Messianic History

[Alex Tennent]

When the church in Rome did a power take over of what had previously been a Messianic movement a certain untouchable ritual came into effect that helps to show that a big disconnect with all things Jewish took place. I had posted this chapter to another thread and was requested by Visionary to add this one here also, which I am glad to do. Some may find this controversial but I only ask that this clear history be considered with an open mind. My only question is shouldn't this very provable history be considered from a Messianic Jewish perspective? The title of that chapter is "The Ritual---Why Didn't the Jewish Disciples Teach it?" and can be found here: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_The-Ritual.pdf

 

[visionary]

I appreciate that. I am going to try and make a sticky thread out of this, just so people like you can easily find it and post good historical info.

 

[Alex Tennent]

I appreciate that. I am going to try and make a sticky thread out of this, just so people like you can easily find it and post good historical info.

Thank you Visionary. I just saw that you were the one who started this nice thread, so congratulations and please let me know if any other chapters would be good for this thread or the new thread you make, as I would be glad to post them.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Thank you Visionary. I just saw that you were the one who started this nice thread, so congratulations and please let me know if any other chapters would be good for this thread or the new thread you make, as I would be glad to post them.

Visionary I posted a link to another chapter in the Messianic bread thread, and I thought you might like if I added that here too: I think one of my favorite chapters it titled "The True Jewish Communion and the Messianic Feast." In that chapter I go into what communion was to the Jews long before the new covenant came in. I also tie in the 12 Showbread with Jewish history and the last supper parables. I couldn't resist adding a link to that chapter in this discussion! So here it is for anyone who might be interested: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Course_6.pdf

 

[BukiRob]

I din't mention the apostles or Yeshua.

I am saying that alot of what has been presented as "messianic history" in threads like these are spurious and speculative things, fantastical stories about a golden age of MJ lasting for a thousand years in Iraq for example and then disappearing without leaving a trace. Like the Nephites and Lamanites of Mormonism, ie chimeras of the mind's creation.

MJ as we know it today arose less than 100 years ago, in the Western world. It is probably the closest thing to the religion of Yeshua, besides Judaism itself, but is obviously a product of its time as well.
It is my religion, because I think it is the closest I can get to the teachings of Yeshua. But the full truth will never be known until we see him. I'm sure we will all need to revise a few things. I'm sure we all have flaws, maybe even major flaws, in our understanding.

I don't think MJ needs lies (a fictional "golden age" in the past, suppressed and undiscoverable today, like with the Nephites' history) to support it. A house built on fiction is bound to fall. To impute onto MJ a history it does not have is ... dangerous and stupid.

Wish we didn't have the need to look for our history. I wish our history was as obvious and undisputable as Jewish or Chinese or British history. But it is not. And making things up, inventing history, does no good.

I actually think your view is highly accurate. Paul speaks plainly about a veil over the eyes if Israel. it is only at the end of the age of the gentiles that Israel begins to turn back to G-d and see's Messiah.

To say that there has always been a MJ is IMO probably utterly wishful thinking. As the church transitioned out of the hands of the believers of Israel to the hands of the gentiles (Rome) the messianic synagogue was slowly eradicated. Those rare Jews that did come to messiah assimilated into the gentile church.

The Messianic community is the beginning of the veil being removed from Israel. Just as the transition from Israel to the nations took time so to has this transition.

Again, I can not speak to the movement as a whole but only to what I see in my local synagogue which is a well established body that has been in existence for 40 years. We see our primary mission as to be a light to the local Jewish community. Our outreach and witness is to the Jewish community though gentiles are welcome (as I am one myself.)

I do think it is highly inaccurate to suggest that there has always been a messianic movement or community as this would largely depart from what scripture tells us about the cost of Israel rejecting Messiah.

 

[Alex Tennent]

I actually think your view is highly accurate. Paul speaks plainly about a veil over the eyes if Israel. it is only at the end of the age of the gentiles that Israel begins to turn back to G-d and see's Messiah.

To say that there has always been a MJ is IMO probably utterly wishful thinking. As the church transitioned out of the hands of the believers of Israel to the hands of the gentiles (Rome) the messianic synagogue was slowly eradicated. Those rare Jews that did come to messiah assimilated into the gentile church.

The Messianic community is the beginning of the veil being removed from Israel. Just as the transition from Israel to the nations took time so to has this transition.

Again, I can not speak to the movement as a whole but only to what I see in my local synagogue which is a well established body that has been in existence for 40 years. We see our primary mission as to be a light to the local Jewish community. Our outreach and witness is to the Jewish community though gentiles are welcome (as I am one myself.)

I do think it is highly inaccurate to suggest that there has always been a messianic movement or community as this would largely depart from what scripture tells us about the cost of Israel rejecting Messiah.

BukiRob I mostly agree with you but would like to add one point. A "MJ" to me is simply any Jew who believes in the Messiah. A "Messianic" is essentially meaning the same thing as a "Christian", one comes from the Greek and one from the Hebrew, and both have come to mean one who believes in and follows Jesus/Yeshua. If a Jew who lives in one city attends a Messianic fellowship then moves to a city with no Messianic fellowship, so then attends a spirit filled church, to me that man is still a Messianic Jew, because his Jewishness certainly doesn't change, he is just attending a fellowship called a "church." So in that sense I believe there were always (Messianic) Jews, because there were probably always those of Jewish lineage who either stayed at home and read the scriptures (believing in the Messiah), or assimilated into a church. That's how I see it anyway. It's similar to how some Jews say that other Jews are no longer Jewish after believing in Yeshua. How can you be less Jewish for following the long promised Jewish Messiah, as foretold by all the Jewish prophets?! I also like the term completed Jew. If we consider what a Jew was in the bible it was somewhat fluid. The term comes first from those of the tribe of Judah, and then to those living in the land of Judea. With most of the other tribes being scattered I think those who were from other tribes (yet still following the lead tribe, Judah) still called themselves Jews. Those from the tribe of Levi (and those today called Levi, Levine, Levinson, etc) are still considered Jewish even though they are not from the tribe of Judah. But of course in those days the tribe of Levi was in the land of Judea. Paul said his lineage was from the tribe of Benjamin, and that he was from a city outside Israel (Tarsus) but he still said he was a Jew (Acts 21:39). Just adding some thoughts to consider!

 

[AbbaLove]

( a church is a building ... a congregation is a fellowship )

Shabbat Shalom​

 

[Alex Tennent]

( a church is a building ... a congregation is a fellowship )

Shabbat Shalom​

Good video, and I agree with most of what he says, and its really important to see how words change over time, as this can lead to false interpretations later. My book was published at the beginning of 2014 and has a chapter that is very much in line with what he is saying, and adds a bunch more too. It is right after the Fourteenthers chapter and is titled "Words and Concepts Changed" and here is that link: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_SettingTable_2.pdf
One thing I believe Mr Cantor is incorrect on is where he says "the Greek word for church (Ekklesia) is simply not used in the New Testament for a group of believers" (4:50 mark). Jesus even used the Greek name for church here, before there was a New Testament:

KJV Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
And this same Greek word can be found more then 70 or so more times throughout the New Testament very often referring to the believers, and translated as church in many translations. The real point is that the Jews also used this Greek word very often many years before Jesus or Paul ministered. The Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek, about 175 BC) often used this word, and of course to the Jews it did not mean "church" (since the English language did not yet exist) but it was used for the assembly of believers (or any assembly). But the King James (as Mr Cantor correctly states) forced this word "Church" into their translation. The reason they did this was because it connected back to what they considered as the "one true Catholic Church." Catholic means universal. The Protestant translations like Tyndale tried to get away from words that connected back to Rome, so they did not use "church" for Ekklasea but instead used assembly or congregation, which better applied to any group of believers, and not only those connected to the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants then essentially went through the same persecution that the Fourteenthers did. The history of all this is very interesting and the link I put in above goes into all that. Shalom

 

[Peter Johnson]

<snip>
One thing I believe Mr Cantor is incorrect on is where he says "the Greek word for church (Ekklesia) is simply not used in the New Testament for a group of believers" (4:50 mark). Jesus even used the Greek name for church here, before there was a New Testament:
<snip>

G'day Alex, I agree with your comment that it is a good video with much to be agreed with. Yet it is necessary to correct what might just be a misunderstanding on your part, above quoted, on account of wresting with a short video on a difficult topic.

To be sure, Ron Cantor says, at the 4:50-53 mark per your time reference.

As you can see, Cantor does not use the term "Ekklesia", nor has he inserted "Ekklesia" into the graphic, as your comment indicates.

What Cantor is saying is just what he has said in the introduction to his video at 0:23 mark (next pic): "Kyriakon" is not used on the Greek NT for the body of believers, i.e. the people.

Furthermore, elsewhere Cantor says that the Greek word "Kyriakon", as primarily used in reference to a religious building in classical Greek usage, was employed to underpin the term "Church" (via the common use of "kirk" at that time) according to King James' insistence, rather than "Ekklesia", which is used in reference to a gathering of people.

That is, as reading elsewhere will show, King James translation is anchored to the local use of 'Kirk', as was used for the cathedral and parish buildings 'dedicated to the Lord', rather than going back to Ekklesia with its foundational etymology of referring to "the called-out ones". Consequently, the translations we have these days that do not use the likes of Congregation and Assembly, clearly people-oriented terms, allow for and even invite by default the continuing misunderstanding that the Church is much ado about buildings (built places) and the activities centred on those places.

Ron Cantor has attempted to outline, essentially, that when we read (the poorly chosen term) "Church" in the NT our understanding must not be about buildings (Kyriakon) as is so commonly understood. Rather, "Church" is to be about the people-gathered, because of the original God-inspired word, "ekklesia". That is a difficult task to do so in such a brief video.

I did appreciate how Cantor demonstrated that the use of ekklesia is not limited to just a gathering of believers but of any gathering of people who have been 'called out' for a purpose. Theologically, IMHO, Luke's use of ekklesia to refer to opposing groups is to accent and contrast the opposing world-views of people and the one/s they are following. Do they follow Jesus who has called them out to himself and his will, or do they follow the powerful people and politics of the day?

Nonetheless, it is not easy to follow Cantor's challenging argument with ease. Mental gymnastics (not contortions, by any means) and pre-awareness of the factors, concepts, etymologies, historical uses and biases concerning ekklesia, kyriakon, kirk, church, etc, are not easily held or apprehended -- but helpful in viewing this video. In my view Cantor could have done well to take more time and included more graphics. Overall, I think Cantor's presentation is correct, albeit a bit attenuated. More study is needed by us all on this topic.

Alex, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention -- with thanks. Please help me out by identifying any problems in what I have written, including typos. Happy to hear from you and others on "ekklesia".

Peter Johnson, Newcastle, Australia.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Peter thank you for your good spirit, and for clarifying what Ron actually said. I think my point is that although I also do not like the word "church" due to how it is a word that seems to exclude Jewish people. Yet when he portrays kyriakon as the Greek word for church it is a little misleading (and I am certainly not meaning intentionally). Because kyriokon is never translated "church" in the New Testament, but ekklasea is the word translated "church" usually referring to the gathering of people and not to the building. So the word for "church" would be ekklasea, and not kyriakon. I'm sure you and I agree that the word church today denotes a church building and steeple, which they did not have that same picture in Paul's day for instance. But I believe that most people watching his video not knowing Greek would be left with the idea that "church" was never in the bible, but congregation and assembly were. But as I am writing now I am thinking that maybe what Ron is meaning is that "church" is a word that has come to mean the building, but congregation and assembly more point to the grouping of a people? If so I do definitely agree with that point. The glossary in my book (under "church") shows that Kyriakon (which is better spelled kuriakos or kuriakon) comes from two Greek words, Kurios = lord and oikos =house (hence kuri-ok) which as Ron says came down in English as "kirk" and eventually church. The Greek word Ron spells kyriakon is only used in the New Testament twice, and the best translation for it would be "pertaining to the Lord." We see this Greek word translated "Lord's" one time in the NT in 1Cor. 11:20, where it should have been translated as "pertaining to the Lord," where Paul speaks of the supper (or feast in Greek) "pertaining to the Lord." There is nothing there about a building, but Paul was showing that what the Corinthians were doing (while still having strife etc among them) was not the "feast pertaining to the Lord" because it was not fulfilling what the Lord meant in his last supper parables (which pointed to the last days Messianic feast long envisioned by the Jews). If you have some spare time you might see how I put this together on page 199 of this chapter titled "The True Jewish Communion and the Messianic Feast": http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Course_6.pdf I would really recommend for anyone to read that whole chapter to get the context which shows the Jewish history of a coming Messianic feast or banquet, but starting on page 199 I go into that 1 Cor 11:20 scripture, and also show how it and the last supper connect to that long Jewish concept of a coming feast with the Messiah. And although I agree with most of what Ron says, if you think I am still not getting something I would be glad to hear. All the best my friend!

 

[Alex Tennent]

G'day Alex, I agree with your comment that it is a good video with much to be agreed with. Yet it is necessary to correct what might just be a misunderstanding on your part, above quoted, on account of wresting with a short video on a difficult topic.

To be sure, Ron Cantor says, at the 4:50-53 mark per your time reference.
View attachment 169897
As you can see, Cantor does not use the term "Ekklesia", nor has he inserted "Ekklesia" into the graphic, as your comment indicates.

What Cantor is saying is just what he has said in the introduction to his video at 0:23 mark (next pic): "Kyriakon" is not used on the Greek NT for the body of believers, i.e. the people.
View attachment 169898
Furthermore, elsewhere Cantor says that the Greek word "Kyriakon", as primarily used in reference to a religious building in classical Greek usage, was employed to underpin the term "Church" (via the common use of "kirk" at that time) according to King James' insistence, rather than "Ekklesia", which is used in reference to a gathering of people.

That is, as reading elsewhere will show, King James translation is anchored to the local use of 'Kirk', as was used for the cathedral and parish buildings 'dedicated to the Lord', rather than going back to Ekklesia with its foundational etymology of referring to "the called-out ones". Consequently, the translations we have these days that do not use the likes of Congregation and Assembly, clearly people-oriented terms, allow for and even invite by default the continuing misunderstanding that the Church is much ado about buildings (built places) and the activities centred on those places.

View attachment 169899

Ron Cantor has attempted to outline, essentially, that when we read (the poorly chosen term) "Church" in the NT our understanding must not be about buildings (Kyriakon) as is so commonly understood. Rather, "Church" is to be about the people-gathered, because of the original God-inspired word, "ekklesia". That is a difficult task to do so in such a brief video.

I did appreciate how Cantor demonstrated that the use of ekklesia is not limited to just a gathering of believers but of any gathering of people who have been 'called out' for a purpose. Theologically, IMHO, Luke's use of ekklesia to refer to opposing groups is to accent and contrast the opposing world-views of people and the one/s they are following. Do they follow Jesus who has called them out to himself and his will, or do they follow the powerful people and politics of the day?

Nonetheless, it is not easy to follow Cantor's challenging argument with ease. Mental gymnastics (not contortions, by any means) and pre-awareness of the factors, concepts, etymologies, historical uses and biases concerning ekklesia, kyriakon, kirk, church, etc, are not easily held or apprehended -- but helpful in viewing this video. In my view Cantor could have done well to take more time and included more graphics. Overall, I think Cantor's presentation is correct, albeit a bit attenuated. More study is needed by us all on this topic.

Alex, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention -- with thanks. Please help me out by identifying any problems in what I have written, including typos. Happy to hear from you and others on "ekklesia".

Peter Johnson, Newcastle, Australia.

Peter I think I may not have replied directly to your post, so just to let you know that I had responded (post 450) I am letting you know here by direct reply! Thank you so much, Alex

 

[AbbaLove]

Personally, i thought Ron's discourse was somewhat tongue-in cheek as we know one objective was to point out inaccuracies/bias in RCC translations. Possibly without knowing it, Ron points out a difference between Covenants. During Temple times the people journeyed to the "Temple" to celebrate the Feasts of the Lord, and even today Jews go to their "Synagogue." First Century Believers in Yeshua often assembled together for fellowship in homes and sometimes even gathered together in caves. After watching Ron's video it got me to wondering if the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) has ever wished they would have joined with the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MO)

John 2:18-20
18 The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"…

Today one could easily get the impression that God favors those denominations that can afford to build the most impressively beautiful church buildings (e.g. RCC, LDS). Whether a Christian or a Messianic it still gets down to ones relationship with Jesus/Yeshua.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
I7 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.…

 

[Alex Tennent]

Today one could easily get the impression that God favors those denominations that can afford to build the most impressively beautiful church buildings (e.g. RCC, LDS). Whether a Christian or a Messianic it still gets down to ones relationship with Jesus/Yeshua.

I agree AbbaLove, and I think you have a good talent of cutting through the fog to what is most important, that the relationship with Jesus/Yeshua is the most important. I also believe it is true that if the Messiah walked into almost any assembly today (Christian or Messianic), without telling them who he was, and began to teach all the truth that was what he taught and knew in the 1st century, pointing out certain accepted doctrines in each assembly that were misunderstood and not correct, he would quickly be ushered out the door. But I believe that will be changing soon because the Messiah will bring about a completed people as a bride:

NAS Ephesians 5:27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.

YLT Ephesians 5:27 that he might present it to himself the assembly in glory, not having spot or wrinkle, or any of such things, but that it may be holy and unblemished;

 

[pat34lee]

BukiRob I mostly agree with you but would like to add one point. A "MJ" to me is simply any Jew who believes in the Messiah. A "Messianic" is essentially meaning the same thing as a "Christian", one comes from the Greek and one from the Hebrew, and both have come to mean one who believes in and follows Jesus/Yeshua. If a Jew who lives in one city attends a Messianic fellowship then moves to a city with no Messianic fellowship, so then attends a spirit filled church, to me that man is still a Messianic Jew, because his Jewishness certainly doesn't change, he is just attending a fellowship called a "church." So in that sense I believe there were always (Messianic) Jews, because there were probably always those of Jewish lineage who either stayed at home and read the scriptures (believing in the Messiah), or assimilated into a church. That's how I see it anyway. It's similar to how some Jews say that other Jews are no longer Jewish after believing in Yeshua. How can you be less Jewish for following the long promised Jewish Messiah, as foretold by all the Jewish prophets?! I also like the term completed Jew. If we consider what a Jew was in the bible it was somewhat fluid. The term comes first from those of the tribe of Judah, and then to those living in the land of Judea. With most of the other tribes being scattered I think those who were from other tribes (yet still following the lead tribe, Judah) still called themselves Jews. Those from the tribe of Levi (and those today called Levi, Levine, Levinson, etc) are still considered Jewish even though they are not from the tribe of Judah. But of course in those days the tribe of Levi was in the land of Judea. Paul said his lineage was from the tribe of Benjamin, and that he was from a city outside Israel (Tarsus) but he still said he was a Jew (Acts 21:39). Just adding some thoughts to consider!

This is one of the problems with having one term (Jewish) to describe a bloodline,
a culture and a religion. There has to be a way to have one faith and yet keep our
distinctive ethnic cultures and traditions apart from it.

 

[Hoshiyya]

if the Messiah walked into almost any assembly today (Christian or Messianic), without telling them who he was, and began to teach all the truth that was what he taught and knew in the 1st century, pointing out certain accepted doctrines in each assembly that were misunderstood and not correct, he would quickly be ushered out the door.

No kidding!

Further, if he walked into and preached in a Christian city or town in the middle ages, he'd be killed.

 

[Alex Tennent]

This is one of the problems with having one term (Jewish) to describe a bloodline,
a culture and a religion. There has to be a way to have one faith and yet keep our
distinctive ethnic cultures and traditions apart from it.

Yes pat34lee, and then the Messiah takes it a few notches further by showing that to be a true son of Abraham one cannot fight against what God is doing (John 8:37-40). John the Baptist said essentially the same thing (Matt. 3:9) as did Paul (Romans 2:29). So the truth according to Paul is that when someone accuses a Jewish person of being less Jewish by following God through the Messiah, the opposite is actually true, the ones following Yeshua are actually more Jewish by being Jewish within.

 

[Alex Tennent]

No kidding!

Further, if he walked into and preached in a Christian city or town in the middle ages, he'd be killed.

Very true Hoshiyya. : )

 

[Peter Johnson]

Peter thank you for your good spirit, and for clarifying what Ron actually said.

... If you have some spare time you might see how I put this together on page 199 of this chapter titled "The True Jewish Communion and the Messianic Feast": http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Course_6.pdf ..."

Gday Alex, thank you for your kind words and for your reply. I must confess to having found Cantor's wording a bit jarring right from the get-go, which left me wondering from whence he cometh and where to he goeth. May have been better to say in his intro, "The classical Greek word for a religious building or temple is 'Kyriakon'." Given the thrust of his argument that would have been very useful to set the context more clearly. Nonetheless, I do admire him and his work.

Thank you for the ref to TMF. I did read from p.199 as suggested and, on first reading, found it challenging to my historical traditions of the ritualised feast. I have much to learn and happily so. I appreciate being made aware of your comprehensive work on the matter of the 'Last Supper'.

((Truth is, for me, I am rather disillusioned with many of trappings and rituals of traditional Evangelical Christianity in which I mix. Despite claims of sola scriptura, Evangelicalism is rather saturated with its own governing traditions. Evenso, I am a committed to the Gospel and its proclamation.

Recently, I had the joy of suggesting the idea of the 'church'='ekklesia' existing and happening during the week (such as a mid-week home-based Bible study group) and beyond the reach (?talons?) of the approved local Church Elder's authority and control -- meaning, the Lord has his people meeting everywhere at anytime and He doesn't need to the Elders to approve it or control it. It is clear, Elder's don't like being questioned! Consequently, I wrote up a brief paper on three approaches to identifying the ekklesia, basically: the good, the bad, and the ugly. My name is mud at the moment.

Otherwise, I have been inclined to the Messianic perspective for 25-ish years now, but no such ekklesia that expresses such ideas exists where I live)).

Grace and Peace.

 

[Alex Tennent]

((Truth is, for me, I am rather disillusioned with many of trappings and rituals of traditional Evangelical Christianity in which I mix. Despite claims of sola scriptura, Evangelicalism is rather saturated with its own governing traditions. Even so, I am a committed to the Gospel and its proclamation.

I agree Peter, and I sure relate to what you experienced with certain Church Elders authority and control. When I finally found the scripture keys that unlocked the controversy of whether the last supper was the Passover, I thought my pastor would be excited to see what I had found. I had been a solid member in the church for 25 years, a bible college grad who then got straight A in the Masters class (i promise i'm not bragging, just saying I hadn't been a fanatic for 25 years). But when I approached the pastor asking if I could meet with him to show him what I discovered I was denied a meeting. He wanted it all in writing, and for the next few years it devolved into him calling me various names, and not being open to really consider the facts (he did not want to go to the assembly and say he had been teaching it all wrong, and this "nobody" made a big discovery). He had a saying that I feel eventually applied to him, and his saying was when in a scripture debate "he that is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
After that I found myself praying "Lord, the bible says you are the head of the church, but you and bible truth are not allowed to come forth, what is going on down here?" Abraham left looking for a city whose builder and maker was God, and I decided to leave that church because I am not into just playing church and just going along. To their credit, the two elders under that pastor called me to a private meeting to hear what I had discovered, even though the pastor forbid me to talk to anyone about it. They believed that God did not give him authority to forbid them from searching the scriptures. Within a few hours they were totally believing my side, but out of fear they would not tell the pastor their views. Anyway, I said all that to say that I sure relate to what you went through, and I believe that the Messiah will be changing the situation soon, such that he becomes to true head of the true church/assembly/congregation. All the best to you Peter as you are led by the Lord!

 

[visionary]

I agree Peter, and I sure relate to what you experienced with certain Church Elders authority and control. When I finally found the scripture keys that unlocked the controversy of whether the last supper was the Passover, I thought my pastor would be excited to see what I had found. I had been a solid member in the church for 25 years, a bible college grad who then got straight A in the Masters class (i promise i'm not bragging, just saying I hadn't been a fanatic for 25 years). But when I approached the pastor asking if I could meet with him to show him what I discovered I was denied a meeting. He wanted it all in writing, and for the next few years it devolved into him calling me various names, and not being open to really consider the facts (he did not want to go to the assembly and say he had been teaching it all wrong, and this "nobody" made a big discovery). He had a saying that I feel eventually applied to him, and his saying was when in a scripture debate "he that is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
After that I found myself praying "Lord, the bible says you are the head of the church, but you and bible truth are not allowed to come forth, what is going on down here?" Abraham left looking for a city whose builder and maker was God, and I decided to leave that church because I am not into just playing church and just going along. To their credit, the two elders under that pastor called me to a private meeting to hear what I had discovered, even though the pastor forbid me to talk to anyone about it. They believed that God did not give him authority to forbid them from searching the scriptures. Within a few hours they were totally believing my side, but out of fear they would not tell the pastor their views. Anyway, I said all that to say that I sure relate to what you went through, and I believe that the Messiah will be changing the situation soon, such that he becomes to true head of the true church/assembly/congregation. All the best to you Peter as you are led by the Lord!

That testimony resonates through the centuries as believers uncover and reveal the truth they received. I too have walked out looking for the promised land of faith that the Lord has revealed to me. I am sure others here can attest to the same experience. It is part of the reason why so many of us gather here to share and smooth out our "rough" edges. We are diamond gems of the Lord and He is working on us as well as others breaking off from the wide road to walk the narrow path.