EthnAlln

This idea came to me at random this morning, and I thought it might make an interesting topic for discussion. The question I ask is, "Can the worshipping practices of the first Christians be known with sufficient plausbility and in sufficient detail to make a feasible reconstruction of what took place in them?"

I ask because of a personal memory that surfaced this morning as I was posting on the GRD board. As I posted there, when I was growing up, my family were close friends with a family who attended the Church of Christ, except for one bleak period when the mother of that family told my mother that we were all going to hell for not attending her church. The families reconciled later.

Still, when I was 21 or 22, one of the boys in the family was studying to become a CoC minister. He told me in reverential tones how crystal clear God's plan for his life had become and tried to lure me in. I told him I preferred to remain a Catholic. That's when he explained to me that his church was trying to restore Christianity to its original, perfect form as established by Jesus, before the Catholic usurpers got hold of it. In order not to offend me, he said (and this is an exact quote), "I admire them for it, but I think they are going to be responsible for the condemnation of a lot of souls." That's a case where politeness definitely gets in the way of logic. How can you admire an organization that is sending millions of dupes to eternal torment?

So, I would think any member of the CoC would be an ardent historian and archaeologist in order to complete the church's mission. Unless they think it was already completed through some later revelation. I keep wondering if they are making any progress (but I'm not going to visit them to find out). It seems to me that accurate history and archaeology are nearly fatal to religious faith.

Incidentally, my friend's god-given mission was tragically cut short a year later when he was killed in an automobile accident while driving to church to deliver his weekly sermon. So much for knowing God's plan for your life.

3DJay

Step 1: Understanding that the first Christians were actually Jewish. They wouldn't have believed they were following a new religion. They'd have been practicing Jews, who believed their Messiah had come. And, the evolution of the Trinity, is somewhat recorded. There's no real evidence that the first Christians believed Jesus was God, which is the greatest deviation between Judaism and Christianity.


Peace

EthnAlln

Well, that certainly puts an end to the enterprise, since the CoC is a trinitarian church. But I doubt they will fold their tents (or admit that what you wrote is actual history).

Toto

I knew some CoC's, and they derived their ideas about the early church from Acts - house churches, one per city. But they supplemented this with a lot of more modern ideas.

Peter Kirby

One of the first acts of Christian worship, as told by the Synoptics, involved a woman breaking out an expensive liquid and bathing Jesus with it. (And Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.") One of the first acts of Christian ministering, as told by the Gospel of John, involved men having their feet washed by Jesus. (John 13:1-15, "you ought also to wash one another's feet." Cf. 1 Timothy 5:10.)

Why are these scenes left entirely by the wayside in any liturgy with which I am familiar? (But note this.)

EthnAlln

Well, the Roman Church distinguishes between the Mass, which is the highest form of worship, and all kinds of other rites, such as rosaries, novenas, marking with ashes on Ash Wednesday, etc.

I think the symbolism of it is lost in the modern era, when offering to wash your guests' feet would border on rudeness. Are there any Christian sects that routinely pick one another's noses? ("You ought to pick one another's noses, even as I have picked your nose." I like it.)

Riverwind

True, although there were some fairly radical differences. Jesus, of course, taught his disciples what the underlying reasons for the laws were as the reason for following the laws (rather than just following them for tradition's sake). This meant that it appeared to some Jews as if he and his disciples were "breaking the rules" when Jesus would heal on the Sabbath, but to Jesus it was obvious that practicing good works on the Sabbath was not wrong.

Jesus also strongly opposed much of the "oral traditions" that were prevalent in his times. I suppose you could say that he and the disciples were the first to follow the idea of sola scriptura.

Although it is somewhat true that human understanding of the Trinity evolved to some extent, it is untrue that there is "no real evidence that the first Christians believed Jesus was God". You may not believe the evidence, but you should read both conservative literature as well as liberal literature if you want to get the fuller picture.

Riverwind

First, I am very sorry for the loss of your friend. I also lost a friend in a tragic accident when I was in college. It was very tough.

With regard to "accurate history and archaeology", it is certainly not even close to being "fatal to religious faith". In fact, many feel that their faith is strengthened by it. There are certain interpretations of history and archaeology that would certainly destroy one's belief in God and the Bible, but that is only if one takes them and their interpretations on faith in place of their faith in the Bible and God. There are plenty of good and honest conservative scholars that one can read to get the "flip side of the coin". Whose interpretation of history you choose to believe is up to you.

Finally, with respect to the CoC, I assure you that they do not have a corner on the market of research into the early Christian church. It is studied heavily by all denominations. It seems to be more important to protestants because they are attempting to justify their split from the Catholic church by getting back to "their roots". The Catholic church, of course, also studies the history (especially of early saints and theologians), but it does not seem (at least to me) quite as important because church tradition and new interpretations handed down by the Pope (God's instrument here on earth according to them) cause the church to be something of a "living church".

Peter Kirby

Riverwind,

I understand people who have faith and belief in God. I don't think I understand people who have faith and belief in the Bible. I certainly don't understand people who run the two together as though they were inseparable.

Riverwind

Apart from the Bible, I would know nothing of the Christian God and could not be a Christian. It is how the Christian tradition was passed down to us (unless of course one places their faith also in the traditions of the Catholic church). I could call myself a believer in God, but not a Christian.

How can a Christian separate themselves from the Bible? That, I don't understand. Without a Bible, how would one even know who Christ was or what to believe about him?