"Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" - Heb. 10:25

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,547
271
83
#81
Well to me, it seems more reasonable to assume that the urging to not forsake the assembling together, applies today, too. Though I agree with you that it doesn't have to be a large type of gathering or in church buildings in all cases. House churches are fine, if that is what one is most benefited by. But for some, attending a larger gathering or in a church building may be what is most available to them - and also have some benefits that house churches are less able to have - that some might be better off having. I believe one's should continue attending whatever types of worship gatherings as they feel God's Spirit indicating that they should be attending on a regular basis, and should not be willing to quit, without His leading to not do so. They shouldn't put their fear of people above what they feel in their heart that God wants them to continue to do. But I see the danger that many will find themselves putting their fear of man ahead of God's leading in this.

It's true that some Christians in some cases must be rather alone at least for a time, such as was the case with John the Baptist. But the general way the scriptures indicate should be used, if possible - is that of fellowshipping regularly with others. That's the example I see by all the house churches throughout the New Testament. And about the New Testament showing that they were in the habit of meeting together regularly.

I know there are many house churches in China, and am sure that is a good thing. But to be a light on a hill - as Jesus said it - I think it looks like a good thing for public churches to continue too - until or unless there gets to be too much persecution to where it's clear they are better off worshiping more privately.

We are not to live just for ourselves and for the Lord - at least it's not the best. God wants us to be of spiritual benefit one to another among Christians - as can be seen by reading the lists of spiritual gifts that should be used by believers (all having different gifts) - in Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12.

Eph 5:19

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
KJV

1 Cor 14:3

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
KJV

1 Thess 5:11

11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.
KJV
Some good stuff here, no doubt about that. You put your thinking cap on before you put your foot in your mouth and as a result did not put your foot in your mouth.

In my 66 years as a Christian, I have been an avid devotee whatever church I have been part of. To me name was irrelevant. What they did was more important. But then, being autistic we tend to be all or nothing. I was just as happy to wash the dishes as I was to teach. If it needed doing I did it.

Today, things have changed. Since I have taken the time and trouble to be informed about the scriptures at Bible College, spending six years at uni, where I was at the forefront of debating atheists, secularists, and homosexuals, reading copious number of books about spiritual warfare, sitting in a room listening to a little homily from someone who has no idea what they are talking about doesn't have much appeal.

There is a saying I have adopted and that is I don't believe in flogging a dead horse. If it is dead it is dead and as yet I haven't prayed for one to be brought back to life. Don't know that it would happen even if I shouted myself horse.

I spent three years in a small group that met in a double garage. The meeting started at about 4pm with prayer and ended at the end. Eighty % of them were males surprise surprise. It all ended when a jezebel joined the group. I warned the leader about her but he decided not to heed my advice so she destroyed it.

Since then, try as I might, nothing gelled. Until last year whe I stumbled on a group of men who met on Friday afternoon and was invited to attend which I did. As they say, the rest is history as I have been attending ever since. We are all from different backgrounds but that doesn't matter as we get on so well together. We accept each other's quirks and foibles and everyoe can speak as they are led. We had someone join us this year for the first time and he has been appointed our unoficial chaplain. The fact he is a newcomer did not bother us one bit as he brings whatever God gives him in such a peaceful and compelling way. You cannot but listen to what he has to say and his relationship with the Lord is obvious in what he says.

So my church is on Friday with men of like mind, which we like because you can get a word in edgeways with no women present.

What was that? Did I say something wrong?
 

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,891
2,530
113
#82
What is the use in debating, nobody ever changes their mind
 

MyrtleTrees

Junior Member
Sep 5, 2014
742
301
63
#83
church can consist of TWO or THREE gathered in his name...no restriction on that.

Nobody says there has to be ten men at prayer for a quorum that was just a jewish orthodox rule they made up
True! I hadn't known anything about the Jewish orthodox rule - interesting. God has used both small gatherings, such as like 2 or 3 or house church size, and also large church types throughout history. One just needs to follow God's leading as to what kinds to use and how many, etc. - as to what is best for one's own spiritual benefit, as well as for the sake of being of benefit to others.
 

MyrtleTrees

Junior Member
Sep 5, 2014
742
301
63
#84
Some good stuff here, no doubt about that. You put your thinking cap on before you put your foot in your mouth and as a result did not put your foot in your mouth.

In my 66 years as a Christian, I have been an avid devotee whatever church I have been part of. To me name was irrelevant. What they did was more important. But then, being autistic we tend to be all or nothing. I was just as happy to wash the dishes as I was to teach. If it needed doing I did it.

Today, things have changed. Since I have taken the time and trouble to be informed about the scriptures at Bible College, spending six years at uni, where I was at the forefront of debating atheists, secularists, and homosexuals, reading copious number of books about spiritual warfare, sitting in a room listening to a little homily from someone who has no idea what they are talking about doesn't have much appeal.

There is a saying I have adopted and that is I don't believe in flogging a dead horse. If it is dead it is dead and as yet I haven't prayed for one to be brought back to life. Don't know that it would happen even if I shouted myself horse.

I spent three years in a small group that met in a double garage. The meeting started at about 4pm with prayer and ended at the end. Eighty % of them were males surprise surprise. It all ended when a jezebel joined the group. I warned the leader about her but he decided not to heed my advice so she destroyed it.

Since then, try as I might, nothing gelled. Until last year whe I stumbled on a group of men who met on Friday afternoon and was invited to attend which I did. As they say, the rest is history as I have been attending ever since. We are all from different backgrounds but that doesn't matter as we get on so well together. We accept each other's quirks and foibles and everyoe can speak as they are led. We had someone join us this year for the first time and he has been appointed our unoficial chaplain. The fact he is a newcomer did not bother us one bit as he brings whatever God gives him in such a peaceful and compelling way. You cannot but listen to what he has to say and his relationship with the Lord is obvious in what he says.

So my church is on Friday with men of like mind, which we like because you can get a word in edgeways with no women present.

What was that? Did I say something wrong?
I think God has used both small type gatherings, as well as also the larger kinds, throughout history. It doesn't appear to me, that God's will - as to what kind, where and with whom, is the same in each case. It varies from person to person. One should prayerfully choose, based on what one feels the most need for, and based on the desire to be of spiritual benefit to others. I like the small gathering type a lot, and grew up in it, as my dad preferred home fellowships with Christian friends of our family. Though for some years, now and then - our family did attend ordinary churches. It is less possible to find the small home fellowships nowadays, I've noticed, as they've become less popular. I pray God gives you good success in spite of this difficulty, in finding some more small good fellowships to be a part of! I see nothing wrong with going to all men type home fellowships, if that is what one feels a need for. I think one reason why there is more of a problem with women being overly unsubmissive in churches today, is that it isn't widely taught that they should be so, according to Paul's letter to Timothy. Plus there are greater numbers of marriages breaking up in the USA, due to a falling away from God in recent times, so this must have a lot to do with the larger numbers of insubmissive women - as compared to earlier times in USA history.
 

MyrtleTrees

Junior Member
Sep 5, 2014
742
301
63
#85
Yes the gathering does not have to do with the things seen, things of men . it can be beneficial but is not the reason to gather together. . . to look at one another.

I would suggest the things not seen the eternal are in mind.

For instance in James the Holy Spirit speaks of the kind of religion acceptable to Him. The gospel.

The gospel takes care of the worldly needs and mixes in the hearing of faith, the spiritual need.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Using the fatherless or orphans to represent no Father in heaven and widows as those not married to Christ our husband .

Widows the unmarried according to the flesh are those who are not in union to Christ. When a single becomes a believer it takes away from the idea they are still not married. And those who have lost a spouse become widows in a fleshly way.
.
In many cases they can not work to gather themselves . It is one of the ministries that does suffer to today

Exodus 22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Job 22:9 Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken.

Psalm 68:5 A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.

Lamentations 5:3 We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows.
 

MyrtleTrees

Junior Member
Sep 5, 2014
742
301
63
#86
Yes, meeting together for fellowship, should not only spiritually beneficial to the hearer - but also, spiritually beneficial towards one another - using one's spiritual gifts, as is described in Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12. Yes, in New Testament churches, they helped provide for widows, I've noticed, if they had no family to support them and if they were too old to remarry. While younger widows and single women, were advised to marry in order to be provided for.
 

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,547
271
83
#87
church can consist of TWO or THREE gathered in his name...no restriction on that.

Nobody says there has to be ten men at prayer for a quorum that was just a jewish orthodox rule they made up
Not quite correct. In Jewish law there had to be 10 men to be able to start a synogogue.
 

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,547
271
83
#91
The law of God is as it is written in the law and the prophets. The law of men is the law of the fathers, oral traditions of men. Apposing laws.
Can you give examples of what you are talking about?
 

MyrtleTrees

Junior Member
Sep 5, 2014
742
301
63
#92
Can you give examples of what you are talking about?
Here are some verses that give examples of human religious laws that God didn't make:
Gal 1:14

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers
KJV

Mark 7:13

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
KJV
And here's a link that tells of many verses about wrong religious traditions of men:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/traditions
 

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,547
271
83
#93
Here are some verses that give examples of human religious laws that God didn't make:
Gal 1:14

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers
KJV

Mark 7:13

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
KJV
And here's a link that tells of many verses about wrong religious traditions of men:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/traditions
Thank you for that link it was a bit of an eye-opener. I could not help notice in a lot of verses that they were told to maintain the traditions that they were taught as new believers. Another point I asked myself is what is the context of these verses as that can make all the difference.

For example, what the bible calls the first day of the week and thus justifying meeting on Sunday is in actual fact the first of the sabbaths which as we know is on Saturday.
 

MyrtleTrees

Junior Member
Sep 5, 2014
742
301
63
#94
Thank you for that link it was a bit of an eye-opener. I could not help notice in a lot of verses that they were told to maintain the traditions that they were taught as new believers. Another point I asked myself is what is the context of these verses as that can make all the difference.

For example, what the bible calls the first day of the week and thus justifying meeting on Sunday is in actual fact the first of the sabbaths which as we know is on Saturday.
Yes, they were told to keep the traditions they'd been taught, as new believers. That means the NEW traditions - not those of Judaism - but that which the apostles had taught them, under the teachings of the new covenant. Judaism was based on the old covenant. Jesus' death and resurrection brought into being - the new covenant.

The book of Hebrews explains a lot about the switch to the New Covenant, from the Old Covenant, and the reasons for it.

It's true that it looks like the New Testament churches were in the habit of worshipping on the first day of the week, much of the time. However, there were times when they worshipped together every day of the week:

Acts 2:46-47

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
KJV

There is no restrictions on what day of the week to worship together on, under the New Covenant:

Rom 14:5-6

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
KJV

Paul implied that believers need to be willing to overlook other Christians' beliefs about what days one should worship on, as it often took time for them to possibly understand these things better - since they were so used to the old ways of doing things.

The Sabbath day of Old Testament times - represented the "rest" (meaning, I believe - being set free from the power of sin through salvation that comes through Jesus). Hebrews 4 illustrates how most of the Israelites (those traveling with Moses from Egypt) only served God hypocritically - and that God rejected them for that, finally. "Jesus" in that chapter - refers to "Joshua" (the Hebrew name for the Greek name, "Jesus"). Not to "Jesus" through whom salvation is provided - through His death on the cross. Now, those who serve Jesus, are continually under this new and better "rest."

Matt 11:28-30

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
KJV
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,526
113
#95
Can you give examples of what you are talking about?
Denying the tradition of God "sola scriptura" which they refused to hear. They did whatsoever their own mouth produced as oral traditions of men .

Catholiscim say its all one in the same Devine source . Making corrupted mankind's sacred tradition of fathers , kings or princes (things seen the higher authority) and saw "no evil" in doing so ..The abomination of desolation making void the word of God.

Jeremiah 44: 16-17 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw "no evil".

The law book of Catholic faith that they have in respect to venerable men seen. . verse # 39-40 "

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
5,567
867
113
#96
I think also we need to be mindful of the abuses of using this verse also . The verse is often used to guilt trip the congregation to keep coming and keep tithing . The cults use this verse to keep people in line also .
And the harm in doing that is What?
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
5,567
867
113
#97
Most believers will unfortunately use this verse and use it for the church today . its used to guilt trip believers . Because most Christians read their bible ' legalistically' ,so its easy for verses like this to be abused and be used out of context . Whole sermons are often preached on ' twisted scriptures ' sadly .
Are you saying that we should not take heed to obey this commandment?
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
10,468
1,590
113
#99
Are you saying that we should not take heed to obey this commandment?
Using it for the Church in the way that its used is unbilcal . It has nothing to do with people coming to the Sunday service in 2020 .
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
7,367
1,429
113
For example, what the bible calls the first day of the week and thus justifying meeting on Sunday is in actual fact the first of the sabbaths which as we know is on Saturday.
Not exactly.

It's true that in some of the texts, it indeed says "first of the WEEKS [/sabbathS (plural)]"

... but in those cases it is actually referring to the first of the "set of weeks" counting FROM Firstfruit [always on a Sunday] TO the day before Shavuot/Pentecost [which is also always on a Sunday], a set of seven weeks/sabbaths [complete] (that was to be "numbered")

... IOW, those "weeks" (set of seven weeks/sabbaths, plural) START on a Sunday (namely, on Firstfruit) [day one of 49], and this is what is meant by the phrase "the first of the WEEKS [/sabbathS plural]" (a very specific set of weeks/sabbaths within any given year).



In another phrase, "every first of the WEEK [singular, sabbatou]," I believe refers to the first of an actual week (any given "week" of a year, not the specific "set of seven" [btwn FF & Pentecost] like the other phrase means). This ['week'] also refers to the entire "week [singular]," thus the "first" of that would also be a Sunday (though starting "the evening before, at sundown," according to Jewish reckoning, I suppose, but the bulk of the "first [day of that 'week']" would fall on the Sunday part, see.