've stated earlier, interpretation seems to be the dividing factor in many cases among the brotherhood.
Let us ask a simple question. Why did the first century church meet in homes, and not in buildings?
If we correctly identify the historical accuracy in this area, your statment, "It’s a historical development that has its roots in the Temple of Old Testament Judaism. " quickly falls apart on first view if you are to use this statment as a negative for the church to meet in buildings, and not homes.
It was God himself who instituted the Tabernacle with Moses, which was a place for the children of God to gather, offer sacrifice, fellowship, place oaths and commune not only with one another, but with God just to name a few off the top of my head. It was not the Jews who mandated the yearly feasts, but it was God who called the children together in one place, and not scattered abroad the land.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Rockie & Steve Bolts
God instituted the Old Covenant religion in its original form found in the Torah and expanded on little by little in the rest of the OT, until the Tabernacle became the Temple. The first who were in Christ met in homes and in the Temple. But the Temple was destroyed. They only met in homes after that. The ones who were in Christ were scattered even before that according to Acts 8, and the scattered ones met only in homes. At least there isn’t any indication they met in special buildings, except on special occasions. The Old Covenant religion was replaced by the New Covenant reality in Christ. Modern Judaism is from the Pharisees. It isn’t representative of the Old Covenant religion. Funny how the idea that modern Israel is a continuation of the Israel of the Old Testament is held so strongly by some Christians. Almost like a superstition. The only reality today is the New Covenant reality in Christ.
If you want to see how the Church buildings were in the first millennium, go to an Eastern Orthodox Church. They’re still the same. Even to being set up like the Tabernacle/Temple. Not much like that in the West anymore. Becoming more and more just like common buildings in the West. Catholic buildings are becoming more and more like Protestant buildings. So the similarities are harder to see in the West. But if you ask the Orthodox, even many Catholics, they will tell you that there is a definite connection between the OT and the NT that shows itself in the faith in all sorts of ways. The NT shows the practical expression of the ones who are in Christ and their intended part in the New Covenant relationship with God.
The Biblical ekklesia are not institutions and are centered in cities rather than nations or world wide. The Church buildings are part of the institutional nature of Christianity. And as a former Christian, it’s not that I’m anti-Christian religion, though I realize that Christianity is just man-made. I’m just don’t see why it should be the way of life for those who are in Christ. Interesting how some will talk against religion as if they aren’t involved in it up to their personality spike. The Christian religion is for religious Christians, in particular, those who aren’t in Christ. Not that I believe that those who are in Christ deserve better. I just believe that those who are in Christ are intended to be more than Christians by virtue of their being in Christ. Of course, those who are still deceived and held captive by a Christian Tradition of one sort or another, don’t, can’t or won’t see it that way.
The idea that we should be gathering in homes is one of the few personal beliefs where I’ve heard that there are those who agree with me and actually practice gathering in homes. Never actually met any in person though.
FC
God instituted the Old Covenant religion in its original form found in the Torah and expanded on little by little in the rest of the OT, until the Tabernacle became the Temple. The first who were in Christ met in homes and in the Temple. But the Temple was destroyed. They only met in homes after that. The ones who were in Christ were scattered even before that according to Acts 8, and the scattered ones met only in homes. At least there isn’t any indication they met in special buildings, except on special occasions. The Old Covenant religion was replaced by the New Covenant reality in Christ. Modern Judaism is from the Pharisees. It isn’t representative of the Old Covenant religion. Funny how the idea that modern Israel is a continuation of the Israel of the Old Testament is held so strongly by some Christians. Almost like a superstition. The only reality today is the New Covenant reality in Christ.
If you want to see how the Church buildings were in the first millennium, go to an Eastern Orthodox Church. They’re still the same. Even to being set up like the Tabernacle/Temple. Not much like that in the West anymore. Becoming more and more just like common buildings in the West. Catholic buildings are becoming more and more like Protestant buildings. So the similarities are harder to see in the West. But if you ask the Orthodox, even many Catholics, they will tell you that there is a definite connection between the OT and the NT that shows itself in the faith in all sorts of ways. The NT shows the practical expression of the ones who are in Christ and their intended part in the New Covenant relationship with God.
The Biblical ekklesia are not institutions and are centered in cities rather than nations or world wide. The Church buildings are part of the institutional nature of Christianity. And as a former Christian, it’s not that I’m anti-Christian religion, though I realize that Christianity is just man-made. I’m just don’t see why it should be the way of life for those who are in Christ. Interesting how some will talk against religion as if they aren’t involved in it up to their personality spike. The Christian religion is for religious Christians, in particular, those who aren’t in Christ. Not that I believe that those who are in Christ deserve better. I just believe that those who are in Christ are intended to be more than Christians by virtue of their being in Christ. Of course, those who are still deceived and held captive by a Christian Tradition of one sort or another, don’t, can’t or won’t see it that way.
The idea that we should be gathering in homes is one of the few personal beliefs where I’ve heard that there are those who agree with me and actually practice gathering in homes. Never actually met any in person though.
FC
FC,
I meet in a home group and we do the race together! There are about 20 of us and it keeps growing!
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
Former Christian,
I have nothing against churches meeting in homes. I want to make that point crystal clear.
That being said, one doesn't have to look far to realize that the first Christians were in fact Jewish and Christianity as a whole didn't take off like fire through a dry field within the gentile community until Paul came on the scene.
That being said, where do we see Paul going first and foremost when he entered into a town? Right, the synagogue. This bears out heavily in the book of Acts. Why does Paul go there? Because that's the place of worship and teaching about God.
But Paul is rejected, because Jesus is rejected at the synagogue. Actually, the first century Christians still went to the synagogue's on the Sabbath to worship God. However, as Christianity took a foothold, the Jewish leaders (which you really should learn your history in this matter) made a point that if you were a known follower of Jesus, then you would be expelled from the synagogue.
Without a place to worship and being persecuted by their Jewish brothers, they had no where else to worship than in their homes. I believe the Hebrew writer addresses this pressure in chapter 6.
With the uprising against Rome, Jerusalem was put to the sword by Rome and the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD as you've already stated. Both Christians and Jews were evenly persecuted at that time, and were persecuted until our favorite gentile ruler came into power several hundred years later, and you should know that story I'm sure.
I have nothing against churches meeting in homes. I want to make that point crystal clear.
That being said, one doesn't have to look far to realize that the first Christians were in fact Jewish and Christianity as a whole didn't take off like fire through a dry field within the gentile community until Paul came on the scene.
That being said, where do we see Paul going first and foremost when he entered into a town? Right, the synagogue. This bears out heavily in the book of Acts. Why does Paul go there? Because that's the place of worship and teaching about God.
But Paul is rejected, because Jesus is rejected at the synagogue. Actually, the first century Christians still went to the synagogue's on the Sabbath to worship God. However, as Christianity took a foothold, the Jewish leaders (which you really should learn your history in this matter) made a point that if you were a known follower of Jesus, then you would be expelled from the synagogue.
Without a place to worship and being persecuted by their Jewish brothers, they had no where else to worship than in their homes. I believe the Hebrew writer addresses this pressure in chapter 6.
With the uprising against Rome, Jerusalem was put to the sword by Rome and the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD as you've already stated. Both Christians and Jews were evenly persecuted at that time, and were persecuted until our favorite gentile ruler came into power several hundred years later, and you should know that story I'm sure.
E
Elijah674
Guest
Hey guy, you said that you had your garage of bolts when one of these ones were cutting teeth;). (or someting to that effect?) Anyhow it seem that this just goes round & round:yes (Apologets)
So let me say that you are in the earlier generation with that EXCELLENT POST!:yes And that we are seeing the 'loose cannon's' go it alone ones of the last days. One reason that we have the home church's as 'i' see it, is because the early ones after Christ left were being persecuted + left the Matt. 23:38 ex/house of Christ.
But they (the remnant) that started up the Acts Church took the Sanctuary DOCTRINES with them in the start of the NT Church. And Christ in Matt. 18:17-18 left HIS CHURCH with Obedient Requirements. And even told Saul (Paul) in Acts 9:6 what HE MUST DO!
And I might add that some here would not have been accepted in that church membership with their teachings.
There is NOTHING WRONG with the correct concept of home church's. But what is wrong about them is the wrong reason for having them. Such as right reasons seen in Rev. 18:4 & Matt. 10:5-6 on.
And for you and the quicker learning ones (Heb. 6:1-5) they can find why such was required in Jer. 15:15-20 for a real good read! And in verse 15 it was Jeremiah who was being persecuted by his own. Then comes God telling him what He would require of him.
But, the [TRUE] in house church's will surely be required even more in the near future, it will not be as most of the today one falsley teach, as 'i' see it. Take orders from a Church? (Eph. 4:5) Are we kidding ourselves??
Some of these ones in the house/church's dress like they are Worshiping the King?? Come draging in late + much ealse!!
Whatever? A New Generation, huh? And it seems that Christ left the verse that 'this generation will not pass away until ALL things be fullfilled'.
--Elijah
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Rockie
You give your location as Western USA. What is the nearest large city to you?
FC
You give your location as Western USA. What is the nearest large city to you?
FC
Sacramento
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Stevebolts
“That being said, where do we see Paul going first and foremost when he entered into a town? Right, the synagogue. This bears out heavily in the book of Acts. Why does Paul go there? Because that's the place of worship and teaching about God.”
Paul goes to the synagogues first because:
Romans 10:1-4: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
If what Paul says here is true, then how could the synagogues also be the place of worship and teaching about God? Especially after Christ died and the New Covenant was in effect?
FC
“That being said, where do we see Paul going first and foremost when he entered into a town? Right, the synagogue. This bears out heavily in the book of Acts. Why does Paul go there? Because that's the place of worship and teaching about God.”
Paul goes to the synagogues first because:
Romans 10:1-4: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
If what Paul says here is true, then how could the synagogues also be the place of worship and teaching about God? Especially after Christ died and the New Covenant was in effect?
FC
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
I suppose this is an item that you'll just have to work through then won't it? I maintain my original statement for the purpose of the synagogues and why Paul went there. It is not a far reach to say that the Torah speaks to Jesus, let alone the rest of the TANAK. If you want to affirm who Jesus is, where would you look? Would you look to Greek mythology, or would you look to the Scriptures?
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Moses is accredited for writing the Torah. Torah was taught in the synagogues.
This is why Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God in Parables.
Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
And of course, you don't put new wine in old wine skins which speaks to the new covenant.
Last edited by a moderator: