-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The role of the Christian Church
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
To teach about God, Jesus, & the H.S., and to encourage the congregation to believe and live in them.
Why are there doctors? Same reason, namely that not everyone has a strong theological or medical background.
Yes, or at least it should be. What would be the purpose of going to church just to go to church? However, I'm sure that there are some who do just that.
See above.
Also, in Christianity, there's the issue of trying to at least partially recreate the conditions of the apostolic church. To put it another way, Christianity never was viewed as a just "do your own thing" and that's all. The word "church" means "community", and it is used a great many times in the NT.
Because people can't often agree on even which day of the week it is.
What is the role of the Christian church? I'm unaware of such an entity existing. That is to say, there is no "Christian church" there are tens of thousands of Christian churches representing an equally numinous number of denominations and traditions. These different denominations and traditions have different ideas about what the role of the institutionalized aspects of their religion is, but speaking in very general terms, institutionalization exists in any sphere of human activity to provide needed structure and resources for groups of people. The role of clergy is similarly diverse, and with similarly broad roles - to provide leadership and guidance.
Something being personal does not preclude the need for institutions and leaders. Learning is inherently personal, but we have institutions (schools) and leaders (teachers) to facilitate learning.
Something being personal does not preclude the need for institutions and leaders. Learning is inherently personal, but we have institutions (schools) and leaders (teachers) to facilitate learning.
Which, apparently, it's OK to celebrate it whatever day you think is significant.
I liken it to houses. Some have a 3bd 2bath split plan, others have bedrooms all on one side, some have it painted bright and others pastels... but who cares?
As long as the foundation is square... who cares? 
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
I see one with Earthiy power and one with spiritual knowledge. To follow those who teach of flesh and command authority through it is not what I see Christ as being. He was physically poor and spiritually wealthy. The opposite of the ways of the (orthodox) church, IMO.
Where you lay up your treasures matter.
To teach the gospel to all the nations.
At the time of Christ and until relatively recently the vast majority of people were uneducated. The Clergy had an important role in education.
Most organisations rely on a hierarchical structure to effectively administer their affairs.
Of course. Its essentially a personal relationship with God through Christ.
To administer sacraments such as communion, to educate the masses and administer communal worship.
Christians have different ideas about what the gospels teach but for the most part have many shared beliefs in regards who Jesus was and what He taught.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The early church actually celebrated in over two days during the week. On Shabbat (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) was what would be eventually called the "liturgy" in English (main worship day) that also celebrated the Eucharist, whereas on Sunday was the celebration of the "agape meal", which was a communal dinner. During the 2nd century, there was a gradual blending of the two held on Sunday ("the Lord's Day"-- named as such because of the resurrection) was the day chosen. Historians are not sure exactly when that trend started or where, and it was probably a custom that gradually spread from one local church to another.
Yes!! I sometimes wonder if it happened for two reasons (personal opinion)
1) The growing animosity between strictly Jews and Jewish-Christians (might make it harder to share the Shabbat together)
2) The growing presence of Gentiles-Christians which would obviously be a problem in a sharing of a Shabbat.
Anywhom, personal viewpoint.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There is no indication via Scripture, that they ever shared a Shabbat. The followers were out on the shabbat that the pharisees observed, it doesn't say in the text, that Jesus's followers didn't hold shabbat, on another day.
The resurrection is another thing, as Jesus rises on the shabbat, yet it is a sunday.
The resurrection is another thing, as Jesus rises on the shabbat, yet it is a sunday.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jesus did when he visited the synagogue, plus the apostles were Jews who we know went to the Temple. Jews the world over have the Torah mandate to assemble on Shabbat, and Jesus and the apostles were Jews.
No, as it occurred after sundown Saturday, which then is Sunday.
No such "animal" exists. Shabbat is a name for a day of the week that runs from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not only was there that division but also one within the early community because of the issue of the following of Jewish Law (halacha). We know that they were jnot all on the same page, and you see this conflict being played out in Acts plus what appears to be a difference of opinion between James, Paul, and Peter.
And this is where I believe Paul realized and kicked in his own belief that the Law had to be abandoned in order for there to be "one body", which he harps on frequently in his epistles. How can there be "one body" when we have two different groups (gentile and Jewish) operating under very different rules. How do you deal with marriage? dinner? etc.? He knew that the Law had to be terminated with new converts, and he convinces Peter of that. The end result was a gradual abandonment of Jewish Law.
I disagree... Paul went to share the Gospel on the Shabbat in many occasions as listed in Acts.
To be replaced by the Law of Love? Love God and love your neighbor.
But wasn't all of the Law based on these two principles?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Wrong... you are aware of the Lords Shabbat. Which is sunday.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And that's where I think Jesus was coming from, which was not entirely unique since the Hillel school also though much the same even though they still felt following the entire Law was important as long as its base was to "do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto yourself". IOW, the law could be a bit more flexible under Hillel's opinion, but not to the degree that Jesus and the apostles took it..
Just a reminder that not all of the 613 Commandments relate to interpersonal relationships, and an example of this are the kosher Laws. Therefore, Hillel could not abandon those whereas the early church in general did after Peter's vision, except for those called "Ebionites" who were very reluctant to abandon the Law.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Shabbat" is a day of the week as found in Hebrew, so what you are in essence saying is that [mostly] Saturday is Sunday, which is illogical.
"Shabbat" is a day of rest with many restrictions as found in Torah, so do you follow all of those restrictions? Do you know what they are?