Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
But even you admit that there could be multiple places of meeting. The problem that Paul was talking about was not acrimony between two different meetings, but between those in one meeting. So if they met in more than one place (something you allowed for) then there was a problem between those within each separate meeting, not between those in one meeting v those in another.
|
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I or the local churches believe in only one meeting per city. Anyone who knows anything about the local churches knows that there are often multiple meetings per city on any given Sunday. Obviously for practical reasons we may need to meet in multiple locations. Therefore any arguments against the local church on this basis is moot. But we are still one church in the city.
Perhaps you have misunderstood some of my previous statements about the one assembly in Corinth.
I talk about the one assembly in Corinth because it is a historical fact that the Corinthian church and most churches at the time were small enough to fit into a house or a small to medium sized venue. The exception would have been Jerusalem which was very large. There is a noticeable lack of archaeological discoveries of big Christian meeting places in the early church period.
Acts 2:1 says
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
The assembly in Acts 2:1 was 120 people gathered into a single room.
This website explains that the church at Corinth was around 40 to 150 persons and possibly met together at a rented venue:
It is difficult to know the size of the Corinthian church at the time of this first letter. Scholarly estimates range from 40 to 150 persons. It is often assumed that when “the whole church” came together for worship (1Cor 14:23), it did so in a believer’s home, but Paul’s distinction between church and home in 1Cor 11:22 may suggest otherwise (compare 1Cor 11:34, 1Cor 14:34-35). The meeting place may have been a rented dining hall, a large garden, or some other venue.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/plac...rch-at-corinth
Given the relatively small size of the Corinthian church and Paul's distinction between their place of assembly and homes, I think ZNP's view that they met per faction scattered over the city is unlikely.
I agree with what you said about factions existing within each meeting. You are restating what I have already said in my post to ZNP about ecumenical meetings. So we seem to agree, and you seem to disagree with ZNP's view that separate meetings were divided according to faction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
When it comes to your insistence that they were otherwise all meeting together within one city, that is a presumption created by an overlay that ignores the clear inference that in certain places there was more than one group that was referred to as "the church." Nee waved his hand and dismissed this by saying it couldn't mean that because of the on church per city rule.
Classic "begging the question." Dismiss contrary evidence to a rule by stating that there is a rule. That is the after-the-fact response to bad evidence. Up front, it is called cherry-picking your evidence. Find the things you like and make a rule from it. Then use the rule to dismiss the evidence that inconveniently disproves your rule. Or hide the fact that the contrary evidence exists and hope no one ever notices. Nee did that when he created the rule in one book, then had to address the contrary evidence in a second book, but invoked the rule to help dismiss it.
|
If you read my posts carefully, I quoted a big name theologian (Wallace), and I also quoted bible commentaries, also well respected theologians in their own right. My view considers the history and the views of what the scholars and theologians say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You simply restated the same commentator snippet. He never states that there is a single assembly in Corinth or that there should only be one. He just says that when an entire assembly gathers together (as opposed to meeting in smaller home or neighborhood groups like many do today — I believe even the LRC at times) . . . . You are forcing the one church per city rule onto Gil. He didn't say it. But you continue to say it as if he did.
|
1 Corinthians 11:20 proves that they met together in
one place and not multiple places (KJV):
1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore
into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
So the bible alone seems to support my view. I think if you were a KJV-onlyist you might be convinced. Luckily for you, I know that other bible versions do not say "into one place" and "one place" is possibly not the meaning of the original text.
Matthew Poole admits this, yet says
one place is the greater likelihood:
The Greek words do not necessarily signify into one place, they may as well be translated, for the same thing, and possibly that were the better translation of them in this place
Geneva study bible:
When ye come together therefore
into one place, this is {g} not to eat the Lord's supper.
Cambridge:
20. into one place]
Literally, to (or at) the same place. See Acts 1:15; Acts 2:1; Acts 3:1, and ch. 1 Corinthians 7:5 of this Epistle. It is the only phrase which we find applied to the place of the Christian assembly. See note on 1 Corinthians 11:18.
Barnes:
When ye come together therefore ... - When you are assembled as a church, compare Hebrews 10:25, and see the note on Acts 2:1. Christians were constantly in the habit of assembling for public worship.
It is probable that at this early period all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place. The apostle here particularly refers to their "assembling" to observe the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. At that early period it is probable that this was done on every Lord's Day.
I will restate what Gill said, and I emphasis in bold the part where Gill mentions a single meeting place (one place) for the divine service.
Gill —
For first of all, when ye come together in the church,.... The place where the church met together to perform divine service, called "one place". 1 Corinthians 11:20 and is distinguished from their own "houses", 1 Corinthians 11:22 and the first thing he took notice of as worthy of dispraise and reproof, in their religious assemblies, were their animosities and factions:
Gill seems to be following the KJV as written. Translation issue? Perhaps, yet, no scholars deny the intended meaning of "
one place". I know this forum is not shy of questioning the translation authenticity of the English bible. But if this were any other forum, particularly a KJV one, I think my use of Scripture would establish a fact.
But this verse is not really required to prove anything. We know that Paul distinguished between church assembly and their homes, as the
bibleodyssey.org website also testifies. Therefore it implies that their homes were not their main place of meeting in Corinth.
So we have general consensus among the bible scholars that it refers to meeting together in the one place of public worship.
So far we have not been discussing whether there is any "one church per city rule". For now, it is hard enough to show people that one church per city was a historical fact or that the likelihood of such is much higher than the alternative. A follow on question is whether it is a rule that applies today or not. For now I am not addressing that, but it has been discussed in other threads.