Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

what I did when I heard John 6 at a bible study and it struck me: pray and go all in.

I wrote this before on here -- you should believe that you are practicing the faith of the Apostles, in its generalities and its particulars, and you should strive in every way to take hold of what they passed on, and to do what generations of Christians before you did, in unity of confession and faith. If you don't think that what you do in worship, in prayer, and in practice is exactly the same as what St Paul taught, you should reconcile that.

I believe that what I have been taught has a full participation in the experience and teaching of the Apostles. I believe that the teaching of the Church is the same as what St Jude described, and that our confession is fundamentally identical to the confession made by St Timothy in front of many witnesses.

I believe that when Acts 2:42 says that they devoted themselves to the Apostle's teaching, to the communion in the breaking of bread, and to the prayers, that my Church is devoted to and maintains all three of those specific things, again in generalities and particulars.

---

I'm not sure what to say other than I feel the same way about my faith and church.

---

And that is probably because you have many people in your church that really know they need Jesus as their savior and want to follow Him. All of us, including yall, are doing the best we can with the knowledge we can. The amazing thing about where we are today in history is that we have access to the original teachings that our parents, grandparents and pretty much all of our ancestors never had unless they were church scholars. For the first time in human history we can test our faith against those that held the faith first. This is both a blessing and a burden and I wouldn't blame you at all for just wanting to keep it simple.

But know that if you want to look at what the earliest church looked like in more detail than the few passages in the Bible that give it a passing mention, it's there. The NT, in all its glory, is a collection of documents exhorting people to stay in the faith and follow Jesus. It was not and was never meant to be an exhaustive narrative on what the church should look like.

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

what I did when I heard John 6 at a bible study and it struck me: pray and go all in.

I wrote this before on here -- you should believe that you are practicing the faith of the Apostles, in its generalities and its particulars, and you should strive in every way to take hold of what they passed on, and to do what generations of Christians before you did, in unity of confession and faith. If you don't think that what you do in worship, in prayer, and in practice is exactly the same as what St Paul taught, you should reconcile that.

I believe that what I have been taught has a full participation in the experience and teaching of the Apostles. I believe that the teaching of the Church is the same as what St Jude described, and that our confession is fundamentally identical to the confession made by St Timothy in front of many witnesses.

I believe that when Acts 2:42 says that they devoted themselves to the Apostle's teaching, to the communion in the breaking of bread, and to the prayers, that my Church is devoted to and maintains all three of those specific things, again in generalities and particulars.

---

I'm not sure what to say other than I feel the same way about my faith and church.

---

But know that if you want to look at what the earliest church looked like in more detail than the few passages in the Bible that give it a passing mention, it's there.

---

How does the RCC reconcile the idea of the early church essentially operating in a kind of house church environment versus the evolution of over the top cathedrals, buildings, landmarks, etc? Same can be said for many of the other mega-churches with over the top buildings and budgets. I fail to see how that aligns with the early church model.

I think the moniker of "house church" brings to mind a bunch of anachronistic thinking. There's no reason to think they were meeting in a home that looked much of anything like a single family dwelling that we have today - gathered around in the living room.

We have amazing historical evidence of a house church in Dura Europos - it was a ~3500 sq ft space with a dedicated assembly space and baptistry, decorated with icons as was typical for all houses of this era (pagan and non-pagan alike).

If you read the scriptures carefully, also, it is clear that there was not a rotation of homes where the meetings were held, but one place in each city. One house, not rotating. St Paul's letters speak to this, he says the church in <<city>> and the churches in <<province>>. We also have historical evidence that even into the third century this practice stays. For example there was only one gathering in Rome in the time of St Justin Martyr (155 AD) (in Martinus' home, above the Timiotinian Bath). We know that the church in Corinth met in Gaius Titius Justis' home.

Moving to multiple Eucharistic assemblies came later.

The difference between the house-church and modern large buildings is one of scale, not a difference in kind.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

what I did when I heard John 6 at a bible study and it struck me: pray and go all in.

I wrote this before on here -- you should believe that you are practicing the faith of the Apostles, in its generalities and its particulars, and you should strive in every way to take hold of what they passed on, and to do what generations of Christians before you did, in unity of confession and faith. If you don't think that what you do in worship, in prayer, and in practice is exactly the same as what St Paul taught, you should reconcile that.

I believe that what I have been taught has a full participation in the experience and teaching of the Apostles. I believe that the teaching of the Church is the same as what St Jude described, and that our confession is fundamentally identical to the confession made by St Timothy in front of many witnesses.

I believe that when Acts 2:42 says that they devoted themselves to the Apostle's teaching, to the communion in the breaking of bread, and to the prayers, that my Church is devoted to and maintains all three of those specific things, again in generalities and particulars.

---

I'm not sure what to say other than I feel the same way about my faith and church.

---

But know that if you want to look at what the earliest church looked like in more detail than the few passages in the Bible that give it a passing mention, it's there.

---

How does the RCC reconcile the idea of the early church essentially operating in a kind of house church environment versus the evolution of over the top cathedrals, buildings, landmarks, etc? Same can be said for many of the other mega-churches with over the top buildings and budgets. I fail to see how that aligns with the early church model.

---

I wouldn't say it was simply a house church. There is plenty of evidence of early Christian worship services being done where they could, including having worship service/mass in the catacombs (interestingly including prayers to the saints). They may have had mass in houses (some still do today) but that was more out of necessity due to persecution than an ideal. Remember that Peter and Paul tried working on the Jews in the synagogues. I think the idea was more "anywhere and everywhere people will listen" more than it was intentionally confined to certain spaces.

Once Christianity was legalized, the idea around beautiful houses of worship became an option again. I say again because the Jews had their temple as well. The idea that God can be glorified through our building as a gift to His glory isn't new. Yes, they were and are expensive, but if the local community is willing to pool their resources to build a beautiful to church for God, then I see nothing wrong with that. My wife and I put time, money and effort into beautifying our home, granted on a tiny fraction of the scale of a large church. Why shouldn't we consider giving time, money and effort into beautifying the place we have corporate worship of God?

And that is how it works in the Catholic Church, no different than I assume most Protestant churches. Any new building we want comes from the funds of the parishioners. Any loans needed are secured by the local diocese and must be paid back. Since this is a local issue decided by local worshipers, then if they want to worship in a house (or that is all they have available to them) that is not banned. You can find some truly bland churches out there.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

what I did when I heard John 6 at a bible study and it struck me: pray and go all in.

I wrote this before on here -- you should believe that you are practicing the faith of the Apostles, in its generalities and its particulars, and you should strive in every way to take hold of what they passed on, and to do what generations of Christians before you did, in unity of confession and faith. If you don't think that what you do in worship, in prayer, and in practice is exactly the same as what St Paul taught, you should reconcile that.

I believe that what I have been taught has a full participation in the experience and teaching of the Apostles. I believe that the teaching of the Church is the same as what St Jude described, and that our confession is fundamentally identical to the confession made by St Timothy in front of many witnesses.

I believe that when Acts 2:42 says that they devoted themselves to the Apostle's teaching, to the communion in the breaking of bread, and to the prayers, that my Church is devoted to and maintains all three of those specific things, again in generalities and particulars.

---

I'm not sure what to say other than I feel the same way about my faith and church.

---

But know that if you want to look at what the earliest church looked like in more detail than the few passages in the Bible that give it a passing mention, it's there.

---

How does the RCC reconcile the idea of the early church essentially operating in a kind of house church environment versus the evolution of over the top cathedrals, buildings, landmarks, etc? Same can be said for many of the other mega-churches with over the top buildings and budgets. I fail to see how that aligns with the early church model.

---

Any new building we want comes from the funds of the parishioners. Any loans needed are secured by the local diocese and must be paid back.

---

Wonder how the Apostles and early Church Fathers would view going into debt for some of these ornate churches and other mega churches we see today.

Zobel said:

---

I think the moniker of "house church" brings to mind a bunch of anachronistic thinking. There's no reason to think they were meeting in a home that looked much of anything like a single family dwelling that we have today - gathered around in the living room.

We have amazing historical evidence of a house church in Dura Europos - it was a ~3500 sq ft space with a dedicated assembly space and baptistry, decorated with icons as was typical for all houses of this era (pagan and non-pagan alike).

If you read the scriptures carefully, also, it is clear that there was not a rotation of homes where the meetings were held, but one place in each city. One house, not rotating. St Paul's letters speak to this, he says the church in <<city>> and the churches in <<province>>. We also have historical evidence that even into the third century this practice stays. For example there was only one gathering in Rome in the time of St Justin Martyr (155 AD) (in Martinus' home, above the Timiotinian Bath). We know that the church in Corinth met in Gaius Titius Justis' home.

Moving to multiple Eucharistic assemblies came later.

The difference between the house-church and modern large buildings is one of scale, not a difference in kind.

---

And if we read the scriptures in Acts, early Christians still went to the temple. Worship started there and changed out of necessity, not intent. Much like the church meeting in catacombs to escape persecution, we don't think we should all return to mausoleums for services.

The early church operated out of homes and hidden areas out of necessity for the hopeful safeguard from persecution. The edict of serdica in 311 virtually stopped persecution and this allowed Christian practice in public areas

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

what I did when I heard John 6 at a bible study and it struck me: pray and go all in.

I wrote this before on here -- you should believe that you are practicing the faith of the Apostles, in its generalities and its particulars, and you should strive in every way to take hold of what they passed on, and to do what generations of Christians before you did, in unity of confession and faith. If you don't think that what you do in worship, in prayer, and in practice is exactly the same as what St Paul taught, you should reconcile that.

I believe that what I have been taught has a full participation in the experience and teaching of the Apostles. I believe that the teaching of the Church is the same as what St Jude described, and that our confession is fundamentally identical to the confession made by St Timothy in front of many witnesses.

I believe that when Acts 2:42 says that they devoted themselves to the Apostle's teaching, to the communion in the breaking of bread, and to the prayers, that my Church is devoted to and maintains all three of those specific things, again in generalities and particulars.

---

I'm not sure what to say other than I feel the same way about my faith and church.

---

But know that if you want to look at what the earliest church looked like in more detail than the few passages in the Bible that give it a passing mention, it's there.

---

How does the RCC reconcile the idea of the early church essentially operating in a kind of house church environment versus the evolution of over the top cathedrals, buildings, landmarks, etc? Same can be said for many of the other mega-churches with over the top buildings and budgets. I fail to see how that aligns with the early church model.

---

Any new building we want comes from the funds of the parishioners. Any loans needed are secured by the local diocese and must be paid back.

---

Wonder how the Apostles and early Church Fathers would view going into debt for some of these ornate churches and other mega churches we see today.

---

That actually what I was trying to get at, at least from a Catholic perspective. The only debt held is the parish to the diocese. the funds loaned by the diocese to the parish are funds from the giving of the lay people in other parishes.

So let's say my parish built a new church. We would be in debt to the diocese, which is really a debt we hold to thee other parishes that have funded the diocese. So the Catholic Church is in debt to the Catholic Church, if that makes sense at all. No bank notes. No private equity. All in house.

And the Catholic Church is funded by the prior works of Tetzel?

As a man of German descent who has spent much time with my German family… let's just blame the Germans for everything. It's probably accurate

PabloSerna said:

---

Both are offered at RCC mass.

---

Yall can thank Martin Luther for that

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what to say other than I feel the same way about my faith and church.

---

it is not and cannot be.

because you don't take the Eucharist, and if there is one thing that defines small-o orthodox Christianity from a historical lens, without a doubt, it is the practice of the Eucharist.

you can't square that circle.

---

Is it safe to say that the protestant practice of communion, through the lens of the RCC and EO tradition, is considered heretical?

Mm, not in and of itself. A heresy is a difference in belief or practice to schism.

I think strictly speaking, all of the protestants are in schism and that is what makes them heretical. The different beliefs that cause that schism are there heresies.

There is something underlying the reason that some protestant groups do not confess that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord. There have been many heresies (Docetist, various gnostic sects) that lead to same conclusions.

But the belief to schism is the issue.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry. Simpler: no.

What makes a heretical group is that they are not in communion with the church.

The heresy is the belief or practice that is the reason they are separate.

Which is key because in EO mind, Rome is heretical as well.

It's the definition of heresy, not unique to the Orthodox.

But if you want to get super particular, I don't think a person raised in one group or another is a heretic even if they actively follow the teaching of that group that led to schism. Heresy assumes a starting point in communion. If you were never in union, you're not a heretic. Just in not in communion.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Which is key because in EO mind, Rome is heretical as well.

---

Reformed/Calvinists would agree we're all heretical.

---

This seems a little passive aggressive

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Which is key because in EO mind, Rome is heretical as well.

---

Lutherans and EO would agree the RCC is heretical. RCC and EO would agree Lutherans are heretical. Lutherans and RCC would agree EO is heretical. Reformed/Calvinists would agree we're all heretical. And that's only scratching the surface. It really is a grand old time, isn't it?

---

Yep.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

That's like your opinion man

Cynic said:

---

That's like your opinion man

---

It's not…. Kind of a fact.

Was the Bible or the concept or need of "a Bible" in existence at that time?

The answer is no. It wasn't.

Zobel said:

---

I think the moniker of "house church" brings to mind a bunch of anachronistic thinking. There's no reason to think they were meeting in a home that looked much of anything like a single family dwelling that we have today - gathered around in the living room.

We have amazing historical evidence of a house church in Dura Europos - it was a ~3500 sq ft space with a dedicated assembly space and baptistry, decorated with icons as was typical for all houses of this era (pagan and non-pagan alike).

If you read the scriptures carefully, also, it is clear that there was not a rotation of homes where the meetings were held, but one place in each city. One house, not rotating. St Paul's letters speak to this, he says the church in <<city>> and the churches in <<province>>. We also have historical evidence that even into the third century this practice stays. For example there was only one gathering in Rome in the time of St Justin Martyr (155 AD) (in Martinus' home, above the Timiotinian Bath). We know that the church in Corinth met in Gaius Titius Justis' home.

Moving to multiple Eucharistic assemblies came later.

The difference between the house-church and modern large buildings is one of scale, not a difference in kind.

---

Now do the roles of women.

And, since it's Dec. 23rd, does the EO teach the whole "Jesus born in a barn" myth?

What about them? I think the Orthodox role of women is what we see in the NT scriptures, excepting only that we no longer have the office of deaconess - largely because the cultural barriers around things like men baptizing women no longer exist.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the born in a barn myth - Orthodox hymnography says He was born in a cave.

I've found that the problem with our Protestant friends is that they know so much that isn't so.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I've found that the problem with our Protestant friends is that they know so much that isn't so.

---

If only we were all as smart as you

No intelligence required. You simply just have to be able to read and care to learn a bit more than what you were told in VBS by the guys who think the Earth is 6000 years old and the dinosaurs are a trick of the devil.

That's enough…

You don't really seem to be offering anything to the conversation. Is your goal just to troll and offer nothing to the discussion?

If you disagree and have info I'm missing I'm happy to listen.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

Quote:

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

---

nah. That didn't come about for centuries. They really didn't use the scriptures the way modern people do anyway. Scriptures were read aloud in church (which is what made them scripture anyway). That's why the majority of our manuscripts come from lectionaries.

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

(Removed my response, read it over and I'm being a jerk)

Can you tell me where my insult was. I questioned you? That the insult?

I apologize I upset you. It was not my intention.

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.