Sunday, October 12, 2025

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”?

Saturday, October 04, 2025

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.

Friday, October 03, 2025

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.

Wednesday, October 01, 2025

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!