why do you like church buildings for meetings?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW the Greek word for "Inn" is the same word used for the guest chambers of people's homes, which was one of my points here and before

katáluma; gen. katalúmatos, neut. noun from katalúō (G2647), to unloose. A lodging place or inn. It was so-called because of the ancient travelers who on arrival loosened their own belts or girdles, sandals, and the saddles or harnesses of their animals. In the ancient Greek writings, the place of entertainment is called katáluma, where animals and burdens are loosened. See Sept.: Exo_4:24. Guests were highly regarded in biblical times (Jdg_19:9, Jdg_19:15). Katáluma was also a guest chamber (Mar_14:14; Luk_2:7; Luk_22:11), a dining room where the guests loosened their sandals before they sat down to eat. In the East it is called khan or caravanserai.

Yes, the 'inn' was someone's 'guest chamber' or 'upper room' that was used for hospitality purposes.

In any event, the early church met in one another's homes, and the apostles seemed to be staying at someone's house, someone with a nice upper room large enough for a good sized meeting to take place.

I don't see how any of this is some kind of 'counterpoint' to house church ecclesiology.

I think, as I keep saying, that many of you guys are 'missing the point' about house churches.

Maybe it's a communication issue, perhaps I am just not able to communicate what I have been trying to say in a manner that can be easily understood.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by Esaias

See? I really do not understand how so many of you consistently misunderstand what 'house church' is all about.

NOBODY is 'condemning Christians for the size of their buildings or congregations'.

My original post pointed out that 'large gatherings' are not limited only to institutional big-synagogue-style Christianity.

But somehow, this is construed to mean I am 'condemning Christians for' having large meetings? Or even large meeting-places?

The 'house church' concept is apparently over too many people's heads. It is not just about 'do church in a house not a church building'. It has nothing to do with Houston's peurile fascination with 'steeple envy'. It has nothing to do with 'condemning large gatherings'. It also has nothing to do with 'having small, intimate togetherness'.

YES it has to do with the fact that large churches, TODAY, following the MODERN APPROACH to church, tend to enable too many people to 'get lost in the crowd'.

The early church in the Bible was a LARGE church. 3000 new converts in ONE DAY? With more added DAILY?

Yet it was also a house church.

I am sure some folks are thinking 'but how is that possible? Who's house could hold all those people?' And in thinking this, they would indicate they do not see the forest for the trees. In fact, it indicates they cannot see beyond their own modern way of doing church. They imagine 'house church' to be simply what they already know of as 'church' transplanted into someone's living room.

That is not at all what apostolic, biblical house 'churching' is about.

Apostolic, biblical house church has far more to do with church government, discipline, and the nature and purpose of 'the worship service' (so called), the nature and method of evangelism, the purpose, mission and authority of the church itself, than it does with 'the building the church meets in'.

Houses are important, not because the HOUSE (doma) is important, but because the OIKOS (household) is important.

I fear many simply cannot see the distinction, and it is probably best.

Everyone has a place, and a purpose, and to everything there is a time and a season.

Right!

And, no doubt many of those that had received the Holy Ghost, were foreigners and went home and continued in their own homes.

The others that lived in Jerusalem went to their own homes, and no doubt if it was a small home, they gathered in homes that had a large enough room to gather in. And when that got too small, no doubt they divided the group and continued to grow. they knew the principle of multification by division.

Todays Pastors greatest nightmares is dividing the church. If it wasn't divided because of controversy, they should be shouting, because the church is growing,

[n david]

Church in a building...church in a house

WHO CARES!!!!

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles said, "Yea verily, this is how ye shall meet. Ye shall meet in a large, beautiful building which has been dedicated to worshiping Me." Nor did they say, "Woe unto them who don't worship me with a handful of people in the living room of a home!"

As long as the Gospel is preached and Jesus is glorified, it doesn't matter where you meet.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Church in a building...church in a house

WHO CARES!!!!

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles said, "Yea verily, this is how ye shall meet. Ye shall meet in a large, beautiful building which has been dedicated to worshiping Me." Nor did they say, "Woe unto them who don't worship me with a handful of people in the living room of a home!"

As long as the Gospel is preached and Jesus is glorified, it doesn't matter where you meet.

It matters HOW we meet, don't you agree?

As to whether a 'large, beautiful building which has been dedicated' to him, or one another's homes, is more suitable to that meeting, is a side issue.

imo.

BTW, I think the 'banging head' emoticon is the funniest one we've got here, cracks me up every single time I see it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by renee819

I believe that, the 120 were in the Upper Room, when the Holy Ghost came.
And this is just my common sense, and can't be proved by scripture. But I don't believe there was a building large enough to hold the crowd that gathered. Of the crowd that gathered there were 3000 saved, but there may have been 10,000 there.



Like someone said, it probably ended up as a street meeting.
I believe they would have had to come down out of the Upper Room to preach to that many people.

What kind of building do you suppose it was that held 120?

That crowd appears to have been able to HEAR the speaking in tongues and see Peter and the Apostles stand up

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What kind of building do you suppose it was that held 120?

That crowd appears to have been able to HEAR the speaking in tongues and see Peter and the Apostles stand up

The crowd heard through the windows. Also, you missed Acts 2 verse 13 1/3 which tells of Peter walking out onto a porch.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It matters HOW we meet, don't you agree?

As to whether a 'large, beautiful building which has been dedicated' to him, or one another's homes, is more suitable to that meeting, is a side issue.

imo.

BTW, I think the 'banging head' emoticon is the funniest one we've got here, cracks me up every single time I see it.

Please expand on the "how we meet."

I like the banging head. But don't try it at home. It's impossible to bend like that.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Houses, as you mentioned, often had rooms set aside as 'guest quarters', especially in Jerusalem due to the thrice yearly Pilgrimages that occurred. Hospitality was a big thing back then.

But it is still a house.

As for a guest chamber that could hold 120 people... when I was a young child, for Thanksgiving dinner we would gather at my uncle's house. We would usually have about 100 people, and guess what? We would all eat in the 'big room' together. He had a nice house, but not a 'mansion' by any stretch. When he bought the house he and my other uncles remodeled it (they were all carpenters and house builders) to make a large 'big room' specifically for family gatherings.

When we today see the word 'house' we have certain images that come to mind, based on our current situations. People may be tempted to imagine a house in those days was a nice 3 bedroom, 2 bath structure with a 2-horse garage and a nice yard. Yards were practically unheard of back then, it was VERY common for houses to be built as multi-storied buildings (often with a shop or business on the ground floor and the living quarters above), and most houses had a 'guest chamber' (unless you were dirt poor, of course).

The Last Supper was held in an upper room chamber, a 'guest chamber', of somebody's house who apparently was somewhat well-to-do and who had a large enough room to accomodate quite a few people. It is likely this is the same place where Pentecost occurred, although I believe a close reading of the text indicates that the Pentecostal outpouring need not have taken place in 'the upper room', necessarily.

It was a house, though.

Wow...that is a large room your uncle had.

But as I said, a house with THAT kind of room back then was indeed the property of someone wealthy and was "let out" to others for special occasions.

We do the same thing today when churches need a place and go rent a space. It just so happens that among the Jews, especially in Jerusalem houses like that were the common form of "Inns" and banquet halls people could "rent". Not that they had to spend money to rent it, of that I don't know.

But it wasn't "Church in some guys living room". It was "Church where ever we can find space"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

The crowd heard through the windows. Also, you missed Acts 2 verse 13 1/3 which tells of Peter walking out onto a porch.

lol...took me a while to discern the sarcasm. Good one

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

The crowd heard through the windows. Also, you missed Acts 2 verse 13 1/3 which tells of Peter walking out onto a porch.

Your house doesn't have a porch?

See, that's what's wrong with society today.

No porches.