G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The Didache sure gives us a lot of insight into very very early worship as well, and it sure wasn’t Calvinist or Quaker! 
- Status
C
cu016584
Guest
Here is another couple writings from Justin Martyr;
On Sunday worship,
“And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water (Just like Catholics do today; wine back then was much more thick and hard to drink, so they mixed it with water to make it thinner. We do the same today not because wine is still thick but because we hold to those traditions of the Early Church) are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings (Eucharist means thanksgiving), according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”
And on the Eucharist,
“And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For*** not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.*** For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.”
(Emphasis added)
As far as what Amobius said, he was referring to pagan deities. If he wasn’t, he would have been disagreeing with Early Christians and their art in the catacombs (Chi-Rho, Good Shephard, Fish Symbol, etc…all painted or sculpted). These were all found to have been made before Constantine legalized Christianity (313 AD).
On Sunday worship,
“And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water (Just like Catholics do today; wine back then was much more thick and hard to drink, so they mixed it with water to make it thinner. We do the same today not because wine is still thick but because we hold to those traditions of the Early Church) are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings (Eucharist means thanksgiving), according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”
And on the Eucharist,
“And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For*** not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.*** For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.”
(Emphasis added)
As far as what Amobius said, he was referring to pagan deities. If he wasn’t, he would have been disagreeing with Early Christians and their art in the catacombs (Chi-Rho, Good Shephard, Fish Symbol, etc…all painted or sculpted). These were all found to have been made before Constantine legalized Christianity (313 AD).
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Well I found this important because it is really I believe more like how we worship…
D
Dokimas
Guest
Jesus also said if your hand offend you (cause you to sin), cut it off. He also said if your eye offend you (cause you to sin), cut it off. Have you taken Jesus literally?
When Jesus instituted Communion, He did NOT give them His actual Body and Blood. His Body and Blood were all contained in Him and He took it all to the Cross.
Didn’t Paul tell us Jesus said to, ‘do this in remembrance of Me’? Rememberance tells us it’s symbolic.
Elijah had not died. I have no problem with saints being in Heaven. All true Christians are saints according to the Bible. That includes you if you’re truely a part of the Body of Christ.
Jesus told the Samarian woman (John 4) that true worship is in Spirit and Truth. There’s no mention of altars or vestments in the NT as far as I’ve seen. Incense is sybolic of the prayers of Christians. We pray. We have Communion which is your Eucharist.
Hope this helps. You’re welcom.
P
PAboy57
Guest
I am simply giving you a source that says the priest’s vestments match the wardrobe of the early Christian Church.
You indicated that was not correct but have not provided a reputable source to back up your viewpoint.
Take care.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
In post 5 I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia to say that clergy dress did not differ from the laity. Is that reputable?
We are essentially talking about two different things it appears.
What they looked like (you).
No clerical distinction in dress in the early church or special significance to certain aspects of dress (me)
It is rather the difference between form and intent
T
Third_Day
Guest
Since you belong to a “small church that follows the bible” does your small church that follows the bible have bishops like the Church in the bible?
When someone is ill do you call the elders (greek-presbyters-english- priest) to pray over him and annoint him with oil and forgive his sins? James 5:14
Does your church that follows the bible have an altar? “We have an altar from which you have no right to eat” Hebrews13:10
An altar is only used for sacrifice. What did the early Church sacrifice? The sacrifice of the Mass that we see in 1 Cor. 11:23-30 and in 1 Cor.10:16. Look at the context around 1 Cor 10:16 verse 18-21 where Paul speaks about the sacrifices of Israel and the sacrifice of pagans and then says " You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."
Paul is clearly contrasting the sacrifice in Christian worship with that of the sacrifice in pagan worship and telling them they must choose which one to particapate in.
In regard to vestments surely you don’t believe that the early christian priests wore a coat and a tie like your pastor does? Everyone in the first centuries dressed in Roman attire which would consist of robes. The priests obviously would have wore robes and over time as the attire of people changed the attire of the priests remained. They continued to wear robes and never in Christian history did ministers wear coats and ties until late in Protestantism.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Third Day
I do not change the topic. I can discuss all of those things later but I will not get off topic. I am just like that.
Vestments are on topic.
I believe that the clergy of the early church dressed like the laity because that is what history teaches. That is the difference between form and intent. You may, in some cases, have similiar form but the intent is different.
I do not change the topic. I can discuss all of those things later but I will not get off topic. I am just like that.
Vestments are on topic.
I believe that the clergy of the early church dressed like the laity because that is what history teaches. That is the difference between form and intent. You may, in some cases, have similiar form but the intent is different.
T
Third_Day
Guest
What is your point? Did the early Church ministers dress in the attire that we still see today in the Middle East? I would say yes. All the people dressed the same.in the Roman Empire. That doesn’t mean that the clergy was not set apart from the laity. Clearly attire changed because the Roman Empire disolved and cultures became influenced by other nations. But the clerical attire remained the same and this developed into liturgical vestments.
Take a look at the book of Revelation. What you see is men in robes, incense offered, and an altar. I don’t see anyone in a coat and a tie. like your pastor wears.
If your purpose is to say that vestments are unbiblical then you do not have a case. The Old Covenant priests wore vestments as do the New Covenant priests.
How do you defend the fact that your pastor wears a secular suit which the bible never mentions. ?
N
Nicea325
Guest
I am sorry,but you only quoted a paragraph from Book VI out seven books.
The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen.
T
Third_Day
Guest
Reading him in context he is saying that the heathens believe that their gods dwelled within the statue itself. I don’t see where he is arguing against christians have sacred objects.
Arnobius Against the Heathen Book VI
- But you err, says my opponent, and are mistaken, for we do not consider either copper, or gold and silver, or those other materials of which statues are made, to be in themselves gods and sacred deities; **but in them we worship and venerate those whom their dedication as sacred introduces and causes to dwell in statues made by workmen. **The reasoning is not vicious nor despicable by which any one–the dull, and also the most intelligent–can believe that the gods, forsaking their proper seats–that is, heaven–do not shrink back and avoid entering earthly habitations; nay, more, that impelled by the rite of dedication, they are joined to images Do your gods, then, dwell in gypsum and in figures of earthenware? Nay, rather, are the gods the minds, spirits, and souls of figures of earthenware and of gypsum? and, that the meanest things may be able to become of greater importance, do they suffer themselves to be shut up and concealed and confined in an obscure abode? Here, then, in the first place, we wish and ask to be told this by you: do they do this against their will–that is, do they enter the images as dwellings, dragged to them by the rite of dedication–or are they ready and willing?
- What then? Do the gods remain always in such substances, and do they not go away to any place, even though summoned by the most momentous affairs? or do they have free passage, when they please to go any whither, and to leave their own seats and images? If they are under the necessity of remaining, what can be more wretched than they, what more unfortunate than if hooks and leaden bonds hold them fast in this wise on their pedestals? but if we allow that they prefer these images to heaven and the starry seats, they have lost their divine power.
When one considers all the images on the tombs in the catacoombs and what Eusebius tells us, it should be easy to accept that the early Church had statues and paintings.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Precisely! He is not arguing against Christians and what they should not have or practice. He is arguing against heathens,not other Christians.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
All the people did not dress the same in the Roman Empire. But thats not the point for now. In terms of attire, they did not set themselves apart. That is what the Catholic Encyclopedia stated as well. In terms of Revelation, are we now discussing Revelation 5:6-8? Just to specificy
You keep saying pastor, singular, the Bible teaches a plurality of elders. I am also curious why you think they were a suit and tie. Some might but I do not specifically recall that occuring, but it could have, possibly one of the older gentlemen.
There is no such thing as a priest for a New Testament church office. There is a word that means priest in Greek and it is never used as one of the three fold ministry. That word become used instead of presbyter around 200 years after the Apostles.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Eusebius says what the next sentence?
The ancients habitually followed their own Gentile custon of honorouring them as saviours in this indiscriminate (sometimes translated uninhibited) way?
Eusebius will also recount the story of how the Bishop from Jerusalem ripped pictures off the walls of a church because this was not the custom of the Apostles but the pagans.
As far as Arnobius, he is recounting how pagans said we did not have these things as a statement of fact. Arnobius never argues against it, he states as a matter of historical record that pagans said we did not have them.
Big difference and a distinction I can explain further if it is still unclear to you.
The ancients habitually followed their own Gentile custon of honorouring them as saviours in this indiscriminate (sometimes translated uninhibited) way?
Eusebius will also recount the story of how the Bishop from Jerusalem ripped pictures off the walls of a church because this was not the custom of the Apostles but the pagans.
As far as Arnobius, he is recounting how pagans said we did not have these things as a statement of fact. Arnobius never argues against it, he states as a matter of historical record that pagans said we did not have them.
Big difference and a distinction I can explain further if it is still unclear to you.
T
Third_Day
Guest
. Did some wear leisure suits and polo shirts while others wore Roman attire? I don’t think so. Their dress would have been more similar rather then a variety of styles.
Perhaps in terms of attire although the Canon of Hippolytus mentions the priests wearing white. But they were" set apart "because they were ministers of the Church.
Rev 8:3-4 “and another angel came and stood at the altar…smoke of the incense…”
Rev 7:13 'who are these clothed in white robes". John didn’t see any coats and ties.
.
Presbyters were appointed in every town. These were Bishops/priests not self appointed pastors.
.
I am asking you to defend the fact that your protestant denomination’s pastor wears a suit and a tie which is not mentioned in the bible. How can you defend that since you adhere to the bible as your authority?
The apostles couldn’t use the Hebrew word for priest “kahan/kohen” because they were not Levites. The apostles couldn’t use the Greek word for priest *hiereus * because that was associated with pagan priests so they used presbyter and episcope.
Paul tells us in Romans 15:16 "Romans 15:16: “‘because of the grace given to me by God to be a minister (*leitourgon-liturgist *)of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (ierourgounta –administer of sacred service) of the gospel of God.”
An administer of sacred service and a liturgist is a priest. Paul also forgave sins, baptized, laid hands and consecrated the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ all of which are the functions of a priest.
T
Third_Day
Guest
Since the Gentiles were honoring them as “saviors” then these Gentiles were cleary Christian.
What book and chapter is that in?
It is unclear what you mean. Arnobius is saying that Christians do not believe, like the pagans, that a copper or clay statue is a god or that God is confined to a place.
H
hizstory
Guest
If I may referree for a moment on the topic of vestments, Rightly Divide is simply stating that as far as wardrobe is concerned, there was not much (if any) difference between clergy and laity (and that is what his or evangelical churches still follow).
Yes, Third Day, there is no mention of suits and ties in the Bible or the writings of the Early Church Fathers, but that is missing Rightly Divide’s point just as he seems to be missing your point that clothing changes with culture and that the clothing of clergy (Catholic) has remained relatively unchanged.
It seems to me that you are actually both right if you could just step back and see each other’s points.
Yes, Third Day, there is no mention of suits and ties in the Bible or the writings of the Early Church Fathers, but that is missing Rightly Divide’s point just as he seems to be missing your point that clothing changes with culture and that the clothing of clergy (Catholic) has remained relatively unchanged.
It seems to me that you are actually both right if you could just step back and see each other’s points.
R
Radical
Guest
well, if it makes you feel better, please note that they aren’t advocating that position merely to get under your skin…I think that it has something to do with the fact that they think the scriptures are reliable and that the CC and its tradition isn’t.
ahhh, I kinda think God could work things out quite nicely with or w/o those first seven ecumenical councils. Perhaps he might even embue non-bishops with his Holy Spirit…perhaps he has embued some protestants with his Spirit when they developed their theology. Perhaps those first seven ecumenical councils weren’t all good in all they did.
well, we most certainly can’t thank the apostles or the apostolic fathers for the Catholic Marian doctrines, Papal supremacy and Indulgences. Those innovations came later and labelling them as developments doesn’t serve to salvage them (IMHO).
or, freed from some of the innovations and aware that “Sacred Tradition” was not reliable, they were able to examine matters afresh and correct some errors.
Clement you say? What is your evidence that he met or corresponded with an apostle? Also, is it your position that the “resurrection” of the phoenix is an apostolic teaching?..or is it that Clement introduced some non-apostolic stuff? Oh dear, I hope not as that might make it somewhat difficult to know where we should draw the line…and Ignatius too? I hope you realize that it is far from certain that Ignatius ever met John (the apostle as opposed to the other John).
Certain fellows of Paul’s day had no problem straying from Paul’s teaching. Further, it doesn’t seem so blasted hard to believe that Ignatius and Clement (as overseers) might want to assert that overseers should be only obeyed and not challenged (obviously, that would kinda serve their own interests)
duly noted…now that your position has been declared, I shall sit back and see if they are prepared to abandom their better understanding of the Eucharist etc. so as to gain your endorsement
H
hizstory
Guest
Having Southern Baptist parents myself, I think you’ll run out of popcorn before that happensduly noted…now that your position has been declared, I shall sit back and see if they are prepared to abandom their better understanding of the Eucharist etc. so as to gain your endorsement
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Correction: They think their interpretation of the scriptures is reliable and that the CC and its tradition isn’t.
But – the New Testament IS Sacred Apostolic Tradition that was written down by the Catholic Church and was later recognized as “Scripture.” At the end of the fourth century, the Church canonized her collection of written oral Tradition and named it the “New Testament.” The Church preserved the remainder of the oral teaching of the Apostles in other ways. Both are equally the Word of God, emanating from the very same source. 2 Thessalonians 2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
Peace, Jim Dandy
- Status