Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Recently, a friend emailed me with a very common claim, namely, that, “Paul hijacked Christianity with no personal connection with Jesus and filled his letters with personal opinions.” This could be rephrased in the more common claim: Paul invented Christianity.
This claim is especially common among Muslim apologists who use it in an attempt to explain why the Qur’an simultaneously affirms Jesus as a true prophet while also contradicting the Bible at every major point. However, since my friend is not a Muslim and is not coming at the issue from that angle, I will just deal with the question more broadly.
My friend alleges that some of the “personal opinions” of Paul that were interjected into the New Testament include: “slaves obey your masters; women not to have leadership roles in churches; homosexuality is a sin (though there is Old Testament authority for this last, Paul doesn’t seem to base his opinion on it).”
“None of [of the above] were said by Jesus and would perhaps be foreign to his teaching,” he wrote. “I think Paul has created a lot of mischief in Christianity, simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived.”
Let’s deal with this point-by-point.
No personal connection to Jesus
Paul, in fact, did have a personal connection to Jesus. This is revealed in the famous “Damascus road” accounts in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6–11 and Acts 26:12–18. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke.
The only way one can maintain that Paul had no connection to Jesus is to rule out the conversion experience of Paul a priori based on a presupposition. Of course, I can argue that such a presupposition is untenable, but that would take an entire post to itself. For the sake of brevity, I would just point out that it is illogical to employ such reasoning. It would go something like, “It didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen because it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen therefore Paul had no personal connection to Jesus.”
Personal opinions
Yes, Paul does interject his personal opinions into his writing! However, when he does, he clearly delineates what he is saying as his personal opinion as an Apostle.
For instance, in dealing with the issue of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly distinguishes between his own statements and the Lord’s.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10, Paul says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)…” and in 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul says, “To the rest I say, (I, not the Lord)…” This example shows that Paul was not in the business of putting words in the mouth of Jesus. Paul had no problem showing when he was giving his own charge and when it was a statement made by the Lord Jesus, as it was in this case (Matthew 5:32).
Yet it is important to note that other Apostles recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16).
Paul’s “personal opinions” and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldn’t have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldn’t for over 1,000 years.
The claim that there is only Old Testament authority for the last of the examples is false. The same goes for the claim that Paul does not base his statements on the Law.
It is abundantly clear that Paul actually does derive his statements on homosexual activity from the Law.
For instance, in 1 Timothy 1, Paul mentions homosexuality in the context of the type of people the Law was laid down for (1 Timothy 1:9-11). This short list indicts all people, just as Paul does elsewhere (Romans 3:23), showing that all people require the forgiveness that can only be found through faith in Jesus Christ.
When Paul deals with it elsewhere, he mentions it in the context of other activities explicitly prohibited by the Law (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), again going back to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ sets apart (sanctifies) His people and justifies them.
As for the command for slaves to obey their masters, this is regularly claimed to be objectionable by critics. By way of introduction, is important to distinguish between what we have in our mind about the institution of slavery as Americans and the institution of slavery as it existed in Paul’s day. After all, Paul explicitly listed “enslaverers” (or man-stealers) in the same list mentioned above (1 Tim 1:10). Since the entire institution of slavery in the United States was built upon the kidnapping of people, it is clearly radically different from what Paul spoke of. Furthermore, the stealing of a man was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:16). The practice of slavery in America would never have existed if the Bible was actually being followed.
Paul also exhorted his readers to buy their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7:21) and instructing the master of a runaway slave to treat him as “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 11). Paul grounded his statements in the defense of “the name of God and the teaching.” Paul said that bondservants should “regard their masters as worthy of all honor,” not just for the sake of doing so, but so there might be no chance to slander the name of God and the gospel.
The fact is that Paul knew the Law quite well (Philippians 3:5-6) and the Law does deal with slavery.
Ultimately, the claim made by my friend requires more fleshing out on his end and some evidence on his part in order to be more fully dealt with.
Paul’s teachings foreign to Jesus’ teachings?
This is another common claim. First off, one must ask if this statement implies that Jesus would simply have to repeat everything Paul said and vice-versa or else they would remain foreign.
The fact is that there is nothing contradictory between Paul’s writings and Jesus’ teaching. One must wonder why Luke – a traveling companion of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts – would have no problem writing the gospel that bears his name if he perceived such a contradiction. Furthermore, one must wonder why this apparent conflict was lost on the earliest Christians, including the Apostle Peter, who viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture (see above).
In affirming the Law (Matthew 5:17), Jesus affirmed all that Paul that was clearly grounded in the Law. Furthermore, if there was a real contradiction between Paul’s writings and the teachings of Jesus, Paul would have been rejected, instead of accepted as he has always been.
The Christian community existed before Paul became a Christian, as is clearly seen by the fact that he was persecuting Christians (Acts 8:1,3), and he even met with the leaders of the early church. They did not reject Paul, but instead affirmed what he had been teaching (Galatians 2:2,9). This makes it even clearer that Paul could not have invented or hijacked Christianity.
As for the claim that Paul has had such a large impact “simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived,” all one has to do is look at the other early Christian writings that survived in order to see that is not a valid metric.
We have seen that the claim that “Paul hijacked Christianity” is without evidence. While I have taken the burden of proof upon myself in responding to this claim, in reality the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim in the first place. No such evidence has been presented and no substantive evidence can be presented since Paul did not invent Christianity or hijack Christianity or anything similar to it. Instead, Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ commissioned to spread the gospel, something that he clearly did by establishing churches and penning many letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we can still read today.
When one reads the gospels and the other writings contained in the New Testament, the message is cohesive and clear: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23), God demands complete perfection (Mt 5:48) and all we have earned through our sin is death (Ro 6:23) and hell. Yet God offers the free gift of eternal life to all who repent and believe (Mk 1:15, Ro 10:9–11) in Jesus Christ, who died as a propitiation (Ro 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 Jn 4:10) for all who would ever believe in Him (Jn 6:44) and rose from the grave three days later, forever defeating sin and death. Those who believe in Him can know (1 John 5:13) that they have passed from death to life (Jn 5:24) and will not be condemned (Jn 3:18), but will be given eternal life by Jesus Christ (Jn 6:39-40). Paul and Jesus in no way contradict each other on what the gospel is, in fact the four gospels and Paul’s letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
I already have, and you know it. All you have to do is explain those tiny little Hebrew (and Aramaic) word puns hidden beneath the Greek...
rather than in the common language of the day which was Greek.
The DSS stand firmly in the way of that assertion...
No, because he was the Great Prophet and Rabbi sent to show the people the true meaning of Torah - The one who must be listened to. And who still must be listened to. Do you think He keeps Torah now?
But He did change His dealings with man. We are now justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Show me who was ever saved by works of the law. It has always been about grace through faith.
Paul even rebuked Peter for preaching like you do. [...] You are in serious error preaching like you do. [...]If you think God doesn’t change His dealing with man check out the but now.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
You might have a point if ever I had preached justification or righteousness by keeping Torah.
Nothing more is needed than his ratification of Moses (Mat 5:17-20)
Some research:
A "righteous proselyte" is a gentile who has converted to Judaism, is bound to all the doctrines and precepts of the Jewish economy, and is considered a full member of the Jewish people. They are to be circumcised as adults (different from brit milah) and immersed in a mikvah should they wish to eat of the Passover sacrifice.
A "gate proselyte"[5] is a resident alien who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the customs. They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the Noahide Laws (do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit fornication (immoral sexual acts), do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish rule of law) to be assured of a place in the world to come. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselyte#Two_kinds_of_proselytes_in_Judaism; cf. http://www.biblestudiesonline.info/TGF/topical/proselytes.htm
The term employed generally, though not exclusively, in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew word "ger," designating a convert from one religion to another. The original meaning of the Hebrew is involved in some doubt...
Whatever may have been the original implication of the Hebrew word, it is certain that Biblical authors refer to proselytes, though describing them in paraphrases. Ex. xii. 48 provides for the proselyte's partaking of the paschal lamb, referring to him as a "ger" that is "circumcised..."
Probably in almost all these passages "converts" are assumed to be residents of Palestine. They are thus "gerim," but circumcised. In the Priestly Code "ger" would seem to have this meaning throughout. In Esther viii. 17 alone the expression "mityahadim" (= "became Jews") occurs...
Ezra's policy, founded on the belief that the new common wealth should be of the holy seed, naturally led to the exclusion of those of foreign origin. Still, the non-Israelite could gain admittance through circumcision (see Ex. xii.)...
There is good ground also for the contention of Grätz (l.c. p. 33) that immediately after the destruction of the Second Temple Judaism made many conquests, especially among Romans of the upper classes. Among the proselytes of this time a certain Judah, an Ammonite, is mentioned. Contrary to the Biblical law prohibiting marriage between Jews and Ammonites, he is allowed to marry a Jewess,..
At this epoch, too, the necessity for determining the status of the "half-converts" grew imperative. By "half-converts" is meant a class of men and women of non-Jewish birth who, forsaking their ancestral pagan and polytheistic religions, embraced monotheism and adopted the fundamental principles of Jewish morality, without, however, submitting to circumcision or observing other ceremonial laws...
Semi-Converts.
In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites...
According to Simeon b. Eleazar, this form of adoption into Judaism was valid only when the institution of the jubilee also was observed, that is, according to the common understanding of his dictum, during the national existence of Israel ('Ar. 29a). A similar observation of Maimonides ("Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7-8; ib. 'Akkum, x. 6) is construed in the same sense. It seems more probable that Maimonides and Simeon ben Eleazar wished to convey the idea that, for their day, the institution of the ger toshab was without practical warrant in the Torah. R. Johanan declares that if after a probation of twelve months the ger toshab did not submit to the rite of circumcision, he was to be regarded as a heathen ('Ab. Zarah 65a; the same period of probation is fixed by Ḥanina bar Ḥama in Yer. Yeb. 8d).
In contradistinction to the ger toshab, the full proselyte was designated as "ger ha-ẓedeḳ," "ger ha-berit" (a sincere and righteous proselyte, one who has submitted to circumcision..
Mode of Reception.
The details of the act of reception seem not to have been settled definitely before the second Christian century. From the law that proselyte and native Israelite should be treated alike (Num. xv. 14 et seq.) the inference was drawn that circumcision, the bath of purification, and sacrifice were prerequisites for conversion...
After the Hadrianic rebellion the following procedure came into use. A complete "court," or "board," of rabbinical authorities was alone made competent to sanction the reception. The candidate was first solemnly admonished to consider the worldly disadvantages and the religious burdens involved in the intended step. He, or she, was asked, "What induces thee to join us? Dost thou not know that, in these days, the Israelites are in trouble, oppressed, despised, and subjected to endless sufferings?" If he replied, "I know it, and I am unworthy to share their glorious lot," he was reminded most impressively that while a heathen he was liable to no penalties for eating fat or desecrating the Sabbath, or for similar trespasses, but as soon as he became a Jew, he must suffer excision for the former, and death by stoning for the latter. On the other hand, the rewards in store for the faithful were also explained to him.
If the applicant remained firm, he was circumcised in the presence of three rabbis, and then led to be baptized; but even while in the bath he was instructed by learned teachers in the graver and the lighter obligations which he was undertaking. After this he was considered a Jew (Yeb. 47a, b).
The presence of three men was required also at the bath of women converts, though due precautions were taken not to affront their modesty. This procedure is obligatory at the present time, according to the rabbinical codes (see Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 268; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv.). The ceremony should be performed by a properly constituted board of three learned men, and in the daytime; but if only two were present and the ceremony took place at night, it would not therefore be invalid... - www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte
Amen!
Thank you for making my point. I would submit that Halakha from tradition does *NOT* have the weight of Torah, even though others may say it does - Even as the Roman Tradition does not bear the weight that scripture does. There is ONLY Torah. and ONLY the written Torah. Period.
Acts 15 is the case in point, and you will look to your heart's content within Torah itself, but you will not find proselytes commanded to be circumcised. It ain't there. There IS a passage which says a proselyte cannot attend Passover without being circumcised, but that infers in itself that there can be proselytes who are uncircumcised. And *NOWHERE* does the Torah claim salvation in the physical circumcision. However, the Talmud DOES insist proselytes must be circumcised, and at least will infer salvation thereby (I cannot point to that, but had you ever read Jewish Tradition, you would be aware of where my confidence comes from).
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
In which regard?
His yoke is to love YHWH with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself - The BIG TWO. But the big two are a summary of the Big 10, which are a summary of the rest - Torah is necessarily indivisible, and true, or YHWH is not God. His challenge to those that follow the posers is that what He said in the beginning is what will be in the end. That is primarily why Yeshua cannot have changed it, nor added to it, nor made it null. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. His word cannot be made null, nor will He change His mind.
You forget that Jesus DID change the commandments - he preached the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law and you espouse that we must return to practicing the letter again. Jesus kept both the spirit as well as the letter of the law - PERFECTLY - which is not something any of us is capable of doing. He did this so as to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind. God says He will "conform us into the image of the Son". He does that through His grace within us and NOT by hiding the "path" from our view.
Jesus changed the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself when he said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34,35) So, instead of loving others as we love ourselves - which, if we're being honest, can mean that we don't always love ourselves - Jesus said we should love each other as HE loves us. That means UNCONDITIONALLY. This is ALSO impossible without Christ within us.
You certainly have the freedom to live according to the dictates of your heart, but you have NO ground to accuse others of failing to follow Christ if they choose to do it differently than you do.
Easy...just read what Paul said about that "schoolmaster":
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up to the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Why the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:23-25)
And then in Romans 7:7-13 -
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
And, in Romans 3:19-20, Paul tells us exactly the purpose of the schoolmaster of the law:
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
How much plainer can God make it?
Matthew 17-20 is not ratification of Moses. God is the giver of the Mosaic law, and He is also the author of the New Covenant. In abstraction, they have equal force, as the Lawgiver is the same, but we do not live in an abstraction, but time. Jesus accounts for this by providing a sunset clause to the Mosaic covenant, “Till all be fulfilled.” Thus it is as against Torah (understood here as the words of God by which we live) to neglect the realities of this new and better covenant as it would have been to neglect the realities of the Old Covenant while it was still in force. It is the same Lawgiver.
For that reason, I mean to enjoy my bacon (and I truly do - one of my favorite foods), because my God has liberated us from the tutelage of the signs and shadows, for which we have no need (other than to learn of Him in foreshadow), as we have the living reality of Christ, whom we ignore to our peril, and whose directive for us in the New Covenant are every bit as forceful as any command thundered from Sinai.
And what, now that we have this liberty, is Torah, the word of God to us lately, in these last days before the final establishment of His Kingdom? It is to love Him with everything we have, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The Torah seen through the veil of Moses is a weak and flickering light by comparison to the glory of Gospel light we now have in Christ. Why should we retreat into the weaker light? We won’t. It would be an insult to the Spirit of grace.
As for your specious contentions about the alleged Hebrew prototext, it is pure, unadulterated speculation. There is no logical necessity that idiomatic Hebrew or Aramaic word patterns were part of an earlier text form, when they could just as easily have been a natural artifact of Jewish writers writing in Greek. When I speak Spanish, I still tend to use English word order and idiom. Such a phenomenon does not constitute proof of a Hebrew prototext for the NT. It only shows the rather unsurprising fact that the Biblical authors, being mostly Jewish, were influenced by Jewish speech patterns when they wrote in Greek.
BTW, I am aware of the discussion about Matthew. The evidence is hearsay. The patristic evidence does not show that Matthew wrote a Hebrew Gospel intended to be used authoritatively. It is even possible he wrote in Greek first and later revamped it to Hebrew for local use. That’s a good a speculation as any other, because in point of fact there is no extant Hebrew Matthew text. And no, the medieval Hebrew Matthews don’t count, as a) they are late documents with no provenance showing they preceded the Greek Matthew (for which fragments exist as early as the First Century), and b) they appear to have been written with a slant to deflect Christian missionary efforts among the Jewish communities in which they were found (See Shem-Tov - what a mess, apparently a medieval Hebrew translation of an earlier Latin text, put into service as a tool against Christians!)
So no, there’s no legitimate evidence the NT as a whole was originally Hebrew. Quite the opposite. Luke was a gentile. He wrote in excellent Greek style. Clearly he thought in the language in which he wrote. Paul likewise, whose mission was to the Gentiles, would have a hard time getting his epistles read if he foolishly wrote them in Hebrew. The Ryland fragment, a portion of John, was in Greek, and dates to the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, nearly contemporaneous with the Apostle John himself. Any theory of the manuscript evidence that fails to account for these and many other factors supporting Greek as the predominant original language is a theory with it’s head firmly planted in the sand.
It’s irrelevant if one believes Paul was fraud and Christ was merely an ordinary mortal. It’s of no intellectual consequence to those of us that disagree.
If the Torah is our school master to bring us to Christ, then once we're in Christ, we no longer need it. It job is finished.
We are no longer obligated to obey it to maintain a right relationship with God because that's not how a right relationship with God is maintained under the new covenant.
All the blessings and curses of the OT do not apply to born again believers because God is dealing with people in a new way, the way of Christ, instead of the old way with the letter of the Law.
It's no longer *If you do this, then I'll do that.*
NOW it's grace and mercy, us being seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit in us, who is the guarantee of our redemption until we acquire possession of it, that we are washed and cleansed and forgiven, having the righteous requirements of the Law met for us and in us by virtue of the fact of being in Christ, being credited to our account.
That's not proof. That's speculation and opinion.
Proof is texts, physical fragments of ancient writings.
But; apparently; still in peril; IE #834
It all pointed to HIM. He was not just a "Great Prophet and Rabbi sent to show the people the true meaning of Torah".
The Torah was given to show the true meaning of the Messiah. You are putting the wrong thing in the place of preeminence. The Torah is not above the Messiah.
He is the embodiment and fulfillment of the Torah. It foreshadowed Him and He fulfilled it.
The Torah is not above Him. It leads to Him.
And no, I do not believe that Jesus still keeps the Torah now. The Torah was a copy of the heavenly truths; the heavenly reality, Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 9:15-24 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
So if we don't obey the Torah, what are the consequences?
Saved or not?
Nothing more is needed than his ratification of Moses (Mat 5:17-20)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I kinda like Acts 111:4-7
4 Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story:
5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision.
I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was.
6 I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds.
7 Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
It's kinda reinforced in Acts 15; too.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
Yes, but 110 CE/AD is fairly close. The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110.
as opposed to the phrase The body of Christ is an organism, which you keep repeating over and over again as if you learned it somewhere ..., perhaps here as it is a hallmark of this denomination/sect that dates only to the 19th Century ... The Plymouth Brethren is a conservative, low church, nonconformist, Evangelical Christian movement, whose history can be traced to Dublin, Ireland, in the late 1820s, originating from Anglicanism.[1][2] Among other beliefs, the group emphasizes sola scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the supreme authority for church doctrine and practice over tradition. The churches are all independent, self-governing, local congregations, and there are no central headquarters or formal affiliation with any denomination. Although the group is notable for not taking any official "church name" to itself, the title "The Brethren," is one that many of their number are comfortable with in that the Bible designates all believers as "brethren". "Brethren assemblies" are commonly perceived as being divided into at least two branches, the "Open Brethren" and the "Exclusive Brethren".
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
These called out assemblies of Jewish and Gentile Christians were first and foremost gatherings of people under the supervision of apostolically designated bishops/elders chosen, appointed, and discipled by the Apostoles and those they sent. Lather, rinse, and repeat.
The Catholic church claimed to be it retroactively with absolutely no basis for the claim but their
The Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only churches with the historicity to reach back to the Apostles. These churches have a membership that comprises perhaps almost a fifth of all human beings. You, OTOH, have to take the position that the church is invisible and/or did not prevail to set them aside, ... oh, that is why you have that doctrine.
Romans 14 comes to mind....
Romans 14:1-12 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.