Jesus and his followers did worship in the Temple and in synagogues.
To the contrary concerning our Lord (and most of His followers): He IS, and we ARE the Temple (Jn 2:19; 1 Tim 3:15; Eph 2:20-22), His Body; He thus replaces the Old Testament type; He left the OT temple and told His disciples so (Mt 23:37-24:2), and He visited there a few times, and synagogues, just to preach the gospel.
Like Paul did later.
As for any mistake on Peter and John's and a few others' part in visiting, or thinking to continue visiting, there in Acts: the Lord turned it by causing them to preach the gospel also (Acts 3). With the result of their persecution by the religious ones and authorities (Ac 4).
Perhaps (hopefully) that was the only time they wasted their time there. Later, James the brother of Jesus, suffered even more from his confusion of old covenant with new; and other Jewish saints in Jerusalem did too. So much so that even Paul succumbed to their folly in Ac 21. And would've completed a Jewish vow there had Jesus His God not sovereignly interrupted that whole thing. Which again, marvellously, turned into an opportunity to witness boldly for the resurrected Nazarene (Ac 21-22).
We have Biblical record of that.
above, in blue
The eraly Church conseidered herself to be a Jewish sect.
Some, as James a prime example, apparently did.
But Paul and those who received his ministry of the new covenant, and the Gentile believers generally, were very clear of exactly the opposite. So that mostly-speaking, your sentence above's inaccurate.
Philip 3:1-11; Gal 6:15; 4:1-5:12; 3:28 "there cannot be Jew nor Greek; 2:14; 1:1-24; Rm 2:28-29; etc
The early believers went to synagogue
Paul?
Yes, in cities. Deliberately to preach. Not to join himself to their service.
the Jews later cordially invited them not to come back.
cf Ac 4:1-31
The Acts quotation from Chapter 2 deals with the liturgical worship of the early Church,
What, may i ask u, do u mean by "liturgical"?
"Sacramental" is the issue. It's sacramental because it represents...
So your word "sacramental" means "sign, representation"?
That's what "symbol" means. So "sacramental" and "symbol" mean the same thing, apparently, as u use them
not because it has to be some technical thing.
Thas my littl' point. Any believer may and can in the Lord breaking the bread and serving wine at and for the Lord's Table
And every member does represent the rest!
Okay. Becuz they're believes. For instance, i wouldn't have an unbeliever either break, or receive, the bread or wine. But, for instance, when the Lord gave the loaf and wine the night b4 His death, representation wasn't (and still isn't) the issue. Rather obedience and the symbol was. The symbols are the illustration. Not the person breaking or serving
But certain ministries have always been set aside for those who are set aside for special ministry. That's my stand.
i believe i comprehend that dear brother. My only point was that breaking bread and serving the wine for the Supper in the NT are not a "special ministry."
Thanks