"Do not be called teachers"--Doesn't Jesus OUTLAW all organized religion?

humbled

JW's and other churches all set up housekeeping in different theological areas. Why? Some one person can't believe any more what their church is saying, gets a different "take" on God, and......starts trying to convince others to follow them and everything they teach.

Nothing new about that. But why are so many of us blind to this scenario: We allow that SOME people get to contemplate other thoughts and others are not allowed.Only some lead and everyone else must follow or be thrown out

We seem so tied to the idea of relating to life through another's experience or another's prejudice that we don't allow for the Father to be our father, for Jesus to teach each of us. Of course, this would even call into question the authority of the letters and the revelations of the apostles

The obvious hitch to this would seem to be this: Why would we even allow Jesus be our teacher? Well, oddly, stripping away as best I can other's commentary in the scriptures and reading "heretical" writings of other accounts of this remarkable Jew/shaman?/holy man/son of man/son of god/savior, I find he merely gave us back to the "only Good one--God" Luke 18:19

It would be the end of "theology" as I know it. But would it bring chaos? I think not if god is love and not the trash that others have taught us.

What do you think--Check it out at Matt. 23:8-10.

Maeve

This throws the door open

tec

It would be the end of "theology" as I know it.

It would, I agree. Everyone just listening to the ONE teacher: Christ.

But would it bring chaos? I think not if god is love and not the trash that others have taught us.

We have chaos now, and that is with theology and leaders and teachers of men.

I agree with you also, that listening to Christ and belonging to Him... not filtered through men who do not themselves understand... would bring UNITY.

This is a good thread, Maeve. Because despite the fact that we can give our witnesses to Christ... we are not the teachers and no one should follow US, or even take our word for anything. At the least that would be a lack of faith on our behalf that Christ can call and teach those who call upon Him; and at worse it would be man trying to get glory for himself, taking the focus off of Christ and preventing people from going to Him. Certainly one is called to 'test the inspired expressions'.

Christ is the teacher, and the Life. Look to and follow Him.

Peace,

tammy

Isidore

Christ, if you believe in Him (I do), established a Church. He promised it would guided into all truth, never be destroyed, endowed it with His power to bind and loose and also enpowered it to speak on His behalf. In addition, He spoke in terms of "my way or the highway", not to be a tyrant, but because He made us, and He knows what's best for us.

Christ did not start a "religion", He started a divine salvific instrument. When one examines the evidence, he either was a lunatic, a liar, or Lord. I myself have opted for the last.

Satanus

You allow for jesus to be god by nature, but no else can be god by nature.

S

Isidore

Logic and reason eliminates "many gods". There can only be one uncaused causer...

Crazyguy

He came and told us to be free, just have love for one another and for his father. If we do that then nothing else would be needed. But people want to be lead or have an idea that they feel must be thrown out there so we end up with religions and cults and religious cults etc etc. So Sad.

Isidore

Crazyguy, I understand some of what you're saying, however, for 16 centuries there was only one church. Today, there are 40,000 break away denomominations. Can this be what Christ intended when he established only one?

humbled

Isadore, it is supposed that Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew (reading the Torah), and likely the Koine Greek--even some Latin?(there were a lot of foriegn occupation that had gone on there) The word "church" if you and I want to understand each other needs to be looked at.

The Greek Scriptures/New Testament uses the word ekklesia where English speakers say "church".

So what does ekklesia mean?

You tell me what YOU think "church" is. I found the Greek definition of the word is not what I had thought as a child.

Perhaps it has a meaning that was lost in translation.

I follow Jesus as closely as I can--meaning I do care what he meant when the word ekklesia is used. I do not care what any church says it means.

What did Jesus mean.

I am glad you care enough to say something.

Maeve

Isidore

Humbled, below is what Strong's Concordance has to say about "Church-Ekklesia"

Church = ekklesia
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b. the assembly of the Israelites
c. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d. in a Christian sense
1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Most versions of scripture, even amongst Protestants, use "Church". So, while "congregation" might be a fine translation on some levels, it could be found wanting in others. So it is important to look at where and how the term is used in the NT.

In the Gospels the term is used only twice. Both times in Matthew and both times by Christ Himself AND both times it is connected to the granting of authority to "Bind and Loose". (Mt 16:17-19) (Mt 18:15-18) This connection implies more than a simple "congregation" and FAR more than the "invisible church" idea of most protestants.

Jesus grants authority to bind and loose to His Church. That Church (in Acts 15) acts upon this authority to settle a doctrinal question that had effect, not in a single "local" community, but in all the "Ekkleisa" - universally.
So, based on this and looking at what St Paul says about the Ekklesia being the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), it would make sense that he is talking about a universal, visible and authoritative Ekklesia (Church) and not a loosely connected collection of "local communities" tied together in some "invisible church" that all share some shared loose belief in Christ.

In addition, it's important to see how the successors to the Apostles understood this. This can be gleaned from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, many of whom knew and were ordained by the Apostles themselves. Clearly, it was/is a visible authoritative structure.

Fernando

I love the way you have explained this Maeve, Tammy and company.

The Watchtower's mindless fear of the "end of theology", and their apostate belief that "chaos" will result, is what drives their secret hatred, fear, and obfuscation of the "unabridged gospel" where we are lead by Holy Spirit and not by men and their ideas and organisations.

(Why does the "true religion" secretly blind its followers to the "Good News" according to Paul, Moses, Isaiah and Psalms?)

"Do not be called teachers"--Doesn't Jesus OUTLAW all organized religion?

Share this