Paul reshaping the church

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Paul and Timothy were going among the Jews and part of the meet and great ritual was for the guys to whip out their dicks and show that they were circumcised to that they could hobnob with the local Jews.  So Paul had to do some slicing on Timothy in order for them to get into the clique. After sucking on Timothy's bloody penis Paul said to hell with that and he dropped circumcision requirement.  It was a big break with the Jewish faction but he didn't give a damn.

FWIW, I'm adding you to my ignore list.

That's nice. You know why cardinals wear red rodes? SO that when they give blow jobs to bloody dicks the blood isn't as noticeable on their robes.

[Aractus]

I haven't read Against Heresies in a few years, but my understanding is that Irenaeus rejects the Gnostic texts because, unlike the traditional texts, they were neither ancient nor universally revered. He makes the claim that there was a universal faith and that it was held by churches all over the known world--churches that had little contact with one another due to the great distance between them (a point he emphasized, if I remember correctly). The Gnostics, on the other hand, were isolated groups that sprang up at random with their own peculiar texts.

He rejected them because they were different to the version of Christianity that he belonged to. He had no way of knowing or proving which of the Gnostic texts were written in the first century, and which had been written later - just as he failed to recognise texts that ended up in the New Testament that didn't belong (1-2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter). It's simply what he believed an an outsider to their versions of second century Christianity.

All meat has blood in it, so that's a bit vague. Most commentaries focus on dishes which are primarily or obviously blood-laden...like blood pudding, for example. Beyond this, I will concede that Paul chafed against the legalistic rituals of the Old Covenant, but I also think we can agree that he had a temper and tended to speak his mind a little too freely on occasion. Maybe this was one of those moments.

I have to say (as a Catholic) that Peter did have the authority to establish doctrine by virtue of his position as the "vicar of Christ" (cf. Mt. 16:18-19). His decision with regard to the election of Matthew and the baptism of the household of Cornelius are two such examples. I also think that the Council ratified Peter's decision; it did not make the decision. We can discuss my reasoning if you're interested.

Your explanation is that they were not to eat Black Pudding? I think it's clear they're affirming the command given in Leviticus 17:13 to drain blood from the animal before it is eaten.

As for you're argument that Peter made the decision - that's not at all what Acts 15 says. It says in no uncertain terms that James makes the final decision: Acts 15:19 "Therefore I conclude ..." The focus of Acts 15 is not on Peter at all. He's mentioned and he speaks, but he isn't central to the proceedings. In any case, the letters of Paul prove that he was much more important than Peter at that time, for the branch of Christianity he belonged to. I'm not saying Peter wasn't important, but his branch of Christianity didn't survive, whereas Paul's did.

if Paul was going to ignore the Council, why bother going to Jerusalem in the first place?

Because he wanted to convince the other leaders to do as he was doing.

The OT prophets had a limited vision of how their prophecies would be fulfilled; the later prophets had more clarity about the Messiah than the earlier ones, for example. The Israelites did not conceive of a New Covenant that would include the Gentiles.

No, clearly the prophecy was wrong. Just like almost all other prophecies in the Bible. Just like Jesus's prophecy that the Son of Man would come in the same lifetime as the disciples:

Matthew 16:28 "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

There's no two ways about it, his prophecy was wrong. You don't test a prophecy by changing it when it doesn't happen to suit what actually happens, you test it by taking its direct claim. Now you might say "these are prophecies for later on" - the Bible explicitly says such prophecies are forbidden, and prophets are expected to prophecy future events within their own lifetimes:

Deuteronomy 18:22 whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.”

Jeremiah 28:8-9 From earliest times, the prophets who preceded you and me invariably prophesied war, disaster, and plagues against many countries and great kingdoms. So if a prophet prophesied peace and prosperity, it was only known that the Lord truly sent him when what he prophesied came true.”

So by the Bible's own standards the prophecies I've mentioned are invalid. They didn't come to pass. To Bible explicitly tells us not to listen to people like Jeremiah and Jesus if their prophecies fail!

Perhaps you could share some of these "contradictions"?

Jesus taught to follow the Law of Moses and to play nice with the Romans (render to Caesar what is his) see Matt 5:17-18, Mark 12:17. On the other hand we have Paul saying "don't worry about the Law" and "fuck the Romans and their ways". You have Jesus doing things publicly and advocating for public preaching, but Paul and co. transform the church into a secretive organisation that meets in people's houses and doesn't have public displays of their faith - other than their anti-Roman behaviours that attract attention from authorities.

So, when someone comes along from outside these lines of Apostolic Succession and teaching strange doctrines, they were rejected because they were not teaching those things which were handed on (Gr. tradere - "tradition") of the Apostles.

None of them in the second century had direct apostolic succession. All of the important early church characters/leaders were either presumed dead by 70AD, or are not known to have lived after it. Jesus and John the Baptist. Stephen and James, Simeon, James the Just, Peter, Paul, etc.

Paul by the way, while he did know the family of Jesus, never met him himself. Neither did our other major NT author, Luke. There is also progression of mythology in the New Testament. For example, Mark and Paul don't know about the bodily resurrection of Jesus and nor do they seem to know just how evil Judas Iscariot is. True they mention celestial ascension, but that's far from a bodily resurrection. There are Old Testament characters said to have been raised to the celestial realm, it's not unique. At the same time the character of Judas Iscariot is made progressively more sinister: Paul never bothers mentioning Judas at all. Mark mentions him as an apostle, but doesn't bother portraying him as evil incarnate. Instead it simply says that he has decided to betray Jesus into the hands of the chief priests who were "delighted by this and offered him money". Then at the Last Supper Jesus mentions to his disciples that one will betray him, but he doesn't say who. In Mark, Judas never dies at the end.

In Matthew and Luke Judas is now much more sinister. Matthew claims that he solicits money from the chief priests to betray Jesus, and then at the Last supper he has the audacity to say "surely not I, Lord" to which Jesus outs him in front of the other disciples. Luke on the other hand claims that Satan entered Judas who then went to chief priests to betray Jesus and they were "delighted" as in Mark. And also as in Mark, the Last Supper goes on without any mention of who will betray him. Interestingly out of the three accounts, only Matthew claims that Judas was the one to solicit money, and only Luke claims that he was possessed by Satan. John then goes further still by claiming that Judas Iscariot is a thief. A claim the synoptic writers never bothered to make. And meanwhile, despite making numerous references to Jesus's death, Paul doesn't seem to think Judas is important enough to even mention.

So you can see clearly the progression of mythology surrounding Jesus's death and supposed resurrection. And this is just the growth/expansion of mythology from c.50AD to 90AD.

[robvalue]

I do like the shapes of churches. It's my favourite thing about Christianity. If that was down to Paul, he did one thing right.

[athrock]

I have to say (as a Catholic) that Peter did have the authority to establish doctrine by virtue of his position as the "vicar of Christ" (cf. Mt. 16:18-19). His decision with regard to the election of Matthew and the baptism of the household of Cornelius are two such examples. I also think that the Council ratified Peter's decision; it did not make the decision. We can discuss my reasoning if you're interested.

As for you're argument that Peter made the decision - that's not at all what Acts 15 says. It says in no uncertain terms that James makes the final decision: Acts 15:19 "Therefore I conclude ..." The focus of Acts 15 is not on Peter at all. He's mentioned and he speaks, but he isn't central to the proceedings. In any case, the letters of Paul prove that he was much more important than Peter at that time, for the branch of Christianity he belonged to. I'm not saying Peter wasn't important, but his branch of Christianity didn't survive, whereas Paul's did.

This is a common misunderstanding of the text of Acts 15, so I'm going to give you a lengthy explanation. Perhaps you will be more interested in Catholicism after reading it.  

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how ...” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised ..., you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

"Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter's Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God's work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself...19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them..." (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter's doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own local flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter's decision. James accepted Peter's teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that he, James, the leader of the "Judaizers", really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

One other point...you may recall that James insisted on a prohibition against eating the meat from strangled animals. Does anyone pay any attention to that ruling of James? If not, what does that say about James' real significance at the council and his authority to bind and loose?

So, it's not that Paul initiated his own brand of Christianity, Aractus...it's that James' ideas about strangled meat and blood - inserted as a concession to the Judaizing members of the Diocese of Jerusalem - were never taken very seriously by the universal Church. 

Or so it seems to me. 

[athrock]

The OT prophets had a limited vision of how their prophecies would be fulfilled; the later prophets had more clarity about the Messiah than the earlier ones, for example. The Israelites did not conceive of a New Covenant that would include the Gentiles.

No, clearly the prophecy was wrong. Just like almost all other prophecies in the Bible. Just like Jesus's prophecy that the Son of Man would come in the same lifetime as the disciples:

Matthew 16:28 "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 16 was fulfilled at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17. So, the rest of this is moot:

---

There's no two ways about it, his prophecy was wrong. You don't test a prophecy by changing it when it doesn't happen to suit what actually happens, you test it by taking its direct claim. Now you might say "these are prophecies for later on" - the Bible explicitly says such prophecies are forbidden, and prophets are expected to prophecy future events within their own lifetimes:

Deuteronomy 18:22 whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.”

Jeremiah 28:8-9 From earliest times, the prophets who preceded you and me invariably prophesied war, disaster, and plagues against many countries and great kingdoms. So if a prophet prophesied peace and prosperity, it was only known that the Lord truly sent him when what he prophesied came true.”

So by the Bible's own standards the prophecies I've mentioned are invalid. They didn't come to pass. To Bible explicitly tells us not to listen to people like Jeremiah and Jesus if their prophecies fail!

---

Perhaps you could share some of these "contradictions"?

Jesus taught to follow the Law of Moses and to play nice with the Romans (render to Caesar what is his) see Matt 5:17-18, Mark 12:17. On the other hand we have Paul saying "don't worry about the Law" and "fuck the Romans and their ways". You have Jesus doing things publicly and advocating for public preaching, but Paul and co. transform the church into a secretive organisation that meets in people's houses and doesn't have public displays of their faith - other than their anti-Roman behaviours that attract attention from authorities.

I just did a quick search of several translations online, and I can't find "fuck the Romans"...what translation was that from?  

As for becoming "secretive"...well, yeah, persecutions, arrests and beheadings will tend to do that. But for all that, Aractus, Christianity still overran the mighty Roman Empire within three centuries. So, your argument is a bit weak here.

So, when someone comes along from outside these lines of Apostolic Succession and teaching strange doctrines, they were rejected because they were not teaching those things which were handed on (Gr. tradere - "tradition") of the Apostles.

None of them in the second century had direct apostolic succession. All of the important early church characters/leaders were either presumed dead by 70AD, or are not known to have lived after it. Jesus and John the Baptist. Stephen and James, Simeon, James the Just, Peter, Paul, etc.

I just showed you the apostolic succession...perhaps you don't understand what the term means?

Jesus > John > Polycarp > Irenaeus > Hippolytus

Irenaeus and Hippolytus are second-century men with direct apostolic succession.

Paul by the way, while he did know the family of Jesus, never met him himself. Neither did our other major NT author, Luke.

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Luke did not meet Jesus personally, but he had opportunity to interview many of those who had. These undoubtedly include Peter (in Rome), Mary and John (in Ephesus?) and others.

There is also progression of mythology in the New Testament. For example, Mark and Paul don't know about the bodily resurrection of Jesus and nor do they seem to know just how evil Judas Iscariot is.

In Mark 16, Mark has an angel say, "He is risen." Why write that if Jesus was still in the tomb? You are badly mistaken here.

True they mention celestial ascension, but that's far from a bodily resurrection. There are Old Testament characters said to have been raised to the celestial realm, it's not unique. At the same time the character of Judas Iscariot is made progressively more sinister: Paul never bothers mentioning Judas at all. Mark mentions him as an apostle, but doesn't bother portraying him as evil incarnate. Instead it simply says that he has decided to betray Jesus into the hands of the chief priests who were "delighted by this and offered him money". Then at the Last Supper Jesus mentions to his disciples that one will betray him, but he doesn't say who. In Mark, Judas never dies at the end.

In Matthew and Luke Judas is now much more sinister. Matthew claims that he solicits money from the chief priests to betray Jesus, and then at the Last supper he has the audacity to say "surely not I, Lord" to which Jesus outs him in front of the other disciples. Luke on the other hand claims that Satan entered Judas who then went to chief priests to betray Jesus and they were "delighted" as in Mark. And also as in Mark, the Last Supper goes on without any mention of who will betray him. Interestingly out of the three accounts, only Matthew claims that Judas was the one to solicit money, and only Luke claims that he was possessed by Satan. John then goes further still by claiming that Judas Iscariot is a thief. A claim the synoptic writers never bothered to make. And meanwhile, despite making numerous references to Jesus's death, Paul doesn't seem to think Judas is important enough to even mention.

So you can see clearly the progression of mythology surrounding Jesus's death and supposed resurrection. And this is just the growth/expansion of mythology from c.50AD to 90AD.

Mark was writing a brief gospel; there are many details he does not include.  So, big whoop.

Paul did not write a biography of Jesus. So, why mention Judas at all? 

As for the other differences, these small discrepancies suggest that the authors were independently attesting to a common story. If they were in lock-step agreement, skeptics would be screaming "COLLUSION!" at the top of their lungs.  

[John V]

@OP:

Read Acts 15 again. They don't decide that it is sin for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to idols per se, but rather they set that rule to avoid contention - Acts 15:21 - For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

Likewise, Paul says that eating such meat isn't sinful, but also wishes that it be avoided where it would cause contention - 1 Cor 10 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?

[Aractus]

This is a common misunderstanding of the text of Acts 15, so I'm going to give you a lengthy explanation. Perhaps you will be more interested in Catholicism after reading it.  

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

No offence but what you posted hardly counts as a critical evaluation of the evidence. We can't say for sure how much of Acts 13-28 is accurate, and how much of it isn't. It's written down c. 61-75 AD, and we also can't say whether the author was Luke and had at least some first hand knowledge of Acts 13-28, or Luke's associate and only had second-hand knowledge at best. If he's Luke's associate then it explains why he gives a completely different account of Paul's conversion to the one Paul himself gives.

You misunderstand my claim in any case. I said that Peter was the head of one branch of Christianity, Paul of another, James of another, and so on. At the council itself it was James who gave the decision. This did not indicate that he was a higher authority to the others, but indicates that he was of at least equal authority to Peter and Paul and that it had probably been decided that he should act as the head of the Council.

Matthew 16 was fulfilled at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17. So, the rest of this is moot:

Don't be ridiculous. They see Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration, they don't see the "one like the son of many coming on the clouds of heaven" as is prophesied in Daniel and is what Jesus is referring to.

As for becoming "secretive"...well, yeah, persecutions, arrests and beheadings will tend to do that. But for all that, Aractus, Christianity still overran the mighty Roman Empire within three centuries. So, your argument is a bit weak here.

New evidence shows that the Romans faced a terrible plague caused by the Black Death bacteria. At the time, people were intensely superstitious and this gave opportunity for religions such as Christianity which claimed to be able to cure infirmity to grow and rapidly recruit new members.

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Luke did not meet Jesus personally, but he had opportunity to interview many of those who had. These undoubtedly include Peter (in Rome), Mary and John (in Ephesus?) and others.

No he didn't. He had a revelation "about" Jesus on the road to Damascus, he doesn't even claim to have had a vision of Jesus - let alone "met him" (Galatians 1:15-16).

In Mark 16, Mark has an angel say, "He is risen." Why write that if Jesus was still in the tomb? You are badly mistaken here.

Risen means simply that he believed Jesus was taken to the celestial realm. He did not believe he returned back to earth from it.

Paul did not write a biography of Jesus. So, why mention Judas at all?

Because he mentions specifically the "Lord's supper" and gives an account of it in Corinthians. He is not aware that it is the "Last" supper. He makes numerous other references to Jesus's death, but never mentions him being resurrected, never mentions Judas betraying him: even though he's happy to put the blame squarely on the Jews. For example:

1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 For you became imitators, brothers and sisters, of God’s churches in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, because you too suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they in fact did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us severely.

See what I mean? He doesn't care one bit about Judas - he never even bothers mentioning him. This guy that according to Luke was "possessed by Satan"!

[Minimalist]

They aren't MY ideas asshole.  There is a whole school of thought dedicated to it.

You should put your fucking bible down and read the Dutch Radical critics sometime.  It might help you look like less of a schmuck.

Well, I'm sure there are "whole school[s] of thought" devoted to many ideas, but when the mainstream rejects an idea, it's because the idea lacks evidence. It's true that I'm not a trained scholar. However, I don't think I'm an "a**hole" for deferring to the mainstream when it comes to an area outside of my expertise. If these "Dutch Radicals" had substantial insight, the mainstream would have no reason to roll its eyes.

You just keep telling yourself while you hide behind traditionalist bullshit.

[Minimalist]

Here, Danny.  Now can denounce this guy as a "radical" too.... which, btw, is character assassination and not refutation.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?

Marcion was one of the best known Christian leaders in the early church, and, in my judgment, Acts was written as, at least in part, a response to the challenge he presented.[5] It an-swers the Marcionite contentions point by point. Marcion stressed the distance between Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures, but the author of Acts repeatedly showed that Paul and all the other Christian preachers maintained that Jesus fulfilled the predictions of the Hebrew prophets. Mar-cion claimed that Paul was the only apostle, but Acts portrays him as at one with Peter and the others, even subservient to them on some occasions, and it even defines apostleship in a way that excludes Paul. Marcion called Peter and the others "false apostles," in contrast to Paul, but Acts not only characterizes them as in total agreement with Paul but even goes so far as to attribute to Peter the first conversion of a Gentile (Acts 10:1-11:18). Marcion maintained that Paul pro-claimed a God of grace, who released humankind from the domination of the God of Torah, but the author of Acts characterized Paul as a Torah-observant Jew and a devout Pharisee. Marcion taught that Jesus brought Torah to an end, but Acts showed that the apostles and Paul agreed that some things from Torah were still to be required even of Gentile believers (see Acts 15:20).

Conceiving Acts as an anti-Marcionite text enables us to appreciate the contribution of its author. This author is not merely telling the story of the rise of Christianity, nor is he simply at-tempting to address the problem of Jewish rejection of the Gospel.

Marcion was active c 140 in Asia Minor.  He was the first to produce a "canon" of xtian texts comprising what later morphed into the gospel of "Luke" and 10 so-called epistles of this paul guy according to later xtian writers.  Thus a date before 140 would be impossible and it would have to take a little time at least to come up with serviceable redactions of any of Marcion's papers to fit with the theology that the proto-orthodox were working up.  We know that as late as c. 160 AD, Justin Martyr had still not heard of any "paul" although he did know of Marcion.  My guess is that the entire story was concocted and passed off sometime between 165-180 AD.

[Drich]

Nope I ignored it. Disprove what I said, don't try to provide an elaborate explanation.

Im not arguing that Paul did not follow the decision made for those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. What I am saying is the command made in Acts 15 were for the gentile converts in those specific churches. Otherwise The letter would have been addressed to all believers and not to just those in the 3 churches mentioned.

"To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=NKJV

What my Post does is refute your understanding that Paul was in the wrong for Giving the people in other regions that the gentiles in Antioch, syria and cilicia were bound to.

Again, at no point in the 1st century's Church history was the church ever meant to worship the same exact way/Follow one set of rules.