Jesus Says a Church Doesn't Need a Bishop

[Godsunworthyservant]

Do you reject Paul's ministry? Either he preached the revealed word of God or he was a lying deceiver and most of the New Testament can be ignored. I don't buy that. Why do you imagine that Jesus chose 12 out of the at least 70 of His followers? Is that not a hierarchy?

I don't reject Paul's ministry. I believe Paul was indeed called of God to the ministry and was highly influential in the formative early years of the church. I also believe he was a fallible human, just like all of us, and as such is prone to mistakes and sin. I believe that his letters to the churches (along with the Acts and the epistles of Peter, James and John) are some of the best insights we have into the growing pains of the early church and are full of very good advice. I also believe that they show some of the missteps and straying of that same time. What I don't believe in is using the words of Paul (or anyone other human) to put into context the teachings of Christ. As a matter of fact, I believe quite the opposite. I believe that we should always use the words of Christ to put into context anyone else who writes or speaks on them. I believe he preached the teachings of Christ and tried to live his life according to them to the best of his ability. I also believe we can learn from those rare occasions where he strayed, however slightly from them.

I don't believe he was a lying deceiver and don't know why you would think such a thing!

As I've already stated, I don't believe that any of the NT should be ignored.

As to why Christ chose the 12, since the Bible doesn't really give a reason for each choice or the group as a whole, I am fine with the notion that if it wasn't important enough to warrant an explanation in any of the Gospels, it isn't anything I need to know. Anyway, here's a theory based on my own study. The 12 were just the first recruits. You have to start somewhere. Even among the 12, I see no evidence there was any hierarchy. Then the 72 were sent out after the ministry had grown to the point they were necessary.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

The Old Testament doesn’t use Ekklesia, or church, but it does use the word “congregation.”
It also uses the word “assembly.”

Ps. 22:22 I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I
will praise you.

Ps. 68:26 Praise God in the great congregation; praise the LORD in the
assembly of Israel.

Le. 4:14 When they become aware of the sin they committed, the
assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present
it before the Tent of Meeting.

Le. 8:5 Moses said to the assembly, “This is what the LORD has
commanded to be done.”

As I've shared before, I agree that the OT mentions assembly and the congregation. I simply made a statement that the church of Christ didn't exist until He ordained it and the word ekklesia didn't exist in OT times and so wasn't used to describe the church of any kind until that time.

 

[Dan Perez]

Of course, the Acts are not in the Old Testament and was written after the word was invented by the Greeks. It is invariably translated as church when as you note assembly is probably a more accurate definition of the actual word as it was used in most texts. That said, all I said was that the word itself was not in use during the times of the OT and that Christ's church didn't exist until Christ Himself ordained it in the NT. Yes, there was an assembly of God's people during the time of Moses and yes, the NT authors did use the word ekklesia to describe it many centuries after the fact. I never said otherwise. It my be a matter of semantics but as the original post was about the Church (or ekklesia) of Christ, that's what my reply was about. My comments were that neither the Church of Christ or the word ekklesia existed in OT times, not that an assembly of God's people didn't exist or that the NT writers didn't use the word to describe it. Have you any reason to believe otherwise?

Acts was all OLD TESTAMENT as in Acts 2:1 and 4 the PROMISE of the Father , Jews were keeping the DAT OF PENTECOST .

dan p

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Acts was all OLD TESTAMENT as in Acts 2:1 and 4 the PROMISE of the Father , Jews were keeping the DAT OF PENTECOST .

dan p

Of course, Jews were keeping OT laws during the time of the Acts. That's a far stretch from "Acts was all Old Testament". At any rate, I don't get the point. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with my post.