Is the "Pastor" Biblical?

"The local church pastor is key—absolutely central—to everything we are and do as a church." —Jan Paulsen, Ministry, July/August, 2010, p.4.

Unfortunately, and tragically, this is how many Christians think and believe today, in contrast and contradiction to the Scriptures. I can provide dozens upon dozens of quotes to this effect. Have genuine Bible-believing Christians never cracked their Bibles open and read the Scriptures in the least?!?!?

"If your brother/sister sins against you, go and tell him/her his/her fault, between you and him/her alone. If he/she listens to you, you have gained your brother/sister. But if he/she does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he/she refuses to listen to them, tell it to the ekklesia [assembly, congregation]. And if he/she refuses to listen even to the ekklesia [assembly, congregation], let him/her be to you as a gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Matthew 18:15-20

Did you notice how Jesus by-passed the so-called "pastor" and "leaders"? He did not say, "Tell it to the elders, and if he/she refuses to listen even to the elders..." No, He said to tell it to the ekklesia. The word 'ekklesia' had both a spiritual and civil usage in the first century. In the Greek translation of the Hebrews Scriptures, the Septuagint, 'ekklesia' was used to translate the Hebrew word 'Qahal,' which referred to the Israelites as assembled together. In the civil realm, it had in view a duly assembled group of citizens who came together to discuss and take care of common concerns in the community. This is how it was used in Scripture, and William Tyndale translated the word correctly as 'assembly' and 'congregation.' He used the word "church" only when referring to pagan places of worship (which is an apt use for our organized religious institutions, which are reality businesses with a CEO, board members, and a bottom line).

How are so many self-professing "Bible-believing" Christians so completely ignorant of the Scriptures? Show me a single verse or passage in the New Covenant Scriptures that elevates the ministry, gifting, knowledge, and experience of a single person above that of the rest of the Body of Christ.

Go ahead, I'll wait...

You cannot do so, and do you know why? Because the title, position, "office" and practice of the "pastor" is not scriptural! As believers became more lazy and complacent, and as certain individuals sought more power and authority, slowly the "office" of the "bishop" ("pastor") was born. Eventually, this led to the two-tier "clergy/laity" split. But you will find no such practice in the New Covenant Scriptures or the early Ekklesia. Jesus and the apostles were very precise in not only their choice and use of the word 'ekklesia,' but also in by-passing and/or condemning leadership the way we think of it today.

“Do not be called Teachers, for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. … Do not be called Leaders, for One is your Leader, even Christ.” Matthew 23:8-10

“But it shall not be so among you.” Mark 10:35-46

How much clearer does it need to be stated? Are "pastors" hard of hearing? Or just stubborn, obstinate, disobedient, and rebellious? Our "leaders" today are guilty of "[teaching] as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9), "[neglecting] the commandment of God and [holding] to the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8), and "[rejecting] the commandment of God in order to establish [their] tradition" (Mark 7:9). Are self-professing "Bible-believing" Christians hard of hearing? Or are they just too lazy to do that which Scripture prescribes for them to do? And if they are unwilling to do the things Scripture has laid upon all believers (more that 50 "one another" imperatives), are they even truly followers of Jesus to begin with?

Have "Bible-believing" Christians never clued in to the fact that Paul never wrote any of his letters to "pastors" or "leaders"? (No, Timothy and Titus were not "pastors"; they were itinerant apostolic workers.) Have "Bible-believing" Christians never clued in to the fact that Paul never directed any remarks in his letters specifically to “pastors” or “leaders”? Guess what? Neither did any of the other apostles. The assembly of the saints were to take care of problems as they arose by the Spirit’s help. Let us take a quick look at the various problems mentioned in 1 Corinthians:

• The saints clustered around personalities: Paul, Apollos, Cephas [much like today's MacArthurites, Piperites, Sproulites, Washerites, etc.] — they were to repair the breach and be one-minded. (1 Cor. 1:10-17)
• There was serious immorality going on — they were to gather together and take care of the problem. (1 Cor. 5:1-13)
• There were disputes being taken to unbelieving judges — they were to resolve such matters among themselves. (1 Cor. 6:1-11)
• There were inconsiderate, divisive actions taking place in their love feasts — they were to wait for one another. (1 Cor. 11:23-34)
• There were disruptions going on in their meetings — they were to let everything be done for the building up of one another. (1 Cor. 14:20-40)

All decision making aspects were to be done by the entire congregation together.

People today read the modern practice of “the pastor” into the New Testament Scriptures. This is known as ‘eisegesis’! Can the assumption that every local “church” must have an ordained “pastor” be validated in the New Covenant Scriptures! Not on your life! There is nothing about the centrality and indispensability of “the pastor” in the pages of Yahweh’s Word! This has been imposed upon it. “The pastor,” as defined by most people today, simply is not found in the New Covenant Scriptures. Yet visible Christianity has become anchored to the concept and physical presence of “clergy” or “the pastor.” The unbiblical has supplanted the biblical!

"This fellowship, like a flock, needed a leader like a shepherd . . . An orderly church needs one overseer, one shepherd, one pastor . . . the pastor needs to have general oversight of the education, music, youth, activities and any other ministries of the flock . . . Allow this old veteran to observe that chaos easily develops where no one is in charge. If the church is to be one flock, it needs one shepherd . . . Wise church members will encourage this." —Frank Owen, "The Pastor," Western Recorder, January 14, 1981, p. 11.

Frank Owen engaged in fallacy with the last sentence of this quotation. He is suggesting that if you do not encourage such, you are unwise. People who do not want to be seen as "unwise" will blindly accept his fallacious argument, but this could not be further from the truth. Owen's entire argument is that of an authoritarian dictator, a control freak—not a biblical shepherd! Not only that, but his assumption ("chaos easily develops where no one is in charge") is baseless and weak. The early Christians of the first three centuries clearly met this way, as do many ekklesias that meet in homes today (who actually meet in accordance with the prescription of 1 Corinthians 14 rather than erroneously attempting to impose modern "church" structure and hierarchy upon their meetings).

"...on this office ['pastor'] and the discharge of it He [God] hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of His church." —John Owen (1616-1683), True Nature of a Gospel Church, abridged edition, p.55)

Has He? Where in the New Covenant Scriptures is this spelled out and supported? Many people believe this way, because of their experience, and yet they have never bothered to crack open their Bibles, be like the Bereans, and "see if these things are so." Maybe we should go with Paul on this one: "the body is not one part, but many."

In the New Covenant Scriptures, the terms “clergy” (Greek: kleros; meaning ‘inheritance’) and “laity” (Greek: laos; meaning ‘people’) both apply to the same group—all of God’s people without distinctions!!!

Our “churches” have everything backwards! According to Yahweh’s Word in 1 Corinthians 12:22-24, Paul taught that "the parts that seem to be weaker are necessary, and the ones we think to be less honorable should have more abundant honor bestowed on them." In other words, if it was the least bit biblical in the first place, this means the “pastor” should have the least amount of honour! He should not have the parking spot closest to the main doors; he should be at the back of the parking lot! So why do we have dozens upon dozens of quotations where people give the highest honour to the "pastor"? In Matthew 23, Jesus made known His opinion on the use of honourific titles. We would be wise to side with Jesus on this.

Christians in the modern "church" are just like Jews in ancient Israel: they are not satisfied with the invisible God as their Leader; they want to be like the nations around them and have their visible human kings (“pastors” in this case).

Let that sink in!

“Is the Christian church justified in confining its attention to the ministry of on person? In most modern congregations there are some Christian people who by natural ability, experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct the people than their professional and stated ministers. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later.” —David Thomas, The Pulpit Commentary, 1 Corinthians, 1898, pp. 429-433 [emphasis mine].

Pay attention, "Pastors"!

"The Lord has ordained by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe." 1 Corinthians 1:21

Preaching in the New Testament was directed toward unbelievers; it was never central in the gathering of believers! But as time elapsed, the meetings became "church services" in which leaders were prominent and the homily, or "sermon," of the leader became the center point of getting together.

"In many churches today preaching is given too much importance. Preaching has become the center of the church service, and this is detrimental for two reasons. First, monologue communication where one person speaks and everyone else listens is limited in its effectiveness . . . Secondly, I can find no support from the Scriptures for structuring church services around preaching by one person. Instead, 1 Corinthians 14 indicates a meeting where participation by all believers is encouraged." —David Valeta, "The Perils of Preaching," Bethany Theological Seminary paper, ca. 1979.

The ascendancy of the sermon nullified the free expression of Jesus through His gathered people.

"[Jesus] is the Head of the Body, the Ekklesia." Colossians 1:18

"For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together." 1 Corinthians 12:13-26

"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. ... For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged..." 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31

Could Paul's words be any more clearer? Jesus is the Head of the Ekklesia! Not some "pastor" or other "leaders"! The Body does not consist of one mouth and many ears, for, as Paul asked, "where would the Body be?" Christians meetings were intended to be open and participatory, not governed by one individual.

Do not let your experience dictate the truth of God's Word. Neither Jesus nor His apostles made mention of "pastors" or "leaders." They by-passed them entirely. Why? Because they are not supposed to exist in the Ekklesia. They are not supported by the New Covenant Scriptures. The support used for our "church" structure, hierarchy, "clergy," "pastors," etc., is derived from the Old Covenant Scriptures. But that is all obsolete. The Levitical priesthood, the Old Covenant, and the Law were for Israel. They were fulfilled in Christ Jesus and then set aside. We are on this side of the cross! We are under the New Covenant. Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, for which nothing was said regarding the priesthood. Jesus is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek. The commandments of Jesus are not burdensome: (1) Believe in the name of His Son Christ Jesus, and (2) love one another, just as He commanded us.

“The Christian church in assembly, on the same occasion, may have several speakers to address them…. If this be so: Should Christian teaching be regarded as a “profession”? It is so now: persons are brought up in it, trained for it, and live by it….” —David Thomas in 1898!!!

Why Christians Met in Homes

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man." Acts 17:24

"And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting." Acts 2:2

"And day by day, ... breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts." Acts 2:46

"And every day, ... from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus." Acts 5:42

"And after [Lydia] was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' And she prevailed upon us. ... So they went out of the prison and visited Lydia. And when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed." Acts 16:15, 40

"How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house." Acts 20:20

"Greet also the church in their house." Rom. 16:5b

"The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, greet you warmly in the Lord." 1 Cor. 16:19

"Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house." Col. 4:15

"And Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house." Phile. 1:2

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." Matt. 18:20

"For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, 'I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'" 2 Corinthians 6:16b

If you believe that the early Christians did not meet in homes “because they were being persecuted,” either because your preachers or professors spoon fed you this information, or because your “reasoning” concluded this, allow me to rip the band-aid off quickly: YOU ARE WRONG!!! Persecution of Christians was both greater and lesser at various times throughout the first three centuries.

If you were told by your preachers or professors that they used to meet in the synagogues or the temple, you were lied to. I suggest you go read the verses that pertain to this and pay attention to the context. The reason they went to synagogues or the temple was to evangelize. Anything beyond this and that person is attempting to impose their experience of “church” upon the Scriptures in order to find proof texts. If you profess to be a Bible-believing Christian, then perhaps you should start by believing the Bible!

"The historical and archaeological background is also put to effective use, as in his observation that 'Christians did not build churches until after the Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.' and that earlier Christian assemblies were held in private homes that were only later enlarged and remodeled, such as Peter's house in Capernaum and the house church in Dura Europas." —Ministry, July/August, 2010, p. 60. 

Early Christians did not build temples like the Jews or those in pagan religions because they believed that the presence of God was no longer confined to a physical structure or space; instead, they viewed themselves as the temple of the Holy Spirit, emphasizing that their bodies and community were sacred. This belief was rooted in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, emphasizing the importance of the heart and spirit in worship over physical locations and that worship could occur anywhere, as the community of believers gathered in homes and private spaces rather than dedicated buildings. This practice reflected their belief that the Ekklesia (assembly, congregation) was the community of believers—not a building. Because of this, they emphasized community and personal faith. They focused on living out their faith daily rather than adhering to formal rituals in designated places. The writings from this period highlight that worship included reading Scripture, prayer, communal meals, and the singing of songs, which could occur anywhere believers gathered.

Tertullian, an early Christian writer, noted that Christians were often criticized for not having temples, but he argued that their gatherings were centered on love and mutual support rather than physical locations. Tertullian argued that Christians do not build temples for worship because their bodies are considered the temple of God, emphasizing that God cannot be contained in lifeless structures. He stated, "We refuse to build lifeless temples to the Giver of all life," highlighting the belief that true worship occurs within the individual rather than in a physical location. And yet, today, that is exactly what we do: build lifeless temples that are not conducive to spiritual transformation or growth. Our lifeless temples stifle spiritual transformation because the Ekklesia cannot benefit from the gifts, knowledge, and experience of the entire Body of Christ the way it is supposed to.

Allow me to educate your obvious ignorance by quoting several of the early Christians, and even a few latter ones:

1st CENTURY

"Assemble on the Lord's Day and break bread; but do not name a place as a temple, for the Church is the gathering of the people." —The Didache, Chapter 14.

"No man shall be able to do aught upon entering the sanctuary, except he be a Christian baptized in the name of Jesus and abide in Christ." —Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 6.

2nd CENTURY

“For we do not worship stones and temples, but we worship God in Spirit and in truth, as He Himself has commanded.” —Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter 14

"We have been taught that the reason for this [not having temples] is that God does not dwell in houses built by human hands..." —Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 13.

“For where the Spirit of God is, there the Church is, and there is no need for material temples.” —Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 24

"The Church is not of stone but of those who have faith; our faith is the temple that god desires.” —Hermas, The Shepherd, Vision 1.

"We acknowledge only one God, who is not confined to temples made with hands." —Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 9.

3rd CENTURY

"The Church is the temple of God, not made by hands, and the altar is the heart of the believers." —Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10.

"The Christians, however, have not temples, but they are in the world as a temple; they have the Church for their temple." —Tertullian, Apologeticus, Chapter 16.

"We meet in the houses of believers, for we are the temples of the Holy Spirit." —Tertullian, Apologeticus, Chapter 24

"We do not worship in temples made with hands, nor do we offer prayers in temples—perhaps that will appear madness to some; but we are a spiritual temple." —Tertullian, De Idololatria, Chapter 1.

"In the spirit of our faith, we have no need for temples or priests; God Himself is our priest, and our hearts our altar." —Tertullian, On Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter 8.

“We are a spiritual people, not circumscribed by walls; our altars are not confined to a stone structure.” —Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 14

"He [God] does not dwell in places made with human hands; He dwells in the soul of man, which is His true temple." —Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 3, Chapter 10.

"Each one of us is a temple of God and a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit; we do not approach the temples of stone." —Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 8.

"The Word, prohibiting all sacrifices and the building of temples, indicates that the Almighty is not contained in anything." —Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14

"The spiritual temple, or the true temple, is the soul, wherein the fullness of Christ dwells." —Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, Homily 2.

"The Church is a holy house, a holy place, and within her the sacrifice of the flesh and the blood of the Lord is offered." —Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Ekklesia, Section 4.

“We do not approach the altar of God established in earthly places nor with offerings of flesh, but with the spiritual sacrifice of a pure heart.” —Novatian, On the Trinity, Chapter 6

4th CENTURY

"You say that we build no temples to [the gods] and do not worship their images. . . . Well, what greater honour or dignity could we ascribe to them than that we put them in the same position as the Head and Lord of the universe! . . . Do we honour Him with shrines and by building temples?" —Arnobius, Against the Pagans, Book 2, Chapter 43.

"The assembly of the faithful is the temple; wherever the faithful are gathered, there our God is." —Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 17.

"...we ourselves are temples of God, for He has said, 'I will dwell in them and walk among them.' We do not need a temple built of stone." —Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 11.

“The true temple is the assembly of the elect; where two or three are gathered, there He is in the midst.” —Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 25

"The divine essence is not contained within walls, nor can it be captured by the limitations of a material temple." —Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit, Section 8.

“The Church, together with her altar, is an assembly of the faithful, who are themselves the living stones of God’s temple.” —Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 18

"We are the temple of God; our communion with Him is what unites us, rather than any physical building." —Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts, Homily 25.

"Do not establish temples in the name of God; rather, let the gatherings be where the faithful assemble." —Apostolic Constitutions, Book 2, Section 7.

Are Women to Keep Silent in the Ekklesia? Part 2

Many Christians define men’s and women’s roles in such a way that they cannot let the full weight of Scripture speak. Their views are not biblical, nor do they align with or represent the teachings of Jesus or the early Ekklesia.

The modern “church” is hemiplegic—the female half of the Body of Christ is paralyzed!

“Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” 1 Timothy 2:9-15

What was the primary purpose of Paul writing 1 Timothy?

“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.” (1 Timothy 1:3-4)

Keep this purpose in mind when considering 1 Timothy 2:12!

“The key to understanding the letter lies in taking seriously that Paul’s stated reason for leaving Timothy in Ephesus is the real one; namely, that he has been left there to combat some false teachers, whose asceticism and speculative nonsense based on the law are engendering strife, causing many to capitulate to false teaching.” —Gordon Fee

“[T]he charge imposed upon Timothy is the guiding thought of the whole letter.” —William M. Ramsey

Let us consider the background of the congregation in Ephesus. This will be extremely helpful in our understanding of this text.

“Both Acts 19 and the apocryphal Acts of John tell of the continuous conflict between the Christians of Ephesus and those who followed the religion of Artemis.” —L. M. McDonald

This cultural context should be considered when we approach 1 Timothy 2:12 so that we do it proper justice. The pervasive influence that the Temple of Artemis had over Ephesus can be likened to the influence that the stronghold of Mormonism has over the State of Utah.

"Read Acts 18:24-20:1 and you will see that Paul spent three years there. So far as we know, this was his longest tenure in any city during his journeys. With this in mind, we can surmise that during his years in Ephesus—approximately A.D. 54-57—the sisters were functioning along with the brothers in a fashion similar to the meeting described in 1 Corinthians 14. It was not Paul's habit to put restrictions on the sisters. However, things changed when false teaching crept in and some believers, including an unknown number of women, were involved in the aberrations, some of which no doubt involved the Artemis cult. As a result, some six years after he left Ephesus [approximately A.D. 63], Paul must announce to Timothy, "I am not now allowing a woman to teach...."
After leaving Ephesus, around A.D. 58 Paul came to the island of Miletus [30 miles south of Ephesus] and called for the elders of the Ephesian congregation. In his farewell address to these servants, Paul mentions no concerns about the sisters, but does warn them, "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from among yourselves people will arise and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30). It appears that by A.D. 63 this had come to pass, and Timothy was left in Ephesus to correct the confusion created by false teachers and false teaching (1 Timothy 1:3-4).
Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesian congregation around A.D. 61. This epistle is the pinnacle of Paul's sublime expression of God's purpose in Christ and his Body, but there are no concerns expressed in it about the sisters nor are any restrictions on them mentioned in his apostolic communication.
Around A.D. 64-65, Jesus Himself directed a short letter to the Ephesian assembly which is recorded in Revelation 2:1-7. Jesus expressed His concerns to them, but such correctives had nothing to do with the functioning of the sisters. This is significant because in Jesus' letter to Thyatira He was upset about the false teaching ministry of a woman nicknamed "Jezebel" (Revelation 2:20ff)." —Jon Zens

Artemis was the Greek goddess of fertility and protection during childbirth (also known as Diana in the Latin). How did her followers seek her favour in prayer?

“The Artemisian supplicant makes prayers in crowns of olive branches. They do not sacrifice animals to [Artemis] because their locks of hair carry prayers.” —Heliodorus, Aeth. 1:12, 3rd century A.D.

This explains Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:9 regarding how Paul expected these women to pray (which is not an unequivocal universal decree on how women ought to present themselves):

“Likewise also that women should [pray and] adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire."

The Artemis cult taught that woman was created first and then man, and that man was deceived first. Because of this, women were viewed as smarter than men and more capable of leading society. For this reason, in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul refers to the events in the Garden of Eden, highlighting the role of Eve in the deception and subsequent fall into sin:

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

The cult of Artemis apparently also taught that women should not have children. This is why Paul reminds the women of the special place they have in bringing children into the world, a position held only by females. Therefore, women ought to be esteemed according to this reality.

“Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

Given the idea that Artemis was the goddess of protection during childbirth, Paul is not speaking with regard to salvation in 1 Timothy 2:15. The Greek word sothesetai should be more accurately rendered as ‘protected’ in this context. Paul is not saying that a woman receives salvation through childbirth if her children remain faithful. This would just be nonsensical and contrary to the Gospel.

The Greek word hesuchia translated "silence" in some translations should actually be translated "quietness." The same word is used earlier in 1 Timothy 2:2 with the stated intention that all believers should live a life of quietness (contrasted against a life of contentiousness): "that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." It is also used 1 Thessalonians 4:11 where Paul instructs all believers to "aspire/strive to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands." It is likewise used in 2 Thessalonians 3:12 where Paul tells those idle believers who were not working to "work quietly and to earn their own living." Since all believers are supposed to lead lives of quietness, Paul's statement here must have been a special directive, for which we should remember the purpose of Paul's writing to Timothy.

“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.” (1 Timothy 1:3-4)

Now let us look specifically at verses 11-12.

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

The verb authenteo in the infinitive authentein appears only once in the New Testament, and that is in 1 Timothy 2:12. Traditionally, this word has been translated as "nor to usurp authority over the man," but this is incorrect. This view assumes that the very act of a woman teaching a man is inherently a wrongful deed that violates "male headship." But nowhere is there a shred of biblical substantiation for such an extreme position expressed in Scripture.

When Paul says, "I am not now permitting a woman," he follows with a "neither...nor" construction involving two infinitives: didaskein [to teach] and authentein [to have one's way with, to dominate]. How do these infinitives correlate? Philip Payne and others suggest that the best fit is that of purpose or goal. Payne sees the closest English parallel to how these two infinitives are employed to be our idioms: "hit 'n' run" and "eat 'n' run." Hence, "teach 'n' dominate"; to teach with the goal of dominating [with false teaching]. In other words, Paul did not want this woman (or these women) to teach with the purpose or goal of getting their way with (or dominating) a man or men. It is this specific type of teaching that Paul is not permitting.

As you have clearly seen in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul did not issue a universal restriction that applies to all believing women in all Christian gatherings; instead, he responded to the specific problems that the Ephesian congregation was dealing with. There is nothing inherently wrong with women teaching men, but it is a problem when women teach error, or teach in an attempt to get their own way with men. Of course, the same concerns hold true if males teach error or teach with the goal of dominating others! (As is done in many of our "churches" today!)

Women are not second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God under the New Covenant in the Congregation of the Lord! Neither the Gospel narratives nor the recorded words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of women! Not even the Old Covenant put restrictions on the ministry of women!

Let that sink in.

It is interesting, to say the least, that so many dealings with “biblical” manhood and womanhood will address Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, Colossians 3:18-19, and 1 Peter 3:1-7, but are suspiciously silent when it comes to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5:

"For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (vv.4-5)

First Corinthians 7:1-5 throws a proverbial wrench into the works for those who would conclude that the husband has the “final say” under the presumed authority commonly known as “male headship.” If a couple cannot agree on a course of action (v.5), then it should not be executed. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband should not overrule his wife with the “final choice.” (Within reason, obviously. If they are both standing in the middle of the highway and the husband wants to get off the road but the wife refuses, then by not making a decision they are in effect making a decision and will get run over and most likely killed. Therefore, the husband ought to act in such a way as to save both their lives.)

"Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman." (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

For Paul, the functions of husband and wife were to be viewed from the perspective of interdependence and mutual respect—not hierarchy.

“But I want you to understand that the source [kephale] of every man is Christ, the source [kephale] of woman [gune] is man [aner], and the source [kephale] of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)

“If you think ‘head’ means ‘chief’ or ‘boss,’ you skew the godhead!” —John Chrysostom

“This we say that the kephaleo of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephaleo of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise the kephaleo of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.” —Cyril of Alexandria

First Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 do not teach the restrictions that have been imposed upon believing women eisegetically for centuries. To be clear, this has nothing to do with being a "pastor" since the New Testament documents contain absolutely zero evidence to support the unbiblical one-man-ministry of this "office" that has become central and indispensable to the "church." Neither man nor woman should be "pastors"!

"It may be that much of what we call ‘Christian’ would have to be thrown out in the light of biblical re-education. . . . Let’s approach Scripture with an open mind and heart and discover what God has called us to in the way of re-education and renewal." —Bill White

We all struggle with letting go of old things "learned" (programmed, conditioned, brainwashed) in order to give way to new things the Spirit unveils. Tragically, however, many believers would rather stubbornly hold onto the errors they have “learned” than to be re-educated by the Spirit. They will ignore, deny, and/or reject truth in order to maintain their errors. A reluctance to re-examine our current and long-held "church" practices that appear to be contrary to God’s Word is an indication of a party spirit, or a fear of truth. Often it is both. If years of tradition are wrong, then just when will we correct these unbiblical aberrations?

If you are taught or told otherwise than we have just discovered together in both Part 1 and Part 2, then you are in a misogynistic and authoritarian cult that does not respect or value women!

Further points to consider:

• Jesus applauded the evangelistic efforts of the Samaritan woman (John 4:35-38).
   
• A woman’s testimony was not allowed as evidence in first-century courts, yet Jesus chose females to be the first witnesses and lead the proclamation of His resurrection (John 20:1-2, 11-18; Luke 24:1-11, 22-24; Mark 16:1-8; Matthew 28:1-11).
   
• After Jesus’ ascension, 120 men and women prayed and chose a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:14-15). The Spirit of God came upon these same men and women and they all spoke the wonderful works of God in many foreign languages (Acts 2:1-4).
   
• On the day of Pentecost, Peter insisted the events were a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:17-18). Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). There is nothing exceptional or rare about them, so we know other women had this gift, too.
   
• Paul entrusted his letter to the Romans to Phoebe, a ‘deaconess’ (minister/servant), who delivered it for him. It is rightly pointed out that the Greek verb proistemi literally means “to stand in front of” and conveys leadership. However, those who admit this try to squirm out of the fact that a form of proistemi is used with reference to Phoebe the ‘deaconness’ (Romans 16:1-2).
   
• After planting the congregation in Philippi, the apostle Paul left it in the hands of . . . a woman: Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:11-15)!
   
• Aquila and Priscilla, husband and wife, were designated by Paul as “co-workers” (Rom. 16:3) using the Greek word sunergos, which is the same word used with reference to Timothy and Titus. Scripture says both explained the way of God more clearly to Apollos (Acts 18:26).
   
• In line with Acts 2:17-18, Paul encouraged brothers and sisters in the faith to prophesy in the congregational meetings (1 Corinthians 11:4-5; 14:23-24). The eisegetical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 contradicts these encouragements.
   
• Galatians 3:28 indicates that “in Christ” human distinctions, like male and female, are no longer norms of judgment in the Congregation. This is clear from their meetings where master and slave sat together as equals and where the master would serve his slave.
   
• In the first century, prejudices abounded in people’s minds when certain people like “gentile,” “Jew,” “woman,” and “slave” were mentioned. Paul made it clear that in the Body of Christ this should not be the case.
   
• Women’s homes were mentioned as meeting places for the believers in Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 1:11, 16:9, and Colossians 4:15, to say nothing of Lydia’s home. Does our interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 make sense given such contexts?
   
• In Revelation 2:20-24, Jesus rebuked the Thyatiran congregation for allowing a false prophetess nicknamed “Jezebel” to “teach” believers to sin grievously. Jesus’ objection was not that a woman taught but what she taught. Otherwise, why not condemn them for letting her speak and instruct others?

Are Women to Keep Silent in the Ekklesia? Part 1

Many Christians define men’s and women’s roles in such a way that they cannot let the full weight of Scripture speak. Their views are not biblical, nor do they align with or represent the teachings of Jesus or the early Ekklesia.

The modern “church” is hemiplegic—the female half of the Body of Christ is paralyzed!

““The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
What! Was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-37

Let us dive right in and rip that band-aid right off. First Corinthians 14:34-35 are not the words of Paul! How can we know this? I am glad you asked.

1. Male and female prophesying was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). Paul approved of the prophesying of women (1 Cor. 11:5). He even encourage it (1 Cor 14:26, 29-32). Does it make sense that Paul would then turn around, contradict himself, and unequivocally designate women's speech as "filthy, lewd, and vile"? For the record, the Greek word aiskron indicates something “lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty, and morally degraded.”
    
2. "...as the Law also says" (v.34) What "law" is Paul talking about? Certainly not the Old Covenant Law. Why? Because no such command exists in the Mosaic Law. We can guarantee for a fact that Paul would never attribute something to "the Law" that simply did not exist.
    
3. "...as the Law also says" (v.34) Considering how Paul has repeatedly tried to free believers from the Law (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; 5:1; et al), why would he suddenly be encouraging them to obey a single aspect of it (if indeed it did exist)?

Verses 34-35 should have quotations around them. Why? Because Paul is clearly quoting something that the Corinthians had written to him. Since this quotation cannot be found in the Old Covenant Law, what "law" did it belong to?

In those days, the oral traditions of the Rabbis, contained in the Mishnah, a part of the Talmud, had supplanted the Law of Moses. The Talmud required women to be silent and called their speaking "lewd and filthy." Want proof?

“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative.” (Talmud, Berachot 24a)

“It is shameful for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)

“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness.” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)

“Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent.” (summary of Talmudic sayings)

The Old Covenant Law contains no such command. The Mosaic Law never called for women to be silent. In the Old Covenant we do find this:

“The Lord gives the word; the women who announce the good tidings are a great host.” (Psalm 68:11)

Does Paul have the right to silence that "great host"? Inconceivable! The "What!" in 1 Corinthians 14:36 is a disjunctive conjunction that indicates that Paul is not in harmony with what he quotes or summarizes from the Talmud in verses 34-35. Given how these two verses contradict a great deal that Paul has taught in his letters, we should suspect that Paul made a quotation of the Corinthian letter here. 

We can surmise that Paul was making a quotation here, as he often did from a culture or religion (Acts 17:23; Titus 1:12), and reject the idea that these words came from Paul himself. Verses 36-37 contain his rebuke of those who maintained this erroneous belief.

Those who use 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as their proof text for silencing women, are they prepared to maintain, as the anti-Christ anti-feminine Talmud did, that a woman’s voice is “dirty” and “like filthy nakedness”?

Roles and Responsibilities in New Testament Assemblies

Who is responsible for certain roles and activities within a local congregation? Is one man central and indispensable to the congregation? Is one man's ministry more important than all the others? What do the Scriptures, Yahweh God's Holy Word, have to say on the subject? The following table summarizes 27 roles and activities mentioned in the New Testament concerning local Christian assemblies.

Role or Activity	Responsible Individual or Group	Relevant Scriptures and Comments
Serving as a priest	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	1 Peter 2:5, 9
Ministering in the main weekly and other settings	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	1 Cor. 14:26-33; Heb. 10:24-25; Col. 3:16; 1 Peter 4:10-11
Deciding who does what ministry	Yahweh God	Eph. 2:10; 1 Peter 4:10; Col. 4:17
Making ekklesia discipline decisions	Whole ekklesia assembly	Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13
Testing revelatory words	Whole ekklesia assembly	1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1
Loving and caring for one another	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Matt. 22:39; Gal. 6:9-10 (about 60 verses total)
Teaching	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Col. 3:16; Rom. 15:14; Heb. 5:12; James 3:1 Elders: 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9
Admonishing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:15; Heb. 10:24
Challenging an individual about his/her sin	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	James 5:19-20; Gal. 6:1
Rebuking an individual about his/her sin	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Luke 17:3-4 Elders: Titus 1:9 Also: Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:29
Hearing a confession of sin	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	James 5:16
Assisting with conflict resolution and lawsuits among believers	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 4:3; 6:1-6
Protecting ekklesia unity	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Eph. 4:3; Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 10:15-11:1
Reaching out with the Gospel	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Jude 1:23; 1 Peter 3:15; Matt. 5:14-16; 22:39; Acts 8:4
Preaching	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Acts 8:1-4; 11:19-21; 15:35; Mark 1:45; 5:20; 7:36; Luke 8:39. New Testament preaching is evangelistic.
Baptizing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Acts 8:12; 9:18; 10:48; Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 1:10-17
Serving the Lord's Supper	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	1 Cor. 11:17-34
Praying publicly	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: 1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:6-20; James 5:16 Elders: James 5:14; 1 Tim. 4:14
Praying for healing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Mark 16:18; 1 Cor. 12:9, 28; James 5:14-16
Praying for deliverance	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Mark 16:17; 1 Cor. 12:10
Prophesying, Languages ("Tongues")	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Acts 18:6; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28-30; 14:1-5, 39
Living as an example	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Hebrews 6:12 Elders: 1 Peter 5:3
Overseeing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Hebrews 12:15 Elders: 1 Peter 5:2
Building the Ekklesia	Jesus	Matt. 16:16; Eph. 5:23-32; Psalm 127:1
Deciding who is a local or traveling leader	Holy Spirit working through existing leaders and whole ekklesia	Luke 6:12-13; Acts 6:1-6; 9:15; 13:1-4; 14:23; 16:2; 20:28; 1 Tim. 4:14; Titus 1:5
Shepherding/"Pastoring"	New Testament only mentions elders	Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2; Hebrews 13:17. Unlikely that non-elders were excluded.
Protecting sound doctrine	New Testament only mentions elders	Titus 1:9. Unlikely that non-elders were excluded.

The New Testament knows nothing about, and simply does not speak in terms of, two classes of Christians—“minister” or “clergy” and “laymen” or “laity.” In the New Testament, the terms “clergy” (Greek: kleros; meaning ‘inheritance’) and “laity” (Greek: laos; meaning ‘people’) both apply to the same group—all of God’s people (men, women, and children) without distinctions! In other words, all saints are "clergy" and all saints are "laity." The New Testament distinguishes between ‘elders’ (an adjective—not a noun [the title, position, or "office" that we have made it]) and people (Phil. 1:1), but this distinction assumes the ‘priesthood of all believers’ (1 Pet. 2:5, 9) and does not swallow it up as the “clergy/laity” practice of the past and today.

As you can obviously and clearly see from this table, elders did not have the authority to govern a local congregation. Most decisions in the life of New Testament congregations were made by the whole congregation using voting consensus. In what ways did elders provide leadership within local congregations? They were influencers, encouragers, and facilitators—not organizers and decision-makers. Teaching was a shared responsibility of the community—not a "role" reserved for elders. As elders did the things that all believers are free to do (e.g., teach, read scripture, admonish), they had a highly influential role in the life of the congregation. One of the most important leadership roles is to watch over the souls of other members of the community. As elders do this, they are positioned to pray for and influence others, perhaps with a word of encouragement, an admonishment, a teaching or by giving advice.

A second important dimension of shepherding by influence, which is sometimes needed in congregations, is facilitating the meetings:

• Encouraging quieter members to contribute,
• Encouraging individuals who contribute a great deal to contribute slightly less,
• Stepping in when an inappropriate contribution may result in someone feeling disrespected or hurt, and
• Facilitating consensus-based decision-making.

The shepherding provided by elders is in many ways similar to good parenting, especially of older children.

There is absolutely zero evidence in the New Testament to support the "pastor," the "sermon," and the "pulpit" as being central and indispensable to the local congregation. It has to be imposed upon the text. We have 'read' the modern practice of "the pastor" into the New Testament, which is known as eisegesis. The New Testament does not teach that one man's ministry is more important than the ministry of everyone else; it teaches mutual ministry through the 50+ "one another" statements. According to God’s Word in 1 Corinthians 12:22-24, Paul taught that "the parts that seem to be weaker are necessary, and the ones we think to be less honorable should have more abundant honor bestowed on them." In other words, “pastors” (if they were the least bit biblical) should have the least honour! (see Matt. 23:8-10) How have we maintained a system and structure that is anti-Christ, reducing the Body to one mouth and many ears? How have we let one man give a monologue week after week after week, when it is universally agreed by communication experts that a monologue is the worst possible way to learn? Our systems and structures are not conducive to real spiritual transformation!

Ever-pagan Emperor Constantine (who never actually converted to Christianity, but merely added another God to his pantheon of gods) flipped the Congregation upside down in the 4th century and we have never recovered! What would evolve into the Catholic Church became more and more pagan in their practice of the mystery religions by absorbing every pagan ritual and practice under the lie of "making it easier for the people to transition." Interestingly enough, when Paul planted congregations, some of the new believers came from Judaism and others from other religions. Paul would have introduced all of these new believers not only to Jesus but also to the New Testament pattern of congregational life, which was different to their previous religious experiences. In other words, all their old religious practices were to be left behind.

*Adapted from Anthony Jacomb-Hood's Rediscovering the New Testament Church.

The Marian Idolatry

Marian devotion is idolatry. Mary was a sinner like the rest of us who found salvation in Christ Jesus (Luke 1:47). Mary is not the “Queen of Heaven”. Mary is not a “co-mediator” (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 9:15; 8:6; 12:24). Mary is not a “co-redeemer” (Eph. 1:7). Mary was not a perpetual virgin (Matt 1:25; 13:55-56; 12:46; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; Acts 1:14).

The first ever mention of Mary's supposed "perpetual virginity" was in the 4th century by Jerome. The idea of Mary being without sin can likewise be traced back to the 4th century. However, certain 4th century theologians like John Chrysostom, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poitiers denied the sinlessness of Mary and believed she had imperfections. In the 3rd century, Origen and Tertullian also denied any such sinlessness. The first four centuries are completely silent about Mary's supposed "assumption" (and an assumption it is), but in the latter part of the fourth century Epiphanius of Salamis wrote this:

"The holy virgin may have died and been buried … or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” … or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end."

In A.D. 431, when the Council of Ephesus was held, it caused an unhealthy interest in the mother of Jesus. From this point on, Catholics began to idolize Mary and create fantastical fairy tales surrounding her. In the 5th century, dozens of writings began to emerge that claimed Mary had never died. The worship of Mary had begun, giving her traits of Jesus and making her co-equal with Jesus. Augustine had given his blessing upon all these heretical teachings.

Catholics try to play fast and loose with the term "saved" with regard to Mary because quite obviously they do not understand salvation. They think that Mary was "saved" from being able to sin. Their arguments make for a great fairy tale, but there is zero truth behind it. Catholics argue that in order for Mary to give birth to the Saviour, she needed to be without sin. So if Mary had to be without sin in order to birth Jesus, then so too did her mother need to be without sin in order to birth Mary; and her mother had to be without sin in order to birth her; and so on and so forth all the way back to Eve. Catholics really need to learn how logic works instead of blindly believing complete and utter nonsense.

Catholics need to learn to read Scripture (and early Christian history) instead of blindly following false religious tradition that opposes it.

The Lord's Supper and Baptism are NOT "Sacraments"!

The Lord's Supper, also referred to as Communion (a unity of the Body and the Head, as well as between member and member), and baptism are NOT "sacraments"! Once we educate ourselves on where this terminology came from and just exactly what it entailed, we should no longer use it.

"It will be recalled that in the days of Decius every householder had been instructed to fill out a formulary reading as follows: "I, N.N., have always sacrificed to the gods, and now in your presence I have, in keeping with the directive, sacrificed . . . and have tasted of the sacrificial victim; and I request that you, a public servant, certify the same." This formulary was intended to do two things. On the one hand it was part of a frantic effort to infuse new life into the dying religion of ancient Rome; on the other hand it was a device whereby each individual Christian could be located and taken in hand.
It would be most gratifying if we could know more about the evolution of the rite which is here described, the item about "tasting the sacrificial victim." That it was a feature of the practices associated with the cult of the so-called "mystery religions" is quite apparent. In these mystery religions (the only religious forms that had any vitality in those final days of pagan Rome), one partook of deity by ingesting a morsel of a sacrificial victim. By such ingesting, something of the élan of the god was said to be infused into the devotee, in a transaction known as a mysterion — the word that has given us the expression "mystery religion." This word mysterion was by the Latins rendered sacramentum — the direct antecedent of our word "sacrament."
...
It did not require a great deal of ingenuity for the fashioners of "Christian sacralism" to realize that with a few adroit alterations the Agape [meal] could be put in the place of the sacramentum and then serve the function which Decius had in mind, namely, the function of providing the monolithic society. A few alterations, a gather here and a tuck there, and the love-feast was all ready, ready to perform the function in the new sacralism which the pagan sacramentum had performed in the old.
The first thing that had to be done was to appropriate the pagan word sacramentum (recall that it occurs nowhere in the Scriptures) and to let it replace the word Agape of the authentic tradition. This was a clever stroke; every Roman citizen knew what a sacramentum was, and what it was supposed to do and achieve; he needed only to hear the word to know the theology, that of "tasting the sacrificial victim," a transaction signifying the participants' solidarity with the society of which he was a part.
A second thing that had to be done was to move the table out and the altar in. This would automatically make of the officiating minister a sacrificateur, a sacrificer, a priest; and this would as automatically change the viands, the bread and the wine that had stood on the table of the Agape, into the flesh and the blood of "the sacrificial victim."
A third thing that needed to be done was to eliminate as much as possible the "Take, eat" of the original ritual. This "Take, eat" was far too reminiscent of the voluntaryism that was so much a part of the authentic Christian vision; it portrayed too manifestly that in regard to the good things of the Christian faith there is always the take it or leave it. The determinative act of taking had to be eliminated and in its place had to come an act of imparting. ...
With these changes the love-feast was suitable to the role in the new sacralism which the pagan sacramentum had played in the old sacralism.
It is not at all surprising that all trough medieval times and into Reformation times, and beyond them, Corpus Christianum was thought of as a thing held together by "sacrament." [It was the Anabaptists' assault upon the sacraments as binders of society that made them so odious in the sight of the Reformers.]
—Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, pp. 136-142.

As you can clearly see, ever-pagan Emperor Constantine flipped the Congregation of the Lord upon her head when he helped Christianity absorb pagan rituals and practices, which eventually evolved into the Catholic Church. The description above is very obviously the practice of Catholicism, and every Catholic who genuinely loves the Lord Jesus will recognize this fact and repudiate it. Otherwise, they are participating in pagan rituals associated with mystery religions in the worship of false gods. Slapping the face of Christianity on top of it does not change what it is in reality. Every Catholic who participates in such practice is practicing pagan mystery religion acts.

The fact that Protestant Reformers, including Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, maintained the terminology "sacraments" demonstrates perfectly how unwise they were and how little they knew of ecclesiastical history (the first three centuries) and Scripture (especially with regard to the cross as the dividing line of human history and context). That does not mean they were not godly or spiritual or had anything good to say, but it is to acknowledge that they embraced, believed, taught, and reproduced their many grave errors.

For any Christian to refer to the Lord's Supper and baptism as "sacraments" is heresy, and any Christian who practices the "sacraments" as described above is guilty of idolatry by participation in mystery religions to false gods. To my Catholic brothers and sisters who genuinely love the Lord Jesus, STOP participating in this godless anti-Christ ceremony and start holding communion in your own homes with other genuine believers. You do NOT require a "priest" or "pastor" in order to administer either of these as ALL Christians—men, women, and children—are priests under the New Covenant.

By calling the Lord’s Supper and baptism “sacraments,” you are associating them with demonic pagan practices!

The Message EVERY Christian Needs to Hear

Many Christians think they possess discernment, but they do not actually know what discernment is or what it looks like. If something sounds good to them, they will blindly believe anything because they have been convinced of it, regardless of whether it has a shred of truth to it.

So many Christians are in cults, not even aware of it, and it is not even funny.

The “One True Church” is not Catholic, Protestant, Fundamentalist, or Evangelical, but is made up of people from all of these. Jesus saves people from every tribe, nation, and language, not because of their beliefs, practices, or traditions, but in spite of them. It is their belief in Jesus that saves, not the interpretational errors and bankrupt theologies they have embraced.

Catholics, Protestants, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals are all wrong to varying degrees in various areas of their beliefs, practices, and traditions. This is what happens when you put men’s opinions above Scripture, insist on reading Scripture out of context, and embrace bankrupt theologies built upon myths, fairy tales, and proof text methodology.

Catholics, Protestants, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals are all ignorant and illiterate of Scripture and its context, giving their opinions and calling it "exposition" while ripping random isolated verses out of context, imposing their ideas and experiences upon the text, and misapplying them.

Catholics, Protestants, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals all need to get an education in the New Covenant, the Gospel, and grace, as well as to which side of the cross they live on and which Covenant they are a part of. Having such an education would eliminate a great many of the false teachings and heresies these groups beat their chests and shout from the roof tops about.

In case you were not aware, there are over 40,000 different Christian denominations, groups, and sects in the world. They cannot all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong. None of them hold a monopoly on the truth, but all of them believe and teach varying errors that contradict the Scriptures. In fact, their very practices of "Church" are diametrically opposed to and backwards from that which the Bible prescribes. "Churches" should not dictate what attendees believe. Every Christian is responsible to hold the Bible in high regard as the only standard, and then weigh all opinions against the Scriptures, paying attention to the various contexts, and then confronting and conforming their beliefs according to the TRUTH. Sadly, most are not willing to do this.

Here’s a message many Christians need reminding of:

"Did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:2-3)

Holiness and spiritual growth do not come from following or obeying the Law! The Law only leads to failure, frustration, guilt, shame, and more sinning. The Law (specifically the Ten Commandments) is a ministry of condemnation and death (2 Cor. 3:7-11). The Law (using one of the Ten Commandments as an example) causes you to sin because the power of sin is the Law (Rom. 7:8-11; 1 Cor. 15:56). The Law was weak and useless and could not perfect anybody (Heb. 7:18-19). The Old Covenant, with its Law, was made obsolete (Heb. 8:13; 7:12).

The cross is the dividing line of human history—not baby Jesus lying in a manger. Hebrews 9:16-17 says that death—not birth—brings a change in covenant. If you are trying to live by words prior to the cross (including the Old Testament), you are enslaved in bondage to legalistic performance-based religion. The Gospel was first given to the Hebrews. Jesus was "born under the Law to redeem those under the Law" (Gal. 4:4-5) and to "save His people from their sin" (Matt. 1:21). His people were the Israelites. Jesus, Who was still under the Old Covenant, was primarily speaking to the Israelites. Part of His ministry was in preparing the way for grace, but a large part of His ministry was elevating and increasing the weight of the Law upon the people so they would despair and see the impossibility of being able to keep the Law and to look for something better. Jesus was not primarily speaking to Christians!

Christians are on the other side of the cross, where grace is in abundance. Gentiles never had a part in the Law, so for us it is either the New Covenant or nothing at all. Besides, the Law is an all-or-nothing proposition. It is not a smorgasbord or buffet where you pick and choose what feels good for you. Furthermore, God's Word never divides the Law into three categories: the so-called "moral", the civil, and the ceremonial. That is man's doing. Galatians informs us that if we want to keep any part of the Law (circumcision, the Ten Commandments, tithing, etc.), we are under a curse and we are obligated to keep the entire Law (all 613 regulations; not just the "Ten" Commandments, of which you only follow 9, but slip "tithing" in to get back to 10)! James informs us that if we fail in one point of the Law, we are guilty of failing all of it! Is that what you want for your life?

In Jesus, your sins are freely, fully, and forever forgiven! Your slate has been completely wiped clean. Any wrong-doing you commit is not being accumulated or added to any record, because that record was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Furthermore, your wrong-doings are not rightly called "sins" because sin was defined by the Law and you are dead to the Law, on top of having all your sins forgiven—past, present, and future. When Jesus was crucified on the cross, how many of your sins were future? All of them! In Christ Jesus you are a new creation, the old has been crucified and is dead and gone. In Christ Jesus you are a saint—not a "sinner". In Christ Jesus you are holy, righteous, blameless, pure, and sinless. This is your identity in Christ Jesus that priests, preachers, and pastors have failed to inform you of.

Grace is grace, no matter what! The freedom, forgiveness, identity, and new life that you possess through the New Covenant are not affected in any way, shape, or form by your daily performance. These treasures are yours to keep. If you have put your faith and trust in Christ Jesus, no matter how feeble your faith is, you cannot "lose" your salvation. Even when we are faithless, He remains faithful! Once you correctly understand the New Covenant, the Gospel, and grace, it changes everything!

Christians are the only people who can be themselves and express Jesus all at the same time. Go be yourself and serve your King!

Does the Christian Still Sin?

Apparently not, according to Scripture. Preachers often ignore, down-grade or twist 1 John 3:3-10 to mean something other than what it actually and clearly says. They confuse the two groups of people John is talking about, and forget that Christians, in Christ Jesus, have already done the things John addresses to those who are not in Christ Jesus. So how is the Christian sinless?

The Christian is sinless...

1. ...because they are in Christ Jesus, Who Himself is sinless.
2. ...because that which defined what sin is—the Law—is dead to them and they to it.
3. ...because their sins—past, present, and future—have been totally forgiven, removed forever, and are remembered no more.
4. ...because, when they rightly understand these things and their true identity in Christ Jesus, they walk uprightly in righteousness because wrong-doings are beneath them and they no longer want to commit them.

Wrong-doing is still wrong-doing (lying is still lying, stealing is still stealing, murder is still murder, immorality is still immorality, etc.), and there are still consequences for such in this world (emotional, mental, physical, spiritual), but it is not rightly called 'sin' because the Christian is not under the Law (Romans 7:8c-9). If the Christian's sins—past, present, and future—have been totally forgiven, removed forever, and are remembered no more (And they are!), then any future wrong-doings the Christian commits are not rightly called 'sins' because they have already been forgiven in Christ Jesus at the cross. The wrong-doings the Christian commits are no longer being accumulated nor are they being entered into the record, which was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14).

Our sin debt was cancelled. There is nothing being added to it. Yes, the Christian can and does commit wrong-doings from time to time, but they are not rightly called 'sins' because they are not defined by the Law (the Law being dead to us and we to it), they are not being accumulated (God is not keeping score), and they are not being entered into the record (because it was nailed to the cross). So, if all these things are true (And they are!), how is it that preachers can falsely claim Christians still sin? Simple. By misunderstanding and not rightly exegeting and expositing Romans 7:14-25. By separating verses 14-25 from verse 13, where Paul asks his fourth rhetorical question that he is about to give an explanation for, and by ignoring the immediate context of verses 7-12, preachers twist this passage to mean something it does not mean. Understand verses 7-12 and then verses 15 and 19 will make complete sense to you. Romans 7 is man's encounter with the Law and trying to live up to its demands.

In Genesis 4, Yahweh God warns Cain about Sin (an entity, essence, force, power, presence, etc.)—not about individual personal sins. Paul also addresses this Sin in Romans 7. Do preachers actually believe Paul is passing the buck here? "It wasn't me; it was Sin!" Do they think Paul is teaching the heresy of the Gnostics? Or do they simply not understand?

If you are still “struggling with sin,” then you are struggling with a phantom. If Yahweh God has already dealt with our sin problem—once and for all, then we no longer have a sin problem! Your sin is gone! "Love keeps no record of wrongs" (1 Cor. 13:5) because "love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Pet. 4:8). This is what Yahweh's love has done for us. God is not keeping score! If your theology teaches otherwise, then your theology is bankrupt and you need to find a better—and biblical—theology. By virtue of Jesus and His work on the cross, the Christian is holy, righteous, blameless, pure—and sinless! Repent and confess (Agree with God about) the truth of who you are!

What is the True Canon of Scripture?

The Ethiopian Orthodox have an 81-book Bible—54 OT, 27 NT.
The Greek and Russian Orthodox have a 79-book Bible—52 OT, 27 NT.
The Roman Catholics have a 73-book Bible—46 OT, 27 NT.
The Protestants have a 66-book Bible—39 OT, 27 NT.

Their New Testaments are exactly identical. So who is correct regarding the Old Testament?

Alex Jurado of the YouTube channel @VoiceOfReason_ is absolutely 100% wrong when he claims, "The Catholic Church is the Church [Jesus] founded." If Alex bothered to read the writings of the Christians of the first 300 years, he would notice that much of Roman Catholic beliefs, practices, and traditions were condemned by them. The Catholic church did not exist until it evolved during the 4th century under Emperor Constantine. It then divided into two in the 11th century because of the further superstitions and idolatries that Rome kept adopting from pagan religions and trying to "Christianize."

Alex Jurado is also absolutely 100% wrong when he says, "How come your canon cannot be found anywhere in the first 1500 years? Because the 66 book canon of Scripture that Protestants use today is not found anywhere. ... In the early church there was almost no dispute over the Old Testament, which is what Catholics and Protestants dispute now. But in the early church there was a lot of dispute over the New Testament." Alex is historically ignorant and illiterate as well as Scripturally ignorant and illiterate. Let us look at the actual facts that expose Alex's ignorance of reality and truth.

Good Roman Catholic scholarship concedes to the truth:

"In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we not St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." —Catholic Encyclopedia

"An official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent." —Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 38.

The unequivocal and irrefutable fact is, the Roman Catholic canon of Scripture was not settled or established until the Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563 in Trent (now in northern Italy), while the Protestant canon of Scripture has been established for 2,000 years! Observe:

OLD TESTAMENT CANON

"Since you have often, in your seal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and has also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavoured to perform the task. ... I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras." —Mileto of Sardis, as presented by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 4.26.13

"When expounding the first Psalm, he gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: 'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.'" —Origen, as presented by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 6.25.1

"The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis...
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun....
To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job....
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators." —Jerome, Prologue Galeatus

"And some of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for the confirming of the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.." —Jerome, Prologue to the Books of Solomon

Your historically ignorant and illiterate Catholics (and other believers) like to try and claim that Jerome submitted to "the judgment of the churches." What does this mean and where does this come from? Well, let us take a look. Observe:

"It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Quila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because i was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book." —Jerome, Against Rufinus, 2.33

Jerome was referencing two different Greek translations of the book of Daniel. Both contained additions that were not in the original Hebrew. He is asking the question, 'Which version is the better of the two?' Since the churches preferred the Theodotion version, he submitted to their judgment on the matter. This has nothing to do with a Catholic versus Protestant canon of Scripture! Only an ignorant and illiterate fool would make such assertions. The Theodotion version had a greater fidelity to the Hebrew, which is why the title of Jerome's next section in this letter is titled, 'A vindication of the importance of the Hebrew Text of Scripture.'

"The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew." —Jerome, Against Rufinus, 2.34

"The churches of the Lord Saviour do not read the Prophet Daniel according to the Seventy interpreters, using (instead) the edition of Theodotion, and I don't know why this happened. For whether because the language is Chaldean and differs in certain properties from our speech, (or) the Seventy interpreters were not willing to keep the same lines in the translation, or the book was edited under their name by some unknown other who did not sufficiently know the Chaldean language, or not knowing anything else which was the cause, I can affirm this one thing, that it often differs from the truth and with proper judgment is repudiated." —Jerome, Prologue to Daniel

After the 4th century councils, here is a letter that demonstrates the Jerome never changed his opinion on the matter of canonical Scripture.

"Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy Scriptures; and in these let her think less of gilding, and Babylonian parchment, and arabesque patterns, than of correctness and accurate punctuation. Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon. From the Preacher let her gain the habit of despising the world and its vanities. Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and of patience. Then let her pass on to the Gospels, never to be laid aside when once they have been taken in hand. Let her also drink in with a willing heart the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. As soon as she has enriched the storehouse of her mind with these treasures, let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch [the first 7 books of the Hebrew Bible], the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs, but not before: for, were she to read it at the beginning, she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this she would suffer hurt from it. Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt." —Jerome, Letter 107.12

An earlier letter, which is not as comprehensive as this one, also lists books considered canon:

"Genesis, we shall be told, needs no explanation; its topics are too simple - the birth of the world, the origin of the human race, the division of the earth, the confusion of tongues, and the descent of the Hebrews into Egypt! Exodus, no doubt, is equally plain...." —Jerome, Letter 53.8

Again, your historically ignorant and illiterate Catholics (and other believers) will attempt to claim that in his earlier life Jerome held to the apocrypha and then narrowed his view, but this is completely false. Nobody is attempting to argue that he had a narrower view and then later in life widened it to include the apocrypha.

"The available evidence indicates that Jerome consistently excluded the deuterocanonical books from the Christian canon of Scripture. There seems, then, to be no reason to think that Jerome ever adhered to an OT canon different from the one he endorsed in the Prol. Gal. Moreover, there are reasons to think that Jerome came to approve the narrower canon very early in his career. Jerome's theory regard the deuterocanonicals did not substantially develop. All of our evidence indicates that he always considered them outside the canon." —Edmon L. Gallagher, "The Old Testament 'Apocrypha' in Jerome's Canonical Theory," Journal of Early Christian Studies, 20.2, 214, 222, 233

Jerome was considered authoritative on this matter for 1,100 years until the Council of Trent. Thomas de Vio acknowledged that Jerome considered Judith, Tobit, the books of the Maccabees, the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, etc., to be outside the canonical books and among the apocrypha. This opinion was uncontested for 1,100 years. All the way up to the Council of Trent, and even beyond by good Catholic scholars, the apocryphal books were contested. They were never accepted as canonical books. Observe:

"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament." —Rufinus, Exposition of the Creed 37

"But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not 'canonical but 'ecclesiastical' by the ancients: that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees." —Rufinus, Exposition of the Creed 38

"The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: that books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles makes ten, the words of the days of Esra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, ten Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome." —Hilary, Expositions of the Psalms 15

Yet again, your historically ignorant and illiterate Catholics (and other believers) will reference where a so-called "church father" quotes from deuterocanonical books and refers to them as "Scripture," and then they will strut around as if they have won the argument. If these men were saying that these works were canonical Scripture by their quoting it, then why did they deliberately exclude them from their lists of canonical books? Jerome was very clear on this: "Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures..."

"Of (the divine Scripture) read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.
For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one books; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament." —Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.35

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament." —Athanasius, Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, 4

"There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." —Athanasius, Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, 7

"Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and Second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch..." —John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.12

NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The first surviving list of canonical texts dates to approximately 170AD in what is now known as the “Muratorian Fragment”, a partial copy of an ancient text discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan in the 18th century. This document affirmed and acknowledged Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Jude, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation as reliable, apostolic Scripture. The author of the Muratorian Fragment was also careful to warn his readers about Paul’s alleged letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians, and a document known as the “Apocalypse of Peter” (identifying these as forgeries). Even this early in history, in regions spanning Europe and the Mediterranean, Christians already possessed and guarded the New Testament texts:

IN FRANCE: Irenaeus (185AD) Affirmed as Many as 24 New Testament Books
Irenaeus grew up in Smyrna while Polycarp (the disciple of the apostle John) was the Bishop there. Irenaeus eventually became the Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now called Lyons) and wrote an expansive volume called “Against Heresies” in 185AD. Throughout the many chapters of this text, he quoted the New Testament (over one thousand times) to make his case against a variety of heresies appearing on the scene. In quoting the New Testament documents, he referred to at least twenty-one of the books we presently possess in our Bible (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). But, in addition to this, scholars believe Irenaeus alluded to a number of additional texts, including Hebrews, James and perhaps even 2 Peter. Irenaeus is silent with regard to Philemon, 3 John and Jude, although this does not necessarily mean he was unaware of the books or rejected them as inspired. Irenaeus also referred to the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of John, but no other 2nd Century book related to Jesus was recognized as authentic.

IN ITALY: Hippolytus (220AD) Affirmed as Many as 24 New Testament Books
Hippolytus was born in Rome and became a disciple of Irenaeus. He was a prolific writer, and one of his most important works was a text known as “Refutation of All Heresies”. Over the course of his many writings, Hippolytus acknowledged and affirmed most of the New Testament documents (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). It also appears, however, he was aware of 2 Peter and James, but he does not list them openly. In addition, Hippolytus quotes from Hebrews directly (and also the Shepherd of Hermas), but not as though they are Scripture.

IN EGYPT: Origen (225AD) Affirmed as Many as 27 New Testament Books
Origen of Alexandria was a brilliant Church leader who travelled broadly and was fully aware of the catalogue of differing views related to Jesus. He was also fully aware of the teachings within the Church from region to region. Perhaps for this reason, Origen’s use and affirmation of the eyewitness books and letters is significant. Even though late emerging texts were known to Origen, his many letters and writings fail to affirm heretical non-canonical works. Instead, Origen categorized the existing texts of the ancient world into three classes: the universally accepted eyewitness writings of the apostles, those books whose apostolic authorship was doubted, and those books clearly not the product of the original eyewitnesses. He acknowledged Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation as Scripture. He also acknowledged believers within the church had their doubts about Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews (a version of the Gospel of Matthew). While Origen believed the books in this second group were also reliable Scripture, he recognized and tolerated other views.

IN PALESTINE: Eusebius (324AD) Affirmed 26 New Testament Books
Eusebius was the Bishop of Cæsarea. Like Origen, Eusebius acknowledged a list of trustworthy apostolic writings, and he also divided his list into three categories. Eusebius’ first group included the universally accepted eyewitness accounts and letters of the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation). His second group included contested books. He divided the contested texts into a superior and inferior group. The superior group included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Eusebius maintained that these books should be considered Scripture, but he conceded not everyone agreed on this issue. His second group of contested books included the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter. All other ancient texts related to Jesus were placed in the third category which Eusebius considered fraudulent.

Writings like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas were passed among the congregations, and even quoted from, but they were never listed as canonical in any list.

CONCLUSION

A lot of ignorant and unlearned individuals will claim that Protestants "removed" books from the Bible. This extends all the way into the absurd, attempting to include things like the Gnostic writings (e.g., The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas). Neither the apocryphal books, the deuterocanonical books, nor the Gnostic books were ever considered as canonical Scripture. They have always been largely contested and repudiated by the majority.

Yes, the 66-book Bible may be new, but all 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture were affirmed to be canonical. Why do I say "the 66-book Bible may be new"? Have you not been paying attention? First and second Kings (now known as First and Second Samuel) were one book. Third and Fourth Kings (now known as First and Second Kings) were one book. First and Second Chronicles were one book. Ezra and Nehemiah were one book. Jeremiah and Lamentations were one book. Even Luke and Acts are believed to have been one book at one point. So if there were originally 22 books in the Hebrew Bible (corresponding to their alphabet), and 26 in the New Testament, that makes for a 48-book Bible.

Arguing over the number of books in the Bible only exposes the number of fools out there who are historically and Scripturally ignorant. If you are a Roman Catholic or some sort of Orthodox and you are arguing for a 73-to-81-book Bible, you are absolutely wrong because the apocryphal writings have always been contested and repudiated as canonical Scripture; you have no support for your canonicity of Scripture. If you are a Protestant and you are arguing for a 66-book Bible, you are also wrong. The only point at which you are correct is with regard to the titles of the separated books. But the reckoning of an actual number of books from the early Christians would result in a 48-book Bible. A 66-book Bible never existed until they split the original books because of their size. In Hebrew, First and Second Samuel used to fit on a single scroll. In translation, its size practically doubled. That is how we end up with First and Second Samuel.

If any believers are going to attempt to argue this subject matter, make sure you know what you are talking about by doing your homework. Do not rely on the ignorance of others and the ignorant claims they have made. There is far too much of that in the Lord's Congregation and in the world. Some so-called "expert" or "authority" says something and people automatically start regurgitating it as if it is the least bit true. Then you have millions of people believing something that is absolutely false. I could list off two dozen examples just off the top of my head, let alone all the others that exist.

None of the books claimed to be "removed" from the Bible were ever removed from the Bible because they had never occupied such a position. Such books have always been contested and repudiated throughout Christian history. These are the facts that Alex Jurado needs to come to terms with.