Did the early church only worship in houses?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

Brother History says the early church was first Jews and yes they did still go to temple.I will go back and check.I only posted a bit of information.I was trying for less than pages and pages of church history.

I would be interested to see that demonstrated.

I am aware that they were first Jews. For several years there were no gentile converts at all.
I am also aware that they still went to the temple but all I can see demonstrated in scripture is that this was in an evangelistic capacity.

[Trouvere]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I would be interested to see that demonstrated.

I am aware that they were first Jews. For several years there were no gentile converts at all.
I am also aware that they still went to the temple but all I can see demonstrated in scripture is that this was in an evangelistic capacity.

Great then lets share.Give me some history as well as bible.I would rather not see a conclusion so early in the thread.There are some great study links at
www.apostolic.edu just click on the links.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

Great then lets share.Give me some history as well as bible.

The Bible is history.

I have shown historical references in the word of God.

After all of my input on this subject isn't it your turn to show something that substantiates your feelings on this issue?

Since the word of God is completely devoid of any information that would support your hypothesis then you mentioned going to history and I welcome your historical input.

But, as I said, I think I have demonstrated my point well and have given much scripture and discussion on the subject. Heretofore, please correct me if I am wrong, you have not presented any supportive information for your position (biblical or otherwise).

I think it is your turn now.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

I would rather not see a conclusion so early in the thread.There are some great study links at
www.apostolic.edu just click on the links.

Generally there cannot be a conclusion until 2 sides have been presented and you have yet to present yours.

You did present some thoughts in the beginning but we have shown that the word of God does not bear this out.

It isn't good discussion practice for one to present their side and then the other to simply send the others off to a link to do their own personal study on the opposing view.

Please do present your research here for our perusal.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

History says the early church did still go to temple.I only posted a bit of information.I was trying for less than pages and pages of church history.

They did not go into the temple itself, none could go but the priests, but they did gather at Solomon's porch, a big covered area that was open to everyone. Don't read into it like it was big building, it wasn't, while still a part of the larger temple complex, it wasn't like a four walled building where people sat and heard preaching.

As far as the synagoge goes, that went away after the first few years of the church, when the Church became more Gentile in membership.

Do a google search on Pliny's letter to Trajan, it details in a historical perspective how the early church expressed church after the historical account in Acts ended.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by keith4him

They did not go into the temple itself, none could go but the priests, but they did gather at Solomon's porch, a big covered area that was open to everyone. Don't read into it like it was big building, it wasn't, while still a part of the larger temple complex, it wasn't like a four walled building where people sat and heard preaching.

As far as the synagogue goes, that went away after the first few years of the church, when the Church became more Gentile in membership.

Do a google search on Pliny's letter to Trajan, it details in a historical perspective how the early church expressed church after the historical account in Acts ended.

Sounds reasonable...

The courtyard would offer a great public venue for gatherings of the various groups who congregated from house to house.

Wolfgang Simson speaks of frequent meetings from house to house and then larger meetings where the body as a whole got together in a more open & public meetings. I believe he referred to these as celebrations.

Originally Posted by Trouvere

I have read alot of material from those who go to House Church only.There is a lot of good material out there.Today as I was looking through on of the ancient texts on the book of Acts I read this scripture and I would certainly have to admit that the early church did not just have church fromhouse to house.They had fellowship from house to house that is correct according to the scriptures and there were instances where they had church in a house which I am sure probably was due to the large amounts of Gentiles being saved became necessary unless they would have converted to Judaism which is not what the Apostle Paul taught.Anyway if you can share some of your early church education and maybe literature with me today I would greatly apprieciate it.
I love to study and have read all of the bible and many translations and a number of history books on the subject.I think this is a great bible topic.
Here is the text portion I read today:

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Trouvere, I apologize, i must have misread what you wrote. It really looked to me as if you were referring to house church. I didn't notice anywhere that you mentioned synagogue and it looked as though the conversation was getting off track.

[mfblume]

Worshiping in houses or not is no big deal, really. I do not understand what the concern is. We're just to assemble ourselves together. Why split hairs over how?

Church: Some assembly required.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

You are trying to read 20th century thinking into 1st century writings.

When we say "in the church" we tend to (unfortunately) mean in a building.

Obviously you are misreading what i am saying. I am quite aware that the word interpreted church doesn't mean a "building" or even "in a building" however for the writer to say "when ye come together" and then say immediatly following "in the church" it seems to me that he had already established the fact that they were "congregating" then he was stating where they were congregating to. This could very well have been a house or a bulding of some sort.

Thayers Greek Lexicon renders ekkleesia as

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly

1. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberating: Acts 19:39
2. the assembly of the Israelites, Acts 7:38; Heb 2:12
3. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance or tumultuously: Acts 19:32,41
4. in the Christian sense,
a. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship: 1 Cor 14:19,35
b. a company of Christians,

aa. those who anywhere, in city or village, constitute such a company and are united into one body: Acts 5:11

bb. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth; Matt 16:18

cc. the name is transferred to the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven: Heb 12:23


With such a broad definition it would be difficult to pinpoint any specific definition other than a gathering or a congregation.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

This is the same term used in such scripture as "added to the church daily" yet no one is of any belief that this scripture is saying that they were doing construction daily.

This is the same term that say that there was "Great persecution against the church" yet no one is of any belief that this scripture is saying that people were persecuting a building.

I hope that i have made myself clear on the subject (see above)

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

The scripture is saying... when you meet together in your assemblies and does not, in any way, require that they were meeting in a public building.

Nor does it require that they were meeting in a house.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Now... I do believe that from time to time the various assemblages that were getting together in homes probably did meet together for a celebration type thing and this would have taken place in a public venue. Wolfgang Simson speaks a little on this subject in his book "Houses That Change The World".

With this i agree

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

As to your other bolded portions they are inconsequential as well.

"Into one place"... well... whether they met in houses, open fields or synagogues they would still be coming "into one place". That doesn't require a synagogue.

Please, i am NOT saying they were meeting in SYNAGOGUES. Again in my 21st century thinking i believe that in the beggining it would have been very difficult to meet to "have church" in a Jewish synagogue, considering the fact that the Jews viewed them as heretics and were persecuting the Christian people.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

"have ye not houses to eat and to drink in"... they were being instructed here to not come to the meeting ready to take part in some big feed but... again... whether they were meeting in houses, open fields or synagogues they all would have each left their own house to get there.

And why couldn't it have been a "building" of some sort?

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

If you will read down a little further in the chapter you will find that the problem being addressed here is that when they gathered together it was their custom to partake of the lords supper (Bread & Wine). It is pointed out here that when the Lords Supper was instituted by Jesus it was a serving of others. Jesus took the bread and brake it and gave it to others. What it had become in Corinth was a gathering where people came together and fixed them a plate.

He was informing them that this wasn't what the Lords Supper was intended to be and that they shouldn't come to a meeting hungry and ready to make a big plate and drink a bunch of wine but, instead, they should come together (having eaten in their own homes) and observe the Lords Supper as it had been intended.

I am aware of what the writer is refferring to. Whether they were partaking of the Lord's supper or praying or worshipping is irrelevent for the subject at hand, they were "gathering together".

My point is that as time went on i am sure that they began to gather, not only in houses but also quite possibly in buildings as well.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Worshiping in houses or not is no big deal, really. I do not understand what the concern is. We're just to assemble ourselves together. Why split hairs over how?

Church: Some assembly required.

Amen our situation is different than the early church under Imperial Rome.
Nothing wrong with house church or meeting in a building to me.