[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Looking back at the earlier posts, it just seems to me that there is some status being given to John due to the fact, or claim, of a lineage of "disciples" and taken away, at least a little, from Paul because there is no such record. But is the record of those who followed John so stellar?

True. You note the "bishop" idea flowing from one of John's supposed disciples. This is indeed problematic to my conceptual arrangement, and I fully admit it. This is why I am very much at the provisional stage in my thinking. If other conceptual arrangement is provided to explain the things which I've pointed out, I'll reconfigure accordingly.

Originally Posted by OBW

Even if we dismiss the "clergy-laity" flack from Lee as a red herring, we admit that overly-structured hierarchies breed problems and solve few. But isn't it the writings of these disciples of John that began to create a hierarchy of elders, bishops, etc.?

Duly noted.

Originally Posted by OBW

I recently commented in the other forum that we seem to be too eager to read between the lines of the record in scripture. We are looking for preferences. We want to either prove that elders were OK or in error based on outcomes. Well the whole system that existed in Martin Luther's time was the result of a succession of errors that all were claimed to spring from scripture. If that is our yardstick then we should seriously consider a new canon of scripture.

No. I would merely say that those folks didn't do enough critical thinking when they claimed the authority of scriptures. Obviously that is what I am hoping to do. Not overturn scriptures, but think critically about what circumstances prompted the things we read about.

Originally Posted by OBW

What I am questioning is whether we shoulbd be digging for weak links so we can decide what was a bad example (like Lee did regarding the letter from James) and what was a good example, or we should note the conditions that existed that were spoken of, positively or negatively, and search ourselves for those things. Have we (I) left our first love? Have we followed pagan practices as part of our Christian experience? Have we allowed evil to become prominent in our assembly? Have we elevated our ways in our own eyes to the extent that we no longer seek? Do we have a form of religion that talks a line that is not lived? Are we actively following the Spirit or passively waiting for something to make us quit sinning? Are we holding to Christ's teachings or merely studying them, believing them, and speaking highly of them?

Agreed. I have been thinking these same thoughts lately. I can go on about the "truth" that I see in the scriptures, but how much do I live in the reality? Easy to see the mote in someone else's eye, while the boulder in my own lies unchallenged.

The problem with these boards is that we have pretty much no way of ascertaining the manner of life of the other posters, whether they walk the talk or they just type it and hit "send". But in the judgment seat of Christ it will be our living that weighs more than our proclamations and declamations.

On the other hand, it is the "truth that sets you free". Some of the ideas I've been exposed to on the boards have been quite liberating to me. Basically they've freed me from getting hung up on the externals.

And, while I'm on the subject, I might add that it's possible that the nascent organization-building activities of the church "fathers" might have led to some of the problems noted in the epistles to the Asian assemblies. Bro. Hope noted this when he wrote about how the "work" and the "deputy authority" ultimately usurped the first love toward our Bridegroom, Christ. We toss folks under the bus when they can't get with the program. But the first command is to love our neighbor. Instead we love our organization, our movement, our doctrines. Any truth which releases us from such bondage would be welcomed indeed.

Originally Posted by OBW

As with some other discussions, I will simply point out my concern that we are seeking answers in extrapolating into what is not recorded based only the very little that is recorded. It requires an unsupported story much more substantial than what is recorded in scripture to arrive at what it seems you seek.

True. My search is very tentative, based on scanty records and my own subjective "connect the dots" thinking. I understand that 90% of the readers would likely be unsatisfied. But my dot connecting is more satisfying to me than 90% of what I see out there (I admit to a possible anti-establishment bias. ).

Originally Posted by OBW

Surely there is something in error about the establishment of a hierarchy of positions. (Interesting that it was John's "disciples" that got that going.) But man's error does not negate the sound spiritual purpose of elders. If John had not somehow supported elders, how would his "disciples" have taken it further? Surely if "elders" was just something from Paul, then Polycarp and others would not have had an elder to rise up to the level of a bishop .

I am glad you noted this. I, too, have noticed this & in fairness should have pointed it out in my hypothesis. It is a major weakness in one of the planks of my hypothesis(John having remaining disciples while Paul does not).

Originally Posted by OBW

I will not simply keep this up unless you choose to reply to my points. This is not intended for debate, but consideration. That does not mean that I might not challenge, agree with, or otherwise comment on particular points along the way. But I do not say these things just to create a diversionary argument. If you continue with your discussion (with or without any consideration of what I have written) I am not trying to stop you. Just adding what I believe is a missing element.

Your points are excellent. I would have responded more in depth to your earlier post except I was pressed for time so I only answered one point.

No, I don't believe I am elevating one scripture or ministry over any others. I am trying to solve a puzzle. The Bible presents a chronological narrative, and the end is not so stellar, at least as far as the "local churches" goes. If the epistles to the Asian assemblies was followed by more hopefull testimonies elsewhere, then I might take them as some exception to what followed -- Constantine, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the 100 Year's war, the religious oppression of Native peoples in both North & South America, the Salem Witch Trials, etc.

It is possible that the issues in Acts 15 on keeping the law, the believers being zealous for the law in Acts 22 & Paul succumbing to this (being a "Jew" to the Jews), Paul & Peter at odds in the record of Galatians over "some from James", the problems in the Asian assemblies, etc are all unrelated to what followed later. Or it is possible they are harbingers of later events. Perhaps the first sprouts are showing, and eventually this becomes the religious image, with a golden cup and a scarlet robe.

In some way my line of inquiry is indebted to Nee & Lee, who pointed out that the Hebrew religion was initially God-given, degraded over time, ultimately replacing God and opposing Him; and this pattern repeated itself with the christians after Christ. However, I think the problem is much deeper than Nee & Lee did, and cannot be rectified by merely aping first-century "normal church practices" or "taking the ground" or such. Thus, I am rooting around in the scriptures; looking for trouble as it were.