As a result of a previously published ezine article – Reflections:-Talking-to-Self-and-to-God-Can-Yield-Some-New-Revelations—the-Feast-of-Women-and-Health – and other writings, I have had several persons on Myspace (and other Cyber Sites) innitiate contact with me to dispute my belief that Mary Magdalene WAS the wife of Jesus.

Hense – this follow-up article:

From other respected authors – comes the basis of my belief. Although their references are not published in this article – due to maximum word length article bank’s restrictions – one can find them by searching out the originals.

PBS “From Jesus To Christ” – This FRONTLINE series is an intellectual and visual guide to the new and controversial historical evidence which challenges familiar assumptions about the life of Jesus and the epic rise of Christianity.

“One of the mysteries of the Gospel of John is the identity of the disciple Jesus loved. Modern exegetes have offered a number of suggestions as to the identity of the tantalizingly anonymous figure: John Mark, John the son of Zebedee, John the Elder, Apollos, Paul, a Paulinist, Benjamin, Judas Iskariot, Philip, Nathanael, Judas Jesus’ brother, Matthias, a disciple of the Baptist, Thomas, an Essene monk from Jerusalem, Lazarus, Andrew, or a symbolic figure, representing the Johannine community, the Hellenistic brand of the Church or the ideal Christian disciple. [2] The historical figures which have been suggested vary widely, but they have one thing in common: they are all men. Only recently has another suggestion been put forward.

“Ramon K. Jusino, in his article ‘Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?’ argues in favor of the possibility that Mary Magdalene could be the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John. In his view, Mary Magdalene, who is called the disciple most loved by Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, [3] is in the Gospel of John, after first being mentioned by name, deliberately turned into the anonymous and male Beloved Disciple. In the two instances where Mary Magdalene’s name could not be avoided, namely in John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, the redactor added the Beloved Disciple to make sure that Mary Magdalene and he would be interpreted as two different people. [4]

Jusino suggests, on the basis of the widely respected research of Raymond E. Brown on the Johannine Community, [5] that this was done as part of a later process. [6] According to him, the female beloved disciple is made anonymous and male to be acceptable to mainstream ideology. Brown argues that the Johannine community in a very early stage became divided because of a christological argument. The more heterodox believers defended a very high christology, whereas the more orthodox believers wanted to be part of the mainstream emerging Church which defended Jesus’ corporeality. To those wanting to take part in the growing institutional Church, Jusino argues, ‘the claim that a female disciple of Jesus had been their community’s first leader and hero quickly becomes an embarrassment’. [7] According to him, the other, more heterodox believers of the community held on to their tradition. This is the reason why Mary Magdalene in various heterodox writings appears to be the one loved most by Jesus. Jusino supports his argument by showing where and how the redaction of the text was done. Again, drawing on Brown, he shows that especially in 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, where Mary Magdalene and the male beloved disciple occur together, there are inconsistencies in the text, which reveal the hand of a redactor. [8] In my view, however, there are no significant inconsistencies in these texts.

In this article [9] I want to argue, like Jusino, that Mary Magdalene is concealed in the male anonymous disciple, but, unlike Jusino, my argument does not draw on the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip nor on Brown’s research on the Johannine community. My argument is not one of a redactional nature, revealing a repressive environment from outside, but is rather based on the Gospel of John considered as a meaningful unity. [10] In my view, a repressive atmosphere with regard to women is fundamental to the Gospel of John as a whole, disclosing a repressive environment within the Johannine community, which corresponds to the one outside. This article, however, does not pretend to offer a final solution to the major problem of the identity of the anonymous disciple Jesus loved. It is presented as one possibility among others and is meant to contribute to the on-going debate. Taking into account the numerous and very different scholarly solutions that have been offered this far, one can only conclude that, if, indeed, the Gospel of John wanted the disciple Jesus loved to remain anonymous, at least to outsiders, the author has proved to be very successful.

1. John 19,25-27

The idea, that Mary Magdalene could perhaps be identified as the disciple Jesus loved, first entered my mind, while I was studying John 19,25-27. If one considers this pericope as a meaningful unity, [11] the interpretation, which views 19,25 as a parallelism and suggests that two women are standing under the cross, instead of four or three, [12] seems the most logical one, verse 25 introducing what happens in verses 26 and 27. In these latter verses John describes Jesus as seeing two persons: his mother and the disciple he loved. This coincides with the interpretation that John in verse 25 also only means two people: the mother of Jesus, for the first time mentioned here by name as Mary of Clopas now that she is on the verge of losing her identity as a mother, and her sister-in-law or niece, Mary Magdalene. There would have been no one else there. The description of the two women also fits perfectly with a peculiar Johannine trait that William Watty discerned: the Gospel’s ‘massive effort at precision’ when introducing places or persons, not only giving names as such, but also several connections with other places or persons. [13]

So far my main objection against this conjecture was that the disciple Jesus loved in John is obviously grammatically male. [14] But if anonymity in the case of the disciple Jesus loved was so important to the author of John, would indeed the use of masculine gender not guarantee the anonymity in a better way than the use of feminine gender, which would obviously reveal to the readers at least one important feature of the disciple, namely that she is a woman? It also occurred to me that a woman being referred to as male perhaps was not so strange at the time, as it would be to us now. Grace M. Jantzen showed that spirituality in early Christianity gradually became identified with maleness. [15] She gives several examples of the fact that ‘women whose spirituality was beyond question were described as honorary males’. [16] She also gives examples of cases of cross-dressing. With regard to Mary Magdalene there is a tradition which speaks of her maleness. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will lead Mary Magdalene in order to make her male ‘so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’ [17] In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her manly character. Because of this he gives her the task of joining the weaker Philip on his mission journey. But she is not to join him as a woman. ‘As for you, Mary,’ he says, ‘change your clothing and your outward appearance: reject everything which from the outside suggests a woman.’ [18]

James H. Charlesworth, in his impressive monograph on the disciple Jesus loved, leaves open the possibility that this figure could be a woman, perhaps Mary, Martha, or Mary Magdalene, in spite of the masculine grammar. [19] For him, the final proof that the disciple must be male, is not the grammar, but the circumstance that the disciple is called ‘son’. [20] However, John’s Jesus does not address the disciple as ‘son’, and uses no other masculine address, which would have completed the parallelism:

He said to his mother:

‘Woman, behold your son.’

Then he said to the disciple

‘behold your mother.’

By leaving out any masculine address, and by only saying ‘Behold your mother’, he instead declares the disciple to represent him as a son. This kind of representation does not necessarily mean that the disciple has to be male. That a woman may fulfill the function of a son to a mother is clear from the story of Ruth and Naomi. The female neighbors praise the way Ruth cared for her mother-in-law, by mentioning her to Naomi as: ‘she, who has been more to you than seven sons’ (Ruth 4,15).

The word ‘son’ directed to the mother of Jesus designates her own son: the dying crucified Jesus. The reader thoroughly relates with Mary when hearing Jesus’ words towards her: ‘Woman, behold your son.’ It is only after Jesus’ words to the disciple ‘behold your mother’ that the reader suddenly turns to this second person and begins to grasp that Jesus is inviting his mother to understand the meaning of his death and to join his followers. Turning to the disciple Jesus loved, and hearing those words ‘behold your mother’ the reader is reminded of earlier farewell words of Jesus:

I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has heard my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. (14,18-21)

The ultimate importance of the scene in 19,26-27 lies in Jesus’ invitation to his mother to look away from her dying son to find him, alive, in the disciple he loved. At the same time Jesus’ words are a solemn declaration to this disciple: he or she may act on Jesus’ behalf, as if he or she were Jesus himself. To the reader, who remembers Jesus’ prayer to his Father for all those who followed him, and who in their turn will attract new followers – ‘… that the love with which thou has loved me, may be in them, and I in themŒ (17,26) -, the disciple Jesus loved is the first of a vast number of those disciples yet to come.

Both Jesus’ mother and the disciple react to Jesus’ words. The disciple by taking Jesus’ mother to him (or her) and the mother by accepting this. Jesus’ words to his mother and the disciple he loved, together with their reaction to them, constitute the beginning of the growing ‘koinonia’ of those who follow Jesus. In this interpretation of 19,26-27 the word ‘son’ in 19,26 does not say anything about the gender of the disciple Jesus loved. The ‘son’ is the dying Jesus, who, alive, can be found in the disciple he loved as the one who may represent him. [21]

2. The disciple Jesus loved and John 20,1-18

One can distinguish either five passages about the disciple Jesus loved (13,23-26; 19,26-27; 20,2-10; 21,7.20-24), or six (plus 18,15-16) or seven (plus 1,37-42). The last two passages are about ‘another disciple’ who, on the basis of 20,2 (interpreted in an explanatory way: ‘the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved’), is identified as the disciple Jesus loved. [22]

It is important to note, that in John not only one anonymous disciple is mentioned as being loved by Jesus. Jesus also loved, for instance, Lazarus, Martha and Mary (11,5). He loved all his disciples, calling them ‘his own’ (15,9-17; 13,1.34; cf. 17,6-12), even loving those disciples who are yet to come (10,16; 14,21; 17,20-26). Jesus compares ‘his own’ with sheep who recognize his voice, when he calls them by name, and who are guided by him to seek good pastures (10,1-10). That Mary Magdalene is one of ‘his own’ emerges from John’s story about her in which she recognizes Jesus’ voice when he calls her by name, and listens to his words (20,16-18). [23] In addition, she calls him ‘Rabbouni’, which means ‘my teacher’(20,16). Moreover, in 20,2 she does not fetch Peter and ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’, but John very precisely describes the disciple being with Peter as ‘the other disciple Jesus loved’. [24] This suggests that either Mary Magdalene or Peter could be the disciple Jesus loved, who is mentioned earlier in 19,25-27. However, in most of the pericopes where John uses the expression, ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ is in the company of Peter. [25] This means that Peter cannot be the one and leaves Mary Magdalene as a serious option.

When Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus’ tomb is empty and she fetches Peter and the ‘other disciple Jesus loved’, these two run together, the other disciple outrunning Peter. Then Peter looks into the tomb and sees the linen cloth, but the other disciple not only sees, but also believes. After that, they each return to their own home (20,2-10). After the resurrection the disciples join Simon Peter who went fishing. They are Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, those of Zebedee and ‘two others of his disciples’ (21,2). The disciple Jesus loved recognizes Jesus on the shore and tells Peter about it (21,7). When Jesus later asks Peter to follow him, Peter, turning, sees that the disciple Jesus loved indeed follows (21,20-23). John emphasises that this disciple is the same one who was at Jesus’ chest at the last Supper (21,20). In my view, John here clarifies the expression ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ as the one who was at Jesus’ chest, because the reference to the other disciple Jesus loved in 20,2 is about another person. Continuing this line of argument it would be highly probable that ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ in 21,7.20-23 together with the ‘other disciple Jesus loved’ in 20,2 are the two unnamed ‘others’ of his disciples in 21,2. [26]

3. Why this veil of anonymity?

Still, there are other anonymous disciples in John. In 1,37-42 two disciples of John the Baptist decide to follow Jesus: Andrew and another who is left unnamed. In 18,15-16 not only Peter (as in Mark, Matthew and Luke) but also ‘another disciple’ follows Jesus after he has been arrested. This disciple, who is known to the high priest, enters the court, and, after speaking to the maid who keeps the door, the same anonymous disciple brings Peter in. It seems strange that, thereupon, only Peter is asked if he belongs to Jesus’ disciples (18,17.25.26). Why do those present not attack the other disciple as well? Does this mean that the other disciple is not easily to be recognized as disciple? [27]

Why does John insist on anonymity ? Why this veil of mystery? John does not explain this, but at the end of the Gospel it is suggested that there is a ‘we’- an inside group who understands and who knows of the disciple Jesus loved, the one who was at Jesus’ chest, since the author says:

This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. (21,24)

Why is the truthfulness of the testimony emphasized? Why would there be any doubt about the validity of the witness, if he is the person whom scholars up until now have suggested is the disciple Jesus loved? Why would the Gospel not simply mention Andrew, Lazarus, or Thomas, or John Mark, John son of Zebedee or any of the others? We will never know. No reasons are given. [28] However, there could have been one very good reason, at least at the time, to question the validity of the witness of the disciple Jesus loved and to hide the disciple’s identity: if this disciple was a woman. I would even suggest that the other anonymous disciples are perhaps left anonymous for the same reason: because they are women.

4. The legitimacy of a woman’s authority

The disciple Jesus loved apparently was very important to those who wrote the Gospel. But, if indeed this disciple was a woman, her authority as the person behind the writing of John could have been seen as unacceptable, since it was a point of debate if women were allowed to have authority over men.

In several canonical first century letters wives are encouraged to be submissive to their husbands, while the husbands are told to love their wives (Ephesians 5,21-33; Colossians 3,18-19; 1 Peter 3,1-7). Paul, when demanding that women wear veils when praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11,1-16), argues that the reason for this is that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband and the head of Christ is God. However, later in the argument he changes from wives to woman in general, referring to the creation: »For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11,8-9) In addition, while 1 Peter 3,1-7 refers to the submissiveness of Sarah to Abraham, in 1 Timothy 2,1-11 the creation analogy is used again: »For Adam was formed first, then Eve,” continuing thus »and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” The author concludes that a woman has to learn with all submissiveness: »I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men: she is to keep silent.” This text and the perhaps non-Pauline text in 1 Corinthians 14,34-36 about women who are to keep silent in the assemblies [29] were quoted again and again in the centuries that followed to emphasize that women are not allowed to have authority over men.

Schüssler Fiorenza refers to the fourth century Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox which, through means of a discussion between a montanist and an orthodox Christian, shows their respective viewpoints. [30] The orthodox viewpoint may reflect a very early stand, since it corresponds to the arguments in the first century letters, which claim that woman is to be submissive to man.

The following quotation from the Dialogue comments on women’s authority, concentrating on those women who wrote books, like the second century Montanist prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla:

Orthodox: We do not reject the prophecies of women. Blessed Mary prophesied when she said: »Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” And as you yourself say, Philip had daughters who prophesied and Mary, the sister of Aaron, prophesied. But we do not permit women to speak in the assemblies, nor to have authority over men, to the point of writing books in their own name: since, such is, indeed, the implication for them of praying with uncovered head (…) Wasn’t Mary, the Mother of God, able to write books in her own name? To avoid dishonoring her head by placing herself above men, she did not do so.

Montanist: Did you say that to pray or to prophesy with uncovered head implies not to write books?

Orthodox: Perfectly.

Montanist: When Blessed Mary says: »Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,” does she or doesn’t she speak freely and openly?

Orthodox: Since the Gospel is not written in her name, she has a veil in the Evangelist.

Would a Gospel then, primarily based on the authority of Mary Magdalene be acceptable?

Montanist: Is it because they have written books that you do not receive Prisca and Maximilla?

We can surmise – my fellow readers – that the early church leaders opposed women being recognized as equal to men.

Yet today – the Catholic Church does not allow a woman to enter the priesthood.

Some other mainstream denominations have come around – seen a little “The Light”!

Yet not even they recognize “The Gospel Of Mary” or “The Gospel Of Thomas” because of the monumental implications that these sacred texts would have. None can question the validity of either Gospel.

I may present more of my research and understandings in subsequent articles.

* “GOD IS LOVE.”

For Me the issues are settled. Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. AND – Women ARE equals of Men.

Rascal )

Russ Miles is author of the novel, For Sale By Owners:FSBO. A “Seasoned Real Estate NAR® Broker,” Rascal Russ was ~ for 5 hard years ~ increasingly disabled by “Incurable” Multiple Sclerosis. Now “Cured”, Rascal writes books & articles on varied subjects. Comments: Rascal.Miles@Gmail.com.

Via his personal Rascal’s website, http://www.Jesus4You.ws , “Rascal’s Blog”, & his ezine articles themselves, Rascal maintains personal contact with those that e-mail him, and those whom he believes the God of this Universe has joined together with him as per Destiny’s Devine Plan of Salvation for this Planet Earth!

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

How about these right… I think you’ll find the following nuggets of wisdom particularly insightful. Leave your comments below. Check out the second one in particular…

Shift

In other words, the male priesthood is non-negotiable. “The church has no authority to ordain women,” said archdiocese spokesman Dan Andriacco. “It is not an open question.” He said the discipline imposed on Akers and Egner is not part …

RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENTAL ANGLICAN

We cannot say, “Jesus is the head over all the Church” and then say, “Submit to the authority of your Pastor” when the New Testament tells all of us to submit to one another out of love and that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all …

LDS Doctrine: Priesthood Operation in the New Testament

The unbroken line of priesthood authority was broken (a very important doctrine for my Catholic friends). Consequently, there no longer existed someone in the church who could continue to receive revelation, interpret scripture, …

Hope you enjoy the read as much as I did and please if you have something to say, use the comments form below to let everyone know your thoughts.

Have a great day!

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

How about these right… I think you’ll find the following nuggets of wisdom particularly insightful. Leave your comments below. Check out the second one in particular…

Proper Priesthood Authority | Ask Gramps

Only members of the Church in good standing who have been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood are able to trace their “line of authority” back to Jesus Christ, through Peter, James and John. All others who claim to hold any authority …

line of authority

below is the line of authority, that can be traced down from jesus christ to me, an unbroken chain of men who recieved the preisthood by the laying on of hands from someone who was in authority. this line is a witness of that unbroken …

Spit on Christ to Spite the Greeks

Those who are saved by him are not only bound to him, but they are also liberated in him, so that no other person, no other religion or philosophy, and no man-made system of rituals and regulations can exercise any authority over their …

Hope you enjoy the read as much as I did and please if you have something to say, use the comments form below to let everyone know your thoughts.

Have a great day!

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

Whatever happened to that early church — the one that Jesus founded and Paul helped promulgate throughout the known world of the first century? It changed. Slowly and surely, it changed.

Warnings of Departure from the Faith

Yes, they warned us. Both Peter and Paul said it would happen. And it did.

Paul in his first letter to Timothy: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3 NKJV)

And in his second letter to Timothy, Paul repeats his dire warning: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

Again Paul, in his farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus: “I know that when I am gone, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise who will distort the truth in order to get disciples to break away and follow them.” (Acts 20:29-30 REB)

The apostle Peter adds this warning: “. . . there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.” (2 Peter 2:1-2)

Early Church Rumblings

During Paul’s lifetime, we find divisions in the Corinthian church. Paul pleaded with them: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’

“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

In Revelation, the resurrected Jesus addressed another drifting church — the church at Ephesus: “You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.” (Revelation 2:4-5) In Revelation 1:20, we discover that the lampstand meant the church itself.

Church Organization Departures

Elders and Bishops

History records the slow but steady movement of the church from its scriptural foundation. The first departures were in organization. In the first century church, no distinction was made among elders in rank and authority. That was not to last. During the second century, we find congregations selecting one elder to preside over the meetings as a permanent president. Along with the new position came a change in title. The presiding elder is called “bishop.” (The New Testament applies both words “elders” and “bishops” to the same men in the church.)

Bishops’ authority and power increased over time, up to the point where each was assigned a territory called a “diocese.” With that change, bishops controlled not only their own local churches, but a group of local churches within their geographic area. This was the beginning of the church hierarchy with “city bishops” in top positions, “country bishops” below them, and “elders” of local congregations below the bishops. So began the apostasy.

Temporary conventions were selected to settle disputes between congregations of the church. General Synods and permanent councils followed. These conventions eventually assumed legislative authority. “Metropolitans”, diocesan bishops from the larger cities, presided over the councils.

The ecclesiastical men who governed the five largest districts were called “patriarchs”, which means “chief fathers.” In 606 A.D. the Roman Emperor designated Boniface III, the Patriarch of Rome, as the “Universal Bishop of the Church.”

From a simple organizational plan of equal elders to a single elder presiding as bishop, to country and city bishops, to metropolitans, to patriarchs, to a single Universal Bishop presiding over all the church, we find the church evolving step by incremental step into the apostate church with an organization vastly different from the one Jesus established and Paul proclaimed.

Preachers

The local elder position of the first century church eventually developed into bishops, country bishops, city bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, and popes in the centralized apostate church. So what happened to the preacher position of the first century church? Remember Peter, Paul, Timothy, and Titus? In another departure from the New Testament pattern, preachers became priests in the apostate church.

Towards the end of the second century, a distinction grew between those who preached and the other members of the church. Clergy became a higher order than laity. In various ways and in varying degrees this idea is widespread among many religious groups today. Those in the clergy often dress differently, many call themselves “priest”, which is borrowed from Judaism, and wear titles such as father or reverend.

Of course, this distinction between “clergy” and “laity” is not authorized by the scriptures and it was not practiced in the first century church.

In stark contrast, Peter, and Paul showed great humility in carrying out their evangelistic missions. They never claimed to be different or exalted. Nor did they ask to be called father or reverend. Surely the Bible records their humility as examples for us to follow.

Moreover, Jesus explicitly warned us: “Do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

Church Doctrine Departures

Head of Church and Authority

Along with this centralization of power, with its hierarchy of archbishops, cardinals, and popes, came fundamental changes in church doctrine. Christ was no longer head of the apostate church. The Pope assumed that position. In the First Vatican Council in 1870, Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. That means when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra (from the chair) on matters of faith and morals, he speaks the law of the Lord.

Nor is the Bible the final word of authority. Church tradition approved by the Council usurps that authority.

Baptism

From the very beginning of the church on the day of Pentecost, baptism was for repentant sinners who came to believe in Christ. (Acts 2:38) That practice continued through the first century. However, by the second century, baptism of infants had begun. Many at that time believed babies were born sinful. To prevent them from dying in sin, babies were baptized on the second day of their lives.

Still, no scriptural basis can be cited for the claim that babies are born in sin. And all the baptisms enumerated in the New Testament were of repentant believers.

Baptism is immersion; that’s the meaning of the word. And that was the practice in the early church. So it remained until exceptions began for the ill. “Clinic baptism” was the name given for sprinkling one physically unable to be immersed. Sprinkling for baptism was not fully approved until the Council of Ravena in 1311 A.D. It has never had the approval of Christ.

Other Doctrine Departures

Absolution from sins by earthly priesthood

Adoration and prayers to the Virgin Mary

Celibacy – Popes and priests are forbidden marriage. Paul predicted it: “The Spirit explicitly warns us that in the time to come some will forsake the faith and surrender their minds to subversive spirits and demon-inspired doctrines . . . . They will forbid marriage. . . .” (I Timothy 4:1-3)

Confessing sins to a priest for forgiveness

Doctrine of indulgences – whereby prayers, gifts, or self-sacrifice mediate sins

Doctrine of purgatory – whereby souls of those who have died in a state of sin are made fit for paradise by temporary banishment, suffering, or punishment.

Doctrine of transubstantiation – whereby the prayer of the pope or priest changes bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Extreme unction – sacramental rite of anointing those in danger of death

Holy water- water blessed and sanctified by the priest

Images and prayers to saints and martyrs

Penance – inflicting punishment in payment for sin as evidence of penitence

Church Worship Departures

Human Creeds

The first General Council was called by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. This council was said to represent the universal church. This council adapted a formal statement of faith which came to be called “The Nicene Creed.” What’s wrong with human creeds?

Mack Lyon, Gospel preacher of the television program In Search of the Lord’s Way, addressed that question: “Any human creed, if it contains more than the Bible, contains too much. If it contains less than the Bible, contains too little, and if it contains the same as the Bible, it is superfluous, useless and it is dispensable.”

Of course, reciting the Nicene Creed is not authorized by the scriptures and was not practiced by the first century church. Creeds, along with country and city bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, popes, priests, councils, and church traditions, are departures from the church that Jesus founded and the apostles preached.

Instrumental Music

Singing without musical accompaniment was an intrinsic part of church service for the first five centuries. The Orthodox church never accepted instrumental music in their worship. Scriptures never mentioned nor authorized the use of musical instruments in the early church.

Never-the-less, the apostate church did introduce musical instruments into public worship in the sixth century A.D. By the eighth century, the practice was widely accepted in the church. It was another departure of the faith Paul warned us of in 1 Timothy 4:1.

Why Do It the Lord’s Way?

Warnings

Okay, the apostate church departed from the first century church in: organization, doctrine, and worship practices. Church historians all agree that is the case. So what? Times change, circumstances change, why shouldn’t the church adapt with the times too?

The answer is: God doesn’t allow us that option. He orders us to do it his way — no more, no less. Check the scriptures out for yourself in your own Bible.

* “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

* “So be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left.” (Deuteronomy 5:32)

* “Observe the commands of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and revering him.” (Deuteronomy 5:32)

* “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

* “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46)

Examples

The scriptures also provides us with examples of those who failed to worship as commanded. Sure, it sounds innocent enough, but substituting one fire for another was fatal for Aaron’s two sons. Leviticus tells their story:

“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.” (Leviticus 10:1-2)

Then there is the story of King Saul. His army was deserting him in the face of their enemies. Furthermore, Samuel, the prophet, did not show up at the appointed time to make the sacrifice. Under duress, Saul did what he thought was right. He took it upon himself to make the burnt offering to the Lord. As Samuel pointed out, the king was not authorized to make this sacrifice. For that he lost his kingdom.

“What have you done?” asked Samuel.

Saul replied, “When I saw that the men were scattering, and that you did not come at the set time, and that the Philistines were assembling at Micmash, I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the LORD’s favor.’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.”

“You acted foolishly,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.” (1 Samuel 13:11-14)

Is there any doubt at all? We are to follow exactly what the scriptures say in organization, in doctrine, and in worship practices. The risk of doing it “our way” could have eternal consequences.

Questions to Consider:

1. What is the purpose of the church? to please God or man?

2. Should the church’s organization, doctrine, and worship practices conform to God’s will as expressed in the scriptures? or should it conform to church tradition or current popular opinion?

Quote of the Day: “The safest road to Hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” Screwtape Letters C. S. [Clive Staples] Lewis (1898-1963) English author and Christian Apologist

Note: All Scripture References are taken from the New International Version unless otherwise stated.

NKJV – New King James Version

REB – Revised English Bible

J
4a7
erry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of [http://merechristianity.us] His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE – EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

4f30

I have sympathy and am grateful that many tax protestors are concerned enough with the unjust tax system to educate themselves beyond the great majority of their fellow citizens. Nevertheless, I disagree with many of the tax protest arguments and strategies. As this article proceeds I will raise questions along the way that the tax protestor is morally obliged to answer. These questions are intended to provoke thought and challenge assumptions that have not been carefully thought out. Interspersed throughout the article I will touch on issues that are related to the high level of taxation and the resulting loss of freedom, along with thoughts on a strategy to regain freedom in our society. My comments in this article should make it abundantly clear that I do not favor the present level of taxation or the system itself. The present tax system needs to be completely repudiated and done away with. Accomplishing this depends upon a biblical strategy. Departure from or rejection of Scriptural teaching will ensure further loss of freedom and defeat.

We will look at several important biblical texts and survey some historical research and commentary materials that are relevant to the topic of taxation and the citizen’s duty to government. I especially hope to challenge those tax protestors of Christian convictions. More importantly, I hope to provide a general course of action that is biblically based and faithful to the reformation tradition. Hopefully, my numerous comments along the way will serve to accomplish this. My philosophy towards a government and society, which have become deformed, is one of reclaiming and rebuilding under Christ’s lordship. This requires a biblical optimistic view of history. Contrary to this would be despair, apathy, or a Luddite policy of destruction towards government.

It seems to me that when given the option we should pick our battles carefully, i.e., count the costs. See Luke 14:28-32. Christ has instructed us to be wise. See Matt. 10:16. Do we have sufficient means to win the battle? If we lose the battle, what will be the consequences? What will be the consequences it we ignore certain battles? What are our priorities? It is true that taxes and regulations are now at an all time high. This puts a tremendous burden on Christian families. As a consequence, wives have entered the work place to make ends meet. Christians have been forced to put their children in the hands of non-believers for education in the government schools. Lower taxes would certainly produce freedom to choose other alternatives for educating our children. The current government program for raising the village’s children has been an unmitigated disaster from a Christian perspective.

Socialists and other proponents of the tax-welfare-state like uneducated populations, or people who have been given a sub-standard education in the government schools. Uneducated people are easy to control because they fall prey to specious arguments and the malignant agenda of socialism. Socialism reflects man’s fallen nature by enticing people to use the power of the group to steal other people’s property and wealth. When considering Scriptural passages such as Exodus 20:15 which forbids stealing, socialism can best be described as organized crime, or collective evil. Thievery and covetousness are bound up in the hearts of fallen men. Many debased citizens are only too glad to use the power of government to steal from their neighbors. Inheritance and property taxes are two examples of how this happens. Government stealing is always done in the name of good things, such as “the children.”

Should Christians be involved in the tax protest movement? The definition of a tax protestor utilized in this article is one who has stopped filing and refuses to pay taxes. Is the tax protest movement a solution? Criticizing the government tax system and refusing to pay taxes are two entirely different things. If refusing to pay taxes is contrary to Scripture, will God honor those involved in the tax protest movement? What battles will help further the cause of Christ and the gospel? The reconstruction of society will not take place without a reformation of the individual and church first. This does not mean that we have to sit back and wait. The reconstruction of the individual, church and society can happen simultaneously.

We value and prize the Constitution of our country. While not being perfect, it is, in the words of R.J. Rushdoony, “a good procedural manual.”1 The Constitution was a product of a time when the Judeo-Christian world view was dominant. At numerous points the Constitution reflects the teaching of Scripture. We should appeal to it in much the same way that Paul used his Roman citizenship. Ultimately, we must recognize the Constitution is the word of man. The Christian receives God’s revelation in the Bible as absolute truth. We are therefore obligated to proceed biblically. How does the reconstruction of society happen? Are tax revolts the answer? Rushdoony comments on this:

The reconstruction of society comes not by tax revolts

or any kind of revolution but by regeneration.2

God directs His people to pray and repent. See II Chronicles 7:14. This action on our part constitutes the first matter of importance. Jesus commands His servants to “Occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13). Occupy can mean to engage, which carries a connotation of conquering, or taking over. Consequently, this passage is relevant to the Christian’s active involvement in society. Christ in another place instructs us to be the salt and light within society (Matt. 5:13-16). Salt has a preservative quality, and darkness disappears when there is light. These passages from the gospels are relevant to what is called the cultural mandate. Societal reformation is the result of Christian faithfulness to this mandate, which requires an unequivocal engagement in society.

Numerous books such as Good-Bye April 15th by Boston Tea Party3 have been written attempting to convince people that they are under no obligation to pay federal income taxes. Boston Tea Party is a Common Law Trademark of Javelin Press. This book in particular deals with the question of lawful jurisdiction and taxation, or the “nature of government argument.” Adherents to this line of thinking believe the federal government has no jurisdiction to levy taxes upon citizens of the individual states. Proponents of this viewpoint believe that the claims of the federal tax revenuers are nothing more than de facto claims made by those who have overstepped their lawful constitutional authority. Followers of this view sometimes refer to themselves as “State Sovereign Citizens.” It should be noted that the wording “State Sovereign Citizen” does not appear in the Constitution.

Irwin Schiff, the “grand daddy” of present day tax protestors, has written books allegedly showing the loopholes in the tax code. Followers of this approach just stop filing and paying income taxes because supposedly the IRS code says that it is voluntary. Schiff’s latest book is The Federal Mafia-How it Illegally Imposes And Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes.4 Other arguments advanced by tax protestors deal with moral arguments used to justify not paying taxes. Some tax protest arguments may be properly classified as “moronic.” Protestors within this group, when in trouble with the tax court, plead ignorance of the law. There is considerable disagreement among tax protestors on the correct strategy of escaping the federal income tax. Many of the tax protest books and arguments leave the theoretical and actually suggest that their readers drop out of the tax system. This course of action is reckless, because courts and juries have on a consistent basis, excepting for clear cases of government abuse, ruled against tax protestors. In many cases tax protestors have gone to jail.

It could be argued that the courts of today are rarely interpreting the Constitution’s “original intent.” Historically speaking, it could be argued that a de jure government would recognize the right use of law and rule according to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. A strict constructionist may argue that constitutionally speaking, we have a de facto or a government without lawful constitutional authority. Historically and constitutionally our Constitution is a fixed document. The courts are charged with interpreting the Constitution. The court today is interpreting constitutional law with a different mindset or world view than at an earlier time in our history. This should not surprise us. All evidence is interpreted within the framework of a world view. The courts have ruled our present system to be de jure. Congress has put its stamp of approval on our current system. The nature of our constitutional republic has been changed. The majority of people believe our government is a democracy.

There have been a number of amendments added to the Constitution that have inadvertently or otherwise subverted the original intent of the founders. The Supreme Court, for example, has in effect abrogated the Tenth Amendment with its interpretation of the Commerce and the General Welfare clauses in the Constitution. We should disagree with recent actions of the courts and take lawful steps to correct the situation. In addition, the general effect of the Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments have been to empower the federal government at the expense of states’ rights.

Do the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments violate the intent of the founders? If so, then there is a real conflict between the original intent of the founding fathers and these amendments. It is this writer’s opinion that this is what has happened, and that these amendments should be repealed. Where do we go from here? How do we regain freedom? Repealing the Fourteenth Amendment would remove the federal government from interfering in the state’s business. Repealing the Sixteenth Amendment would de-fund the federal government. De-funding and de-centralizing the federal government is always a good strategy.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would return the job of appointing U.S. Senators to the state legislators, and out of the hands of the “mob.” The “mob” has discovered numerous ways to vote themselves handouts from the federal government. This is accomplished through their popularly elected representatives and senators who promise new and ever expanding entitlements to win votes. The whole system appears to be degenerating into a massive vote-buying scam. Unprincipled men will promise the electorate seemingly almost anything in exchange for votes.

Relevant to the validity of Schiff’s and the jurisdictional arguments mentioned above, the subsequent comments should be noted. The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the uniform collection of taxes in the fifty states by the federal government. This amendment was properly ratified according to Thomas R. Eddlem, the research director for The New American magazine. 5 Eddlem’s article “Patriot Beware!” in which he defends this thesis should be required reading for those in the tax protest movement. Eddlem demolishes much of the mythology that is so prevalent today among tax protestors and the larger “patriot” community. There have been a number of challenges to the Sixteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1913. The Supreme Court and lower courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of this amendment. See attorney James Lanting’s article “A Memorandum Regarding Income Tax Protests” for a survey of the major challenges to the Sixteenth Amendment.6 The lower courts, through case law and precedent, have solidified and strengthened the judicial standing of the Sixteenth Amendment. In addition, the federal courts have the authorization of our elected representatives. Congress approves the appointment of federal judges. They also approve funding for the courts and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This puts their stamp of approval on the courts, tax system, and collection agency (IRS).

Does the present-day intrusion of the federal government into nearly every aspect of our lives and the accompanying all-time high tax rates represent freedom? Of course not! How do we repair the situation? Do we fight in the courts using arguments that are true but not recognized? This may be a necessary course of action. Are we financially prepared for this course of action? It should be remembered that “original intent” arguments are ridiculed and have been for all practical purposes thrown out of many present day constitutional debates. What is the reaction of the press or members of the Senate when asked to confirm the nomination of a judge who holds to “original intent?” Remember Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork? Our representatives are themselves the product of a dumbed down educational system. We must challenge the prevailing ignorance with serious biblical and constitutional arguments based upon sound research.

Questions concerning the morality of high taxation are not new. There have been many times throughout history that taxes have reached oppressive levels. At the time of Christ, the Roman government ruled Palestine. It could have been argued, and it was, that God was the King of Israel and that the Roman government was a de facto tyranny. Consider the imposition of taxes in Israel during the bitter foreign occupation by the Roman government:

The tax itself was looked upon as an inherent religious wrong, as well as civil imposition, and by many the payment of it was considered a sinful act of disloyalty to God.7

Alfred Edersheim in his book Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the days of Christ adds to this:

But the Roman taxation, which bore upon Israel with such crushing weight, was quite of its own kind – systematic, cruel, relentless, and utterly regardless.8

The modern individual does not comprehend or fathom the depravity of Rome. Taxes during this time in history were severe and arbitrarily collected, and went to support the following:

1. war, conquest, imperialism, destruction and devastation 2. incredible extravagance of the Roman authorities (from emperors to senators, to lesser procurators, magistrates, etc.) Tiberius supported a colony of 300 homosexual boys on the island of Capri for his indulgence; Nero married a homosexual in a public ceremony; others gambled away millions of dollars in one night; drunkenness, sexual immorality, assassination, waste was the rule rather than the exception. 3. building pagan temples and the support of an idolatrous priesthood (involving sexual perversion and demonology) 4. building huge, complex, expensive gladiatorial arenas and the payment of all expenses for games at which thousands of animals and humans were slaughtered [including Christians] 5. a large welfare “dole” in massive proportions that resulted in a huge class of citizens with nothing to do but mischief 6. foreign aid to keep in power “puppet” officials (like the Herods) who were brutal and corrupt 7. support of an empire that arbitrarily and without compassion enslaved large portions of nations and cultures it defeated in war (there were more slaves in first century Rome than free citizens).9

The old Roman Republic had long since been corrupted. Against this background of massive corruption and moral perversion, and by what could be argued was nothing more than a de facto imperial tyrannical government, Jesus said in Matt 22:19-21 regarding the hated Roman poll tax, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s….” Jesus said this because according to the outworking of God’s sovereign plan, the Roman government was a God ordained de jure government. Christ’s people were to subject themselves to this very government. It should be noted that Caesar was a military dictator who had the approval of the “mob,” not a leader produced by a republican form of government. In addition, there was the cult of Caesar. Caesar was viewed as divine. Paying taxes was a form of submission to Caesar. The Roman government as shown above was far worse than the present U.S. government.

Carl F. Henry has written in his book Aspects of Christian Social Ethics about the first three hundred years of Christianity in the Roman Empire:

During the three hundred years when the Roman emperors

declared Christianity an illegal religion, Christians were

marked as criminals by civil law simply because they were

Christian. Against such government the Christian

movement generated no revolutionary temper, and to such a

government Christian believers pledged their prayers and paid their taxes.10

Christianity conquered the Roman Empire by the third century. A tax revolt or revolution did not accomplish this. The Christians followed Christ’s example in the area of taxation. This example should not be minimized. In Matthew 17:24-27 we read about Christ’s encounter with the Herodians and Pharisees concerning the temple tax. Surely, as Lord of the temple, Christ was immune from this tax. Yet, Jesus paid this tax. Christ’s actions have enormous implications for those who call Him Lord. If Jesus instructed His people to pay taxes to Rome, (Matt. 22:19-21) how much more should we be careful to obey present day laws? If Christ is our Lord we should follow His example.

Romans 13:1-7 are verses dealing with the extent of the Christian’s duty to civil government. These passages deal with paying taxes and other important directives for Christians. They do not deal with every conceivable question concerning taxation, but nevertheless provide binding principles for the godly. Consider Robert Haldane’s comments concerning the Christian’s obligation to pay taxes, Romans 13:7, to “the higher powers” or “the powers that be” in 13:1:

It is here explicitly taught that taxes stand by the law of God on the same footing as private debts, which every man is therefore under an equal obligation to discharge.11

Many people today are not familiar with this concept of taxes and private debts having the same standing before the law of God. Noted reformed theologian, Charles Hodge, explains who the type of rulers are we owe these debts to in his commentary on this section of Scripture:

It is clear that this passage [Ro. 13:1,2] is applicable to men living under every form of government…it is the powers that be, the de facto government, that is to be regarded as, for the time being, ordained of God.12

End of part one

Endnotes Part one

1. Rousas John Rushdoony, interview with Bill Moyers, God And Politics On Earth As It Is In Heaven, (Alexandria, VA: PBS, Dec. 23, 1987).

2. Rousas John Rushdoony, Law And Society, Volume Two of the Institutes of Biblical Law, (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), p. 264.

3. Boston Tea Party, Good-Bye April 15th, (Cedar City, Utah: Javelin Press, 1992).

4. Irwin Schiff, The Federal Mafia: How it Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes, (Las Vegas, NV: Freedom Books, 1992).

5. Thomas R. Eddlem, The New American, (Appleton, WI: American Opinion Publishing Inc, 1997), p. 27, 28.

6. Attorney James Lanting, “A Memorandum Regarding Income Tax Protests” in the Ordained Servant, (Carson, ND: Pleroma Press, 1995), Volume Four, Number Four, p. 82.

7. James Orr, General Editor, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume Four, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 2920.

8. Alfred Edersheim, Sketches Of Jewish Social life in the days of Jesus, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 53.

9. Paul T. Butler, What The Bible Says About Civil Government, (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1990), p. 294, 295.

10. Carl F. Henry, Aspects of Christian Social Ethics, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 180.

11. Robert Haldane, An Exposition of Romans, (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company, 1958), p. 586.

12. Charles Hodge, Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 407.< 4067
/p>

Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 25 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Mr. Kettler can be reached through his business site at: http://www.undergroundnotes.com/ Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

Ok so you might find the next few links interesting. These are from around the web, just random snippets that I’ve picked up in my reading, but I found some very cool information in them. You might too. Here goes…

Chapter 11 Apostasy—The Way to God Blocked WHY are Christendom’s …

But little by little the distinction became clearer, designating with the name bishop the more important superintendents, who possessed the supreme priestly authority and the faculty to lay on hands and confer the priesthood. …

The Perpetual Education Fund | Times & Seasons, An Onymous Mormon Blog

… seeking salaried employment as well as the self-employed or small businesspeople) and offloads the administration to the Institute program, which is at least a little bit removed from the pastoral priesthood line of authority. …

4.2 ordination and training

certainly groups such as these completely reject the notion of an unbroken line of ordination going back to christ and the original apostles. but we are getting ahead of ourselves. ordination is the idea that god calls certain …

Hope you enjoy the read as much as I did and please if you have something to say, use the comments form below to let everyone know your thoughts.

Have a great day!

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

Whatever happened to that early church — the one that Jesus founded and Paul helped promulgate throughout the known world of the first century? It changed. Slowly and surely, it changed.

Warnings of Departure from the Faith

Yes, they warned us. Both Peter and Paul said it would happen. And it did.

Paul in his first letter to Timothy: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3 NKJV)

And in his second letter to Timothy, Paul repeats his dire warning: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

Again Paul, in his farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus: “I know that when I am gone, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise who will distort the truth in order to get disciples to break away and follow them.” (Acts 20:29-30 REB)

The apostle Peter adds this warning: “. . . there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.” (2 Peter 2:1-2)

Early Church Rumblings

During Paul’s lifetime, we find divisions in the Corinthian church. Paul pleaded with them: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’

“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

In Revelation, the resurrected Jesus addressed another drifting church — the church at Ephesus: “You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.” (Revelation 2:4-5) In Revelation 1:20, we discover that the lampstand meant the church itself.

Church Organization Departures

Elders and Bishops

History records the slow but steady movement of the church from its scriptural foundation. The first departures were in organization. In the first century church, no distinction was made among elders in rank and authority. That was not to last. During the second century, we find congregations selecting one elder to preside over the meetings as a permanent president. Along with the new position came a change in title. The presiding elder is called “bishop.” (The New Testament applies both words “elders” and “bishops” to the same men in the church.)

Bishops’ authority and power increased over time, up to the point where each was assigned a territory called a “diocese.” With that change, bishops controlled not only their own local churches, but a group of local churches within their geographic area. This was the beginning of the church hierarchy with “city bishops” in top positions, “country bishops” below them, and “elders” of local congregations below the bishops. So began the apostasy.

Temporary conventions were selected to settle disputes between congregations of the church. General Synods and permanent councils followed. These conventions eventually assumed legislative authority. “Metropolitans”, diocesan bishops from the larger cities, presided over the councils.

The ecclesiastical men who governed the five largest districts were called “patriarchs”, which means “chief fathers.” In 606 A.D. the Roman Emperor designated Boniface III, the Patriarch of Rome, as the “Universal Bishop of the Church.”

From a simple organizational plan of equal elders to a single elder presiding as bishop, to country and city bishops, to metropolitans, to patriarchs, to a single Universal Bishop presiding over all the church, we find the church evolving step by incremental step into the apostate church with an organization vastly different from the one Jesus established and Paul proclaimed.

Preachers

The local elder position of the first century church eventually developed into bishops, country bishops, city bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, and popes in the centralized apostate church. So what happened to the preacher position of the first century church? Remember Peter, Paul, Timothy, and Titus? In another departure from the New Testament pattern, preachers became priests in the apostate church.

Towards the end of the second century, a distinction grew between those who preached and the other members of the church. Clergy became a higher order than laity. In various ways and in varying degrees this idea is widespread among many religious groups today. Those in the clergy often dress differently, many call themselves “priest”, which is borrowed from Judaism, and wear titles such as father or reverend.

Of course, this distinction between “clergy” and “laity” is not authorized by the scriptures and it was not practiced in the first century church.

In stark contrast, Peter, and Paul showed great humility in carrying out their evangelistic missions. They never claimed to be different or exalted. Nor did they ask to be called father or reverend. Surely the Bible records their humility as examples for us to follow.

Moreover, Jesus explicitly warned us: “Do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

Church Doctrine Departures

Head of Church and Authority

Along with this centralization of power, with its hierarchy of archbishops, cardinals, and popes, came fundamental changes in church doctrine. Christ was no longer head of the apostate church. The Pope assumed that position. In the First Vatican Council in 1870, Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. That means when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra (from the chair) on matters of faith and morals, he speaks the law of the Lord.

Nor is the Bible the final word of authority. Church tradition approved by the Council usurps that authority.

Baptism

From the very beginning of the church on the day of Pentecost, baptism was for repentant sinners who came to believe in Christ. (Acts 2:38) That practice continued through the first century. However, by the second century, baptism of infants had begun. Many at that time believed babies were born sinful. To prevent them from dying in sin, babies were baptized on the second day of their lives.

Still, no scriptural basis can be cited for the claim that babies are born in sin. And all the baptisms enumerated in the New Testament were of repentant believers.

Baptism is immersion; that’s the meaning of the word. And that was the practice in the early church. So it remained until exceptions began for the ill. “Clinic baptism” was the name given for sprinkling one physically unable to be immersed. Sprinkling for baptism was not fully approved until the Council of Ravena in 1311 A.D. It has never had the approval of Christ.

Other Doctrine Departures

Absolution from sins by earthly priesthood

Adoration and prayers to the Virgin Mary

Celibacy – Popes and priests are forbidden marriage. Paul predicted it: “The Spirit explicitly warns us that in the time to come some will forsake the faith and surrender their minds to subversive spirits and demon-inspired doctrines . . . . They will forbid marriage. . . .” (I Timothy 4:1-3)

Confessing sins to a priest for forgiveness

Doctrine of indulgences – whereby prayers, gifts, or self-sacrifice mediate sins

Doctrine of purgatory – whereby souls of those who have died in a state of sin are made fit for paradise by temporary banishment, suffering, or punishment.

Doctrine of transubstantiation – whereby the prayer of the pope or priest changes bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Extreme unction – sacramental rite of anointing those in danger of death

Holy water- water blessed and sanctified by the priest

Images and prayers to saints and martyrs

Penance – inflicting punishment in payment for sin as evidence of penitence

Church Worship Departures

Human Creeds

The first General Council was called by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. This council was said to represent the universal church. This council adapted a formal statement of faith which came to be called “The Nicene Creed.” What’s wrong with human creeds?

Mack Lyon, Gospel preacher of the television program In Search of the Lord’s Way, addressed that question: “Any human creed, if it contains more than the Bible, contains too much. If it contains less than the Bible, contains too little, and if it contains the same as the Bible, it is superfluous, useless and it is dispensable.”

Of course, reciting the Nicene Creed is not authorized by the scriptures and was not practiced by the first century church. Creeds, along with country and city bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, popes, priests, councils, and church traditions, are departures from the church that Jesus founded and the apostles preached.

Instrumental Music

Singing without musical accompaniment was an intrinsic part of church service for the first five centuries. The Orthodox church never accepted instrumental music in their worship. Scriptures never mentioned nor authorized the use of musical instruments in the early church.

Never-the-less, the apostate church did introduce musical instruments into public worship in the sixth century A.D. By the eighth century, the practice was widely accepted in the church. It was another departure of the faith Paul warned us of in 1 Timothy 4:1.

Why Do It the Lord’s Way?

Warnings

Okay, the apostate church departed from the first century church in: organization, doctrine, and worship practices. Church historians all agree that is the case. So what? Times change, circumstances change, why shouldn’t the church adapt with the times too?

The answer is: God doesn’t allow us that option. He orders us to do it his way — no more, no less. Check the scriptures out for yourself in your own Bible.

* “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

* “So be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left.” (Deuteronomy 5:32)

* “Observe the commands of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and revering him.” (Deuteronomy 5:32)

* “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

* “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46)

Examples

The scriptures also provides us with examples of those who failed to worship as commanded. Sure, it sounds innocent enough, but substituting one fire for another was fatal for Aaron’s two sons. Leviticus tells their story:

“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.” (Leviticus 10:1-2)

Then there is the story of King Saul. His army was deserting him in the face of their enemies. Furthermore, Samuel, the prophet, did not show up at the appointed time to make the sacrifice. Under duress, Saul did what he thought was right. He took it upon himself to make the burnt offering to the Lord. As Samuel pointed out, the king was not authorized to make this sacrifice. For that he lost his kingdom.

“What have you done?” asked Samuel.

Saul replied, “When I saw that the men were scattering, and that you did not come at the set time, and that the Philistines were assembling at Micmash, I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the LORD’s favor.’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.”

“You acted foolishly,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.” (1 Samuel 13:11-14)

Is there any doubt at all? We are to follow exactly what the scriptures say in organization, in doctrine, and in worship practices. The risk of doing it “our way” could have eternal consequences.

Questions to Consider:

1. What is the purpose of the church? to please God or man?

2. Should the church’s organization, doctrine, and worship practices conform to God’s will as expressed in the scriptures? or should it conform to church tradition or current popular opinion?

Quote of the Day: “The safest road to Hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” Screwtape Letters C. S. [Clive Staples] Lewis (1898-1963) English author and Christian Apologist

Note: All Scripture References are taken from the New International Version unless otherwise stated.

NKJV – New King James Version

REB – Revised English Bible
3e03

Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of [http://merechristianity.us] His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE – EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

Ok so 3 more posts today that I’ve dug up – I’m an information JUNKIE on this stuff lately. Give em a browse and let me know what ya reckon. They’re just from a few different sites I’ve been surfing lately that are generally good for information like this…

The Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Offices of the Aaronic Priesthood. Bishop. Priest. Teacher. Deacon. Priesthood Line of Authority. Each holder of the Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can trace his authority directly back to Jesus Christ. …

Utah Valley PAF Users Group – Press Releases: A Brief Introduction …

Record usually contains complete list of priesthood ordinations –very useful for tracing priesthood line of authority. Also available at FHL. Local unit records (for branches, wards, stakes, districts, missions): …

The Book is on the Table

Second, heres some less important things: I need a Priesthood line of Authority sheet (I still havent got that yet), I need a good bicycle patch kit(Dad I know you probably know the best one to get. All Walmart has are some Cheepy green …

Hope you enjoy the read as much as I did and please if you have something to say, use the comments form below to let everyone know your thoughts.

Have a great day!

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

Ok so 3 more posts today that I’ve dug up – I’m an information JUNKIE on this stuff lately. Give em a browse and let me know what ya reckon. They’re just from a few different sites I’ve been surfing lately that are generally good for information like this…

lds priesthood line of authority

i was ordained an elder on aug. 21, 1977 by david o. mackay iii. he was ordained a high priest on may 2, 1956 by sterling w. sill. he was ordained a high priest on may 10, 1931 by henry h. blood. he w…

news from the feild…

… me some. also i was wandering if you could get my priesthood line of authority from dad. it will be good to have along with my patriarical blessing. well i have to go get these people baptized now so i better go, ilove you. bye. …

The Seer Stone: The Sealed Portion of the Gold Plates

Before one decides to recieve revelation which superceedes the priesthood line of authority I think one should study the scriptures and make sure that one's life is in accordance with the teachings of The Church. …

Hope you enjoy the read as much as I did and please if you have something to say, use the comments form below to let everyone know your thoughts.

Have a great day!

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority

Many companies underestimate the potential gravity of getting into litigious situations.

Lawsuits, especially in cases where one does not have strong legal legs to stand on, are

potential minefields for disaster. Many organisations work hard to grow the top line only

to have a lawsuit siphon off the money. It is like having a purse with holes in it.

Regardless of whether you win or lose the lawsuit, the ultimate winner is the lawyer.

Unfortunately if your company happens to be the loser, the magnitude of the costs and

damages could possibly derail your business overnight.

Many contractors in Singapore also got themselves into trouble by taking on contracts

indiscriminately despite poor margins, unrealistic deadlines and liabilities. Eventually,

they were held liable for massive liquidated damages for delays in completion and

consequential damages resulting from their work. The risks involved were

disproportionate to the returns from such jobs. Some of these sub-contractors were

hopeful that they could make money from variation orders or additional scope of work

not stipulated in the original contract. However, these variation orders were not properly

signed off before the additional work was executed as a result some main contractors

took advantage not to pay in times of contractual disputes. Also, projects often get

delayed for many uncontrollable reasons and that these sub-contractors had to contend

with counter claims and back charges from the main contractors.

In many cases, these sub-contractors could not afford a protracted litigation battle and had to settle out of court with the main contractors for an unfavourable settlement. Many of these sub-contractors

would be been spared the headaches if they had avoided taking on such onerous contracts.

Be wary of the ramifications of litigation especially in the case of China. An effective

strategy in China means understanding the myriads of legal and regulatory issues at the

state and provincial level, the city or even local level. Conflict and contract dispute

resolution, remedies and legal recourse significantly differ from region to region. This

can be a minefield through which to navigate. However, much of the headaches can be

minimised if one clearly understands the legal issues involved at the outset. It is

important to understand these issues at the start.

In China, the government has great involvement with the business sector. For example for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), it is difficult to delineate between public and private business ownership. Therefore, it is important to understand the legalities before entering into partnership with the SOE.

With the entry into World Trade Organisation, China has progressively removed many

artificial barriers in the business sector. However, China remains basically a closed

market and tightly managed by the government. It is a prerequisite to understand the

rules and regulations of your industry. The law will always catch up with you if there is

any non-compliance whether deliberate or through sheer ignorance. Your disgruntled

staff or competitors will report to the authority on your non-compliance as reporting

against one another is a common communist trait.

Litigation once nearly destroyed America’s small aircraft industry. It also threatened to

topple powerful brokerage firms because of the conduct of their analysts. The Catholic

Church is also vulnerable to an onslaught of litigation due to the spates of alleged abuses

by its priesthood. The other classic example is Arthur Anderson. The suspicion of

improprieties and litigations caused massive customer defections.

If you reckon that your company can benefit economically by ignoring a law, you may be

kidding yourself. Be extra careful. If non-compliance results in safety hazards for

employees or the public in general, do not break the law, it is not worth it.

Also, during hard times when you cannot repay your creditors, try convincing them to

extend the payment period rather than sue you in court. Most creditors such as the banks

would prefer that the matter be settled amicably as it is bad publicity for all parties

concerned, both the plaintiff and the defendant.

Therefore it always pays to play by the law in the long term. If you are a boxer, you do

not chew up the ears of your opponents. You will be barred from future matche
1ff8
s or

worse still be put in jail like Mike Tyson. Your reputation will also go down the tubes.

http://www.corporateturnaroundexpert.com

Dr Mike Teng (DBA, MBA, BEng, FIMechE, FIEE, CEng, PEng, FCMI, FCIM, SMCS) is the author of the best-selling business book “Corporate Turnaround: Nursing a sick company back to health”, in 2002. In 2006, he authored another book entitled, “Corporate Wellness: 101 Principles in Turnaround and Transformation.” Dr Teng is widely recognized as a turnaround CEO in Asia by the news media. He has 27 years of experience in corporate responsibilities in the Asia Pacific region. Of these, he held Chief Executive Officer’s positions for 17 years in multi-national, local and publicly listed companies. He led in the successful turnaround of several troubled companies. He is currently the Managing Director of a business advisory firm, Corporate Turnaround Centre Pte Ltd, which assists companies on a fast track to financial performance. Dr Teng was the President of the Marketing Institute of Singapore (2000 – 2004), the national body representing some 5000 individual and corporate marketing professionals in Singapore

Technorati Tags: Priesthood Line of Authority