The first christians met in homes not buildings

[Katmando]

When someone mentions church to you what do picture in your mind?

The Christians of the first century met in homes rather than in specially designed buildings: This is the way those early disciples met together - consistently. Meeting in the home fosters community, intimacy and accountability among the members of the body. With no overhead expenses (such as the construction and upkeep of a building), finances are directed toward the needs of the poor and the sending of missionaries.

The early Christians operated as a family, not as a organization or a business. The instructions given by the apostles on how to live Christianity were given with house/family units in mind.

The first century Christians practiced mutual participation by all in their meetings. This was to be the rule, not the exception: Everyone of the members is to participate in the meeting for the building up of the body as a whole (1 Cor 12). The only definitive statement of a first-century Christian meeting is 1 Cor 14:26. There it indicates that "everyone" has something to contribute, and that the result is edification of the body. The objective of the meeting in the New Testament is mutual edification, not corporate worship (although, that is a byproduct).

The Lord's Supper was held weekly, as a full meal, with the elements represented by one loaf of bread and one cup of wine: The Lord's Supper was the primary purpose of the early Christians meeting together in the New Testament (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 11:18-20, 11:33). The Lord's Supper consisted of a full meal, not a piece of cracker and a thimble of grape juice (1 Cor 11:21; Acts 2:46; Jude 12). The elements were in the form of one loaf of bread and a single cup (1 Cor 10:16-17). This singularity, Paul tells us, causes unity in the body. The mood of the Lord's Supper is "joy" (Acts 2:46) not solemn reflection, because the focus of the Lord's Supper was the second coming, not the unworthiness of the participants.

The titles "elder," "overseer [bishop]," and "pastor" in the New Testament are interchangeable terms that refer to the same person. Elders (pastors) of the various groups are cultivated and trained by other Christian leaders, not by seminary professors (2 Tim 2:2). Elders (pastors) of the church must meet primarily moral qualifications, not primarily academic qualifications (1 Tim 3; *** 1). Elders (pastors) of the church primarily "watch over" the flock; instead of delivering 45 minute sermons, theirs is primarily a "background" role.

So why do so many meet in specially designed buildings that so many call church?

 

[d0c markus]

a home is a building! but im just yanking your chain....

 

[d0c markus]

The Christians of the first century met in homes rather than in specially designed buildings: This is the way those early disciples met together - consistently. Meeting in the home fosters community, intimacy and accountability among the members of the body. With no overhead expenses (such as the construction and upkeep of a building), finances are directed toward the needs of the poor and the sending of missionaries.

The early Christians operated as a family, not as a organization or a business. The instructions given by the apostles on how to live Christianity were given with house/family units in mind.

As the faith spreads, we need a bigger roof to bring the family under

The first century Christians practiced mutual participation by all in their meetings. This was to be the rule, not the exception: Everyone of the members is to participate in the meeting for the building up of the body as a whole (1 Cor 12). The only definitive statement of a first-century Christian meeting is 1 Cor 14:26. There it indicates that "everyone" has something to contribute, and that the result is edification of the body. The objective of the meeting in the New Testament is mutual edification, not corporate worship (although, that is a byproduct).

was the church of the first century perrsecuted and not accepted. This is mimiced in china and countless other areas where missionaries are sent abroad. And yes everyone does build each other up, the member of my church would go out of there way to help me, (god bless them) and i for them.

The Lord's Supper was held weekly, as a full meal, with the elements represented by one loaf of bread and one cup of wine: The Lord's Supper was the primary purpose of the early Christians meeting together in the New Testament (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 11:18-20, 11:33). The Lord's Supper consisted of a full meal, not a piece of cracker and a thimble of grape juice (1 Cor 11:21; Acts 2:46; Jude 12). The elements were in the form of one loaf of bread and a single cup (1 Cor 10:16-17). This singularity, Paul tells us, causes unity in the body. The mood of the Lord's Supper is "joy" (Acts 2:46) not solemn reflection, because the focus of the Lord's Supper was the second coming, not the unworthiness of the participants.

you should come to the wensday night feast at my church.. starts at 6:15 haha "thimble of grape juice" I agree but i think the apostles drank a "toast" for lack of a better term to Jesus, so a "shot" of wine or grape juice isnt hard to grasp. But i get what your sayin

The titles "elder," "overseer [bishop]," and "pastor" in the New Testament are interchangeable terms that refer to the same person. Elders (pastors) of the various groups are cultivated and trained by other Christian leaders, not by seminary professors (2 Tim 2:2). Elders (pastors) of the church must meet primarily moral qualifications, not primarily academic qualifications (1 Tim 3; *** 1). Elders (pastors) of the church primarily "watch over" the flock; instead of delivering 45 minute sermons, theirs is primarily a "background" role.

Ok, are not other christians (those teachers in seminary) teaching other christians? And do you think watching over the flock doesnt entail preaching God's word (teaching it to others). That its not watching over the flock? teaching them truth is to protect them from evil. I see deacons presented as a somewhat back up role, mainly the pastors backup.

 

[Katmando]

I guess the big thing that bothers me is that one can go to church today and get lost.

 

[d0c markus]

yea bigger churches its got to be a little rough, theres one in california i guess that has like 12,000 people go each sunday, i wouldnt really like that. I really like the bonds of fellowship.

 

[Peter]

With OP argument, a tired, tired, one at that, regarding home churches, I point out the following.

During segregation, black musicians were not allowed to play their music in places white musicians played. There was no Carnegie Hall et al. So they played where people would listen, bars and saloons and the like.

Later, after emancipation and the civil rights revolts, black musicians were further held down because their music had originated in these culturaly unacceptable places.

There are those even today who think that Jazz and Ragtime are not legit music styles because of where they were born. But this only shows real ignorance and bigotry of these individuals. Usualy these people are white, and it is the white people that forced this music to be born in such lowley places. However, this doesnt mean the music needs stay there.

Like wise, due to the FACT that Christianity was ILLEGAL, christians, by neccessity, met in houses. This does not mean this is where they were meant to stay. But it was their beginnings.

I guess if Jesus ever slept in a house in a bed, He would have been violating some sort of rule? After all, He originally slept in a feeding trough. Should he have stayed there?

Peace.

Peter

 

[armothe]

I'm with Doc on this one. I believe the church is best maintained with smaller groups or congregations.

Growth is indeed good, but I tend to believe larger churches do not harbor as much fellowship and relationship/building as smaller ones.

-A

 

[FatherApe]

God ordered ornate temples built- worthy of worshiping him in - back in Old Testament times though, eh?

 

[armothe]

God ordered ornate temples built- worthy of worshiping him in - back in Old Testament times though, eh?

Key words being back in the Old Testament.

Matthew 12:6 - "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Mark 14:58 - "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

Hebrews 9:11 - But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

-A

 

[JVAC]

So why do so many meet in specially designed buildings that so many call church?

As it was said before, when christianity was illeagal they met in houses, and it is still a respectable way to assemble for the celebration of the Eucharist. However, now that it is leagal, we design our churches as a statement, just like we design our government buildings ect. My church is a dominating symbol in the neighborhood with a large bell tower that bares the sign of our risen Lord. Everyone in the neighborhood and those who drive by on the freeway must see it.

Such a mark on the landscape tells those who do not come that the Christians are here. Every Sunday when they meet and toll that bell, the people know 'The Christians are meeting'. Such a building makes it easy for us to accomidate a large number of the Body of Christ, as well as enhances our ministry.

Everytime I hear church bells, and see a steeple it reminds me of that one hymn "Softly and Tenderly", for when it is herd and seen it seems to be calling, instead of ding dong, "Come home, come home"

"Jesus is calling, calling, 'O Sinner, come home!' " through a church such as mine.