The Bible Never Mentions Sermons!

Constantine—Roman Emperor 306-337 AD, Replaced Dialogs With Monologs (Sermons) in lavishly designed church buildings, and he bought the finest orators money could buy!

Do you have a friend who never listens to you, who can’t stand the sound of your voice, other than for maybe an occasiona amen? Does that friend consider you to be a serf or a lay person, someone incapable of an inspirational thought, even perhaps after decades of study (Hebrews 5:12-14)? Does that friend expect payment for the dis-service? If so, (1) you need to realize that you are in an abusive relationship, they are not your friend, and that you need help. (2) You need to get a dog, one that usually listens to you, and (3) you need to read this article!

10/4/26 Addition: Is time spent every week staring at the back of someones head while listening to a monologue, singing songs filled with “I” “Me” and “My” or perhaps including sessions of “group speak” to go along with the “group think” really benefitting you or the other participants in the group? Studies are showing that vast numbers of people are very lonely, and having no real friends. This is no minor problem. Civilization itself will not survive this situation!

Among Christians a lack of true friends was never meant to happen. When a person is converted, they are usually said to become part of a brotherhood or better yet a fellowship of believers. But if calling someone a brother or sister means that you suddenly have a special relationship with vast numbers of people you don’t know and can’t even speak with due to the language barrier, the terms are meaningless.

Rising to the level of a brother or sister should be viewed as an actual level of achievement, with a person having expended a measurable amount of time and effort, comparable to having spent a miniscule fraction of time together as siblings normally do. This is actually quantifiable: A “good/close friend” requires about 200+ hours to gain. In a Biblical sense gaining a brother or sister would equally require 200 hours of quality time interacting together. There is a perfectly logical method of gaining a brother or sister by the Jeffrey Hall study standards described in ChatGPT Epilog #1 in green text toward the bottom of this page. Under normal conditions gaining a brother could easily take years. Churchgoers totally ignorant of 1 Corinthians 14:29-40 who put in their seat time before leaving for home might never gain a brother/sister. But if weekly Sabbaths and the commanded assemblies were spent with “casual friends” using the format described in 1 Corinthians 14 were implemented with dialog rather than monologs—sermons that actually score 0 hours personal edification by face time—true brotherhoods could start happening with Sabbaths alone in a year and much faster throwing in the Feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread (Luke 2:41-52) and/or the (:Feast of Tabnacles—Zechariah 14). That could work out as (1) Wake up; (2) Fellowship; (3) Go back to bed; (4) repeat. I distinctly remember Robert Dick, the pastor who oversaw our wedding, mentioning once that the fellowship done on a Sabbath was more important than anything he could say from a podium! This was likely around his 1976 bicentennial monolog, and the last time I ever heard such a view.

Many Messianic people are totally oblivious to the brotherhood opportunities intended for the Feast days between the annual Sabbaths. They just go home and work: something that was not even possible when feasting meant days of treking (and extended fellowship) while walking to and from Jerusalem.

(Armstrong) Church of God people miss most of the brotherhood opportunities by never being allowed serious Biblical studies among themselves and never expressing a trace of of “the hope that lies within you” among anyone else. Young people where I was “host” were not even allowed to open a Bible without a minister present.

End of 10/4/26 Addition:

Chapter 32 Preview: (Prequel to: Elohim (God) Demands Freedom of Speech) Quick! What was last week’s sermon about? Chances are you don’t remember unless the speaker had gone from “preachin” to “meddlin”. Were you asleep? Preachers could revive the old “cattle prod” method of the Puritans, except that most people have learned to “sleep” with their eyes open! Yet the Biblical approach to Sabbath Assemblies would keep you wide awake due to the dynamic participation! Don’t assume that Elohim wants any one-man-show—passive enslavement of the serfs, since the Bible provides a much different scenario. The Sabbath was set aside as a shared learning experience and also because “... it is the point in time when we should awaken from our sleep [ignorance], because our eternal Life is nearer to us than when we first became believers.” (Romans 13:11).

Neither Yeshua or any of His ‘apostles’ ever gave a sermon, they always used dialog (Gr. dialegomai) as we will see. Even the so called “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew chapters 5-7) was just a fourteen minute opening address that that always preceded dialog. In it He mentioned in passing a laundry list of topics worthy of dialog. So why is it that most Sabbatarian Assemblies, or “services”, so closely resemble typical Protestant “church” services? Did the Protestant reformers follow in the footsteps of the envoy’s (apostle’s) protocol? Why did the Sabbatarian assemblies follow the newfangled protestant reformation in regard to this? It should be evident that much knowledge has been lost in the last nearly 2,000 years, but by comparing our every belief and practice with the Bible, we can again approach the faith and doctrine that was once delivered to the cherished ones (saints). There is still so much room for improvement!

In short: Sermons are unmistakably indoctrination—a means of bypassing the natural questioning and dialog of the learning process. An excellent evaluation of this tactic along with the typical accompanying methodology is well illustrated in my ChatGPT Epilog #2 in purple text below. How genuine is a person’s belief system when it’s manufactured by theatrical means?

(There was a distinction between evangelizing (euaggelizó: heralding) to the uninitiated, also described as heralding (Gr. Kerusso) prior to public media, but that is different than weekly Sabbath fare.)

Life is so much simpler when we sincerely ask the right questions. Would it concern you if you were to learn from the Bible that the worship “services” that you attend each Sabbath do not conform to the Biblical format? Would you even care? If the “service” were to be different than the way you are accustomed to, would it make a difference in your life? Could there be a better way than the way we hold “services” now?

The underlying premise of this article is that sermons are not Biblical! The word “sermon” is not mentioned in the Bible! Believe it or not, sermons as they are carried out today actually thwart true spiritual growth. Furthermore, they have probably prevented you from forming a closer connection with your Creator as well as to your brothers and sisters in Yeshua (Jesus). The problem extends far beyond the Latin origin of the term “sermon”. While I favor eradicating the borrowed terminology of the “mainstream churches” when we assemble together, the problem is far more than one of semantics. Sermons form the core of a religious “service” that allows one person to “pontificate” (to use another Latin term) for perhaps an hour, and then people are quickly dismissed. This format has enabled virtually all of Christiandom to maintain iron fisted strangleholds over their own congregations by only allowing “their” doctrines to be preached the way they want them to be preached. This is precisely the totalitarian way—with the threat of eternal death for anyone who would dare to ask too many questions! If it were Biblical that Yehovah (God is a generic title) chose to work thru dictators, or speak thru stones then great, so be it. But is it Biblical? In truth, it is absolutely contrary to the Bible!

Are “Church Services” Biblical?

The traditional religious use of the word “service” has come to mean that the clergy is the master of a flock (rather than their servant) by enforcing the set-in-concrete formats that have evolved.

The idea of a church providing a “service” stems from the time when religious service meant slaughtering an animal! Strange how that stuck!

My Living Webster Dictionary defines “service”, under the heading of religious application, as follows:

“public religious worship according to prescribed form and order; a ritual or form prescribed for public worship or for some particular occasion; as the marriage service; the serving of God by obedience or piety; a musical setting of those portions of a liturgy which are sung”.

The exclusive demands of formality and mandated customs completely stifle an educational environment, while as it deliberately reinforces the basis of brainwashing, namely repetition.

The Biblical way promotes solid understanding and awareness of His teachings by each individual. The Biblical way actually tends to prevent false doctrine from entering into the congregation, except for when the majority of the congregation wants it, but even then, using the Biblical method, everyone knows where the others stand on any position, good or bad, right or wrong. Knowing that there are differences should cause a concerned person to search even more carefully for the truth.

As an example, how did so much heresy enter the Worldwide Church of God after the death of its leader in 1986? Was it not first taught from the pulpits? Was the congregation asked for their opinion or input? No! Weren’t we always taught to trust in “the church”, yes, undoubtedly! The WCG taught that Christ was the “Head” of “His Church” and that Jesus (Yeshua) had put doctrine into His church through “the apostle”, (Herbert Armstrong) who was a man. It taught that “the Eternal” (Yehovah) always worked thru one man at a time. Questioning any teaching coming from headquarters was dangerous; and even a trace of persistence would bring on banishment from the corporate body. (Yet, no one can banish you from Yeshua’s body, if you are in it!) I was banned from attendance when, in 1993, when I questioned the introduction of the hypostasis (aka the Trinity), a concept popularized by the pagan philosopher Plotinus, which also means urine sediment! Since false doctrines undeniably entered the Worldwide Church of God from the top, then what is to prevent that from happening in your current organization (if you are in one)? Furthermore, the traditional method of “preserving unity” not only didn’t prevent division, but it fostered and promoted the malignant subterfuge, enabling it to eventually permeate the entire organization. So wouldn’t it be vitally important to employ a Biblical format that would prevent this kind of subtle deception from ensnaring you? That single understanding alone might determine whether or not you “endure” to the end!

Heresy is a very dangerous form of lying! It is succinctly expressed in this quote attributed to Joseph Goebbels, a paraphrase of Adolph Hitler:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

And truth can be the greatest enemy of the ”Church” as well.

The envoy Paul described the problems that the Corinthian’s were having with their Sabbath assembles; and he specified the only Biblical solution. This totally forsaken admonition is “hidden” in the “Tongues Chapter”, a chapter sure to be ignored except by the energetic so-called Pentecostal churches (do they celebrate the day of Pentecost?). While the “spiritual gifts” that include actually being gifted with foreign languages during Sabbath Assemblies may make a come back as the end time approaches, that is not the topic being addressed here, and much of the tongues commentary has been omitted from the chapter in question:

1 Corinthians 14:1 Earnestly endeavor to acquire love, and be zealous in the pursuit of the gifts of the spirit, particularly prophecy [empowered instruction].—The Gabriel Bible

Note: “Earnestly endeavor to acquire”...“particularly prophecy”. Who was the letter to the Corinthians addressed to anyway? Was it to “the minister” of the Assembly? Actually, it was to the entire Assembly!

1 Corinthians 1:2-10 ...After the first of the Sabbaths everyone should lay aside a stockpile at home for this charitable journey, so that the collecting is finished when I come. 3 Then I’ll send those you choose as being worthy with a letter to carry your bounty to Jerusalem. 4 If it is best that I go as well, I’ll travel with them.

5 I’ll come to you when I travel thru Macedonia since I’m about to pass thru Macedonia. 6 Perhaps I’ll stay with you awhile, or winter with you so that you can accompany me to my destination. 7 I’ve decided not to see you now, just passing thru, because I hope to spend some time with you if Yehovah permits me. 8 I’ll remain in Ephesus until Pentecost 9 because a great door has opened for me that is full of opportunities, but there are many adversaries. 10 If Timothy comes to you, see that he has nothing to worry about while with you, because he does the work of Yehovah, just as I do.

A Closed Door Policy?

By the time we get to 1 Corinthians 14, we see the most specific instructions in the Bible for weekly Sabbath Assemblies:

1 Corinthians 14:2,12,23-24 Anyone who speaks in a foreign language isn’t talking to people, but to Yehovah, because no one understands what is said, yet in the spirit they 12 Similarly, since you’re zealous for the spiritual gifts to build the assembly, strive to excel in them... 13 So if the whole assembly gathers, and they are all speaking in foreign languages and “new” people come in or those who don’t believe, won’t they say, “These people are crazy?” 24 But if you are all prophesying and “new” people or unbelievers come among you, they’ll be convicted of sin after examining everything you say.

These instructions forbid a closed door policy! A look into the Bible actually reveals that a faithful assembly will have what many term an “open door” policy—and that door should be wide open! Still, the dialog should be by believers and for believers but with some questions from visitors allowed. Also, consider what is required to be “convinced” and “convicted” “by all”.

Continuing: vs.25-40 What had been hidden from their minds is no longer hidden from them, then they’ll fall facedown and worship Yehovah and say, “Yehovah is truly among you.” 26 So I tell you friends that when you assemble, whoever has a psalm should speak, as well as anyone who has a doctrine, and whoever has a revelation, and whoever has a foreign language, and whoever can interpret. Every type of thing should be done to build us up. 27 If anyone speaks in a foreign language, two should speak or at most three, and they should speak in succession and have someone to interpret. 28 If there is no one to interpret the language, they should remain silent in the assembly and speak in privacy to Yehovah.

...two to three should speak, and afterward the others should evaluate!

Continuing: 29 As for prophets [i.e. inspired speakers], two to three should speak, and afterward the others should evaluate [1]. 30 If someone else sitting there can disclose a point that was previously unknown, then the one [2] speaking should be kept in silence for a time. 31 You can all take your turn prophesying, so that everyone can learn by practice. Everyone can give and receive consolation and encouragement. 32 You see, the rational spirit of the prophets cooperates with other prophets. 33 Yehovah isn’t the author of confusion, but of peace, as in every assembly of the 'chosen ones' [saints]. 34 “Your women should remain silent in public gatherings. They aren’t allowed to speak out, they must be submissive, as the Roman law [3] says. 35 If women want to be informed about any subject, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is unbecoming for women to speak in a gathering” [4]. 36 What! [KJV sensed the context] Did the Word of Aloha originate with you? Are you Corinthians the only people it has reached? 37 If any of you think that you are a prophet or that you are spiritual, then you should acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the Commandments of Yehovah. 38 If anyone is ignorant of this, they can remain ignorant. 39 So friends, desire the ability to prophesy, and don’t forbid anyone from speaking in foreign languages. 40 But everything should be done with decency and in regular succession.

[1] Father Demands Freedom of Speech! [2] While “protos” is usually translated as “first”, it is established in the previous verse that there should be two to three speaking. So one of the speakers on that particular Sabbath would be required to “be kept in silence” if another person believed that rendering his judgment, after the person currently speaking was finished might be to late. This appears to be a course correction. Of course a “one man show” giving a sermon would never allow this. See The Bible Never Mentions Sermons [3] The Torah has no such law. [4] In verses 34 and 35, Paul is sarcastically quoting what he heard from a Corinthian “brother”, just before blasting the idea in verses 36 and 37. The Torah (Law) has no gag orders! If ancient languages had quotation marks, the controversy surrounding vs 34-35 would not exist. “The Cultural Background: The writings of Greek philosophers provide external documentation informing us of the mindset that permeated the ancient city of Corinth. In Greek society, women were clearly held in low regard. For example, Plato (424-347 BC) ascribed to the inferior status of women by stating: “It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls.” Aristotle (384-322 BC) added, “women are defective by nature” because “a woman is as it were an infertile male,” and males command superior intelligence. Under existing Roman family law, the father had complete household authority. A husband could punish his wife in any way including killing her, and he could make love to other women with impunity.” Compare to 1 Corinthians 11:4.

And so it continues to “you”, the 'chosen ones', verse after verse, and not to a particular individual or minister. If there were such a thing as a local “minister” in charge of these people, then why would Paul have bothered writing to the whole Assembly? These problems would not, and could not have even existed unless the assembly had succumbed to a dictator. But if that were the case, then Paul would have dealt with the dictator, or replaced him. So there was still no need to write to the “church” if a dictator was responsible for running the assembly in Corinth. Now as a side note, consider what that Corinthian “church” was to do on their own, without a minister to hold their hand. (Constantine introduced the idea of a single man (dictator) ruling, rather than elders serving.)

The assembly was to do the following:

A trustworthy coordinator would have handled (or should handle) the mundane responsibilities associated with a Sabbath assembly without necessarily doing much, while someone serving as a moderator would have (or will) likely be needed to facilitate a beneficial dialog during the gathering. The Jews call Scriptural dialog “drashing” (not midrashing).

Rather than use a word borrowed from the Catholic Church, I would prefer to use a straightforward term such as “teaching”, “dialog” or “discourse” to describe what takes place when a member of Yeshua’s body elaborates on what he has learned from studying the Bible. The “Lecture on the Mount”, of Matthew chapters 5-7 is a good example of this. Yeshua did not use the cold and formal approach of religious leaders.

Matthew 7:28 When Yeshua had finished saying all these things, the crowds were astonished at His doctrine,

Deep Sleep: Due to a Sermon?

Acts 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long ‘preaching’, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. KJV

Many would emphasize that this typical translation is some of the best evidence validating the preaching of sermons, carelessly assuming that Paul was giving one. A closer look at the word “preaching”—“dialegomai” in the Greek—reveals that the word can mean one of two things; and I think that we can readily eliminate the first possible meaning in this instance. The word itself should readily clue you in as to where we got the English word “dialogue” (another form of the Greek word: dialogos was simply shortened to our dialog). Contrary to popular opinion, this is an example of Paul’s enthusiasm for having long interactive dialogs with his Friends! I doubt that he left many questions unanswered. (As for the first reference, there are institutions for people who try to hold “dialogs” with themselves.)

In fact, Paul having dialogues with his students was not limited to just that one time—he always used the natural interactive method of teaching.

Acts 17:2 Paul, as usual, went in with them and for three Sabbaths he discussed [Gr. dialegomai] the Scriptures with them,

Acts 17:17 He conversed [not preached] in the synagogue with the Jews and with others who feared Yehovah, and he spoke in the marketplace with those who gathered there daily.

Acts 18:4 He conversed [Gr. dialegomai] in the synagogue every Sabbath, persuading both Jews and heathens.

Acts 18:19 They arrived in Ephesus, and Paul went into the synagogue and conversed with the Jews.

Acts 19:8 Paul went into the synagogue, and vigorously debated [Gr. dialegomai] the Scriptures persuasively for three months about the Kingdom of Yehovah.

Acts 19:9 Some of them were hardened, refusing to believe, and spoke evil of the Way of Yehovah before the assembly. So Paul left them, and separated the disciples from them. He had daily discussions [Gr. dialegomai] with them in the school of a man named Tyrannus.

Acts 20:7 Then on the first of the Sabbaths, when we were gathered together, Paul had dialog [Gr. dialegomai] with them, because he was going to leave the next day, and he continued his dialog until midnight.

Acts 24:12 They didn’t so much as find me debating with anyone in the Temple, and certainly not gathering a 'mob' in their synagogues or in the city.

Acts 24:25 Their dialog concerned righteousness and self control and the future Judgment Day. Felix became alarmed and said, “Go away for now, and when I have an opportunity I’ll summon you.

Had the early Assemblies begun listening to monologs (monologos)(sermons) instead of being able to question whatever was being said, things would have fallen apart even quicker than they did. But first century Jews had no trouble drashing (not midrashing—that’s written text)!

Instead of simply inheriting or picking a basket full of various religious beliefs thru happenstance, why not personally evaluate your every belief with the brain you were given, one topic at a time? Why leave your Biblical beliefs up to chance? That is your reasonable duty. There are diamonds in the deep chaff of ideas. You just need to sift them out.

There is an all too human response of people finding a charismatic individual who reveals to them a few remarkable truths, and then they just swallow everything else they ever teach. People assume after just a little bit of digging that they have discovered the mother load! They stop questioning everything. Their research completely stops and apathy starts to settle in. Dialog demands our thinking (so long as your brain is still viable)! My experience is that occasionally someone presents a profound truth. So I eagerly look to see what else they are teaching, only to find them being just as profoundly wrong on other topics. This is an amazing thing: presenting wonderfully well thought out points of logic one day and then being on the lunatic fringe another day. In this case, I generally suspect that the amazing truths originated in a logical mind that was unattributed, while the eloquent lunacy is home grown.

Harmony or Thought Suppression?

A facade of harmony appears to be present when only a few people are permitted to express their thoughts. Thought suppression easily takes place when speakers on a payroll preach the party line, under the threat of being fired. Likewise, the threat of being “excommunicated” (not for blatant sin—that is Biblical—but for thinking differently) keeps most others from saying anything. Paul clarified the conditions required for putting people out of the Assembly and required it in this very letter to the ministry...oops, I mean, to you, the 'chosen ones' (saints). I thought for years that the body of Friends were all like minded until major heresies were introduced and a scattering took place. Today, if you get the boot in one congregation, the group down the road will likely welcome you (unless you ask too many questions). After all, the feeling of most is that your previous group was “Laodicean” anyway. You can never express a truly inspirational thought under the looming threat of an ever present ax.

This situation is not at all what Yehovah intended. We should not put some individuals on a pedestal and consider only their opinions concerning Yehovah’s word. Paul may have sat at the feet of Gamaliel, but he also had Commandment Keeping“hirelings” and “yes men” are created. Dedicated men of character won’t make the compromises “necessary” to be put into or keep jobs requiring them to compromise their convictions in order to conform to human leadership. Yet these indispensable convictions are all too often labeled as insubordination. The Biblical practices of 1 Corinthians 14, if they are ever implemented, will certainly contribute to some lively debates! Safeguards of civility and orderliness would, of necessity, have to be implemented, also, as per Paul’s instruction: Everything should be done decently and in order”.

The principle of freedom of speech (debate) is a principle that Yehovah Himself established thru the founding fathers of the U.S. Similarly, every man in a congregation should be actively involved in doctrinal discussion. To be certain, heresies will arise, but they will be out in the open rather than being secretly introduced. Opposing viewpoints could quickly expose any slight of hand doctrinal alterations, while “new interpretations” would be given a fair hearing. After all, when iron sharpens iron, friction and heat are invariably involved.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 First of all, when you gather as a assembly, I hear that there are divisions among you, and this is sure to happen. 19 Of course there must be sects [heresies] among you, so that those of you who are genuine can be recognized.

It is far better to allow people to be sorted out by their beliefs than to pretend for whatever reason that differences don’t exist! This is how those who advocate the truth “can be distinguished from the counterfeit”.

2 Peter 2:1-2 There have been false prophets in the world, and there will also be false teachers among you who will introduce destructive heresies [1], and contradict the Sovereign who bought them and bring on themselves swift and eternal destruction. 2 Many will follow their wicked ways, and because of these deceivers, the Way of truth will be blasphemed [Gr. blasphemeo].

If even one person were allowed to sound an alarm in the hearing of the people that a wolf has entered the flock, the sheep would be on alert!

Once I heard a minister say that the fellowship following “services” was just as important as the formal service. That would be a reference to the positive influence that each of us can have on our friends, the personal encouragement, admonition and council that the people who know you best can supply. But why do all that when you can just drive home after the sermon or nap?

“Prove All Things”—or Form a Committee?

The admonition to “Prove all things”...that’s just for doctrinal committees, right? Actually the context of the statement to “prove” or “analyze everything” is directed specifically to our Friends in the body! That’s right; an envoy said to check up on him in the Bible:

1 Thessalonians 5:4-6,12-14, 18, 21 But you, friends, aren’t in darkness. That Day won’t catch you off guard like a thieving false “minister”, 5 because you are all sons of the light, and sons of the day. You aren’t sons of the night or sons of darkness. 6 So let’s not sleep like everyone else does, but let’s stay awake and be sober.... 12 Friends, we ask you to recognize those who labor among you, and preside over you in our Sovereign, and instruct you, 13 and highly regard them with abundant love, because of their work, and live in harmony with them. 14 Friends, we encourage you to admonish offenders, comfort the timid, encourage the weak, and be patient with everyone... 18 Be thankful for everything, because that is Yehovah’s will for you thru Yeshua Messiah... 21 Analyze everything and hold tightly onto anything beneficial.

Certainly there should be people employed to support and advance Yehovah’s commands, but there are very specific limitations on these individuals. “Authority” is not something to be exercised in circumstances without Biblical mandates, except perhaps under dire circumstances! True ministers should be our servants, not people who lord it over the body.

The Olivet Prophecy found in Matthew 24, given just two days before “the Son of Man” was “to be crucified” (Matthew 26:2) is not a Biblical example of a sermon, rather, it was the result of a question someone asked Yeshua. It is quite noteworthy that Yeshua did not start this dialog until He “left the Temple and was going on His way” (Matthew 24:1). Could this forebode the method of how learning would take place among His followers after His death? Presumably He could have revealed these astonishing things in the temple itself, since it was a Monday anyway, to add credence to the statements. Instead, He chose to walk away from the edifice that purportedly represented the worship of Yehovah, choosing instead to sit on the Mount of Olives (part of His own creation) to reveal His summarization of the events pertaining to the end of this age.

Yeshua strictly avoided the formality of revealing His truths using accepted religious protocol. He spoke on mountainsides, He spoke on the seaside and He met with His followers in houses. When He was given an opportunity to speak in a synagogue, the brevity of His words spoke as loudly as what He said! Does this have a bearing on what a “Church” is? Most professing Christians think first of buildings and ruling bodies of religious leaders when asked what a church is. Others, partially understanding the meaning of the Greek word “ekklesia” (allegedly church) think that a “government approved” and “duly incorporated” body of believers is a “Church”. That is just as much in error as the building idea.

According to searchgodsword “ekklesia” applies to any gathering of people, even a mob, unless accompanied by “of Aloha” (Aramaic for God):

This primary application of ekklesia stresses the wholly human connotation of the term. The fourth application of “Church” (actually “Assembly” ) is only significant when it precedes the words “of Aloha” (God is a generic title). Only then is the definition “the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth” implied.

Are You A Priest?

We are a priesthood! Ancient Israel was under a priesthood, but true Torah obedient Israelites today are themselves a priesthood!

1 Peter 2:5 you are also like living stones being built into a spiritual Temple [1], and 'dedicated' priests who present spiritual zebakim [sacrifices], acceptable to Yehovah, thru Yeshua Messiah.

[1] The fact that, spiritually, we are “The Israel of Yehovah” (Galatians 6:16), rebuilt right now, does not diminish from the fact that all of physical Israel will be rebuilt, as Yeshua prophesied in Matthew 16:18!

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a select race, officiating as priests of the Kingdom, a 'chosen' nation [2], an assembly redeemed to proclaim the virtues of the One who called you by name out of darkness and into His precious light.

[2] This is one place where translators don’t mess up and use the word “gentile.”

It seems as tho all of the leading ministers of the Churches of God are trying to see who is the “greatest”. Even among Yeshua’s hand picked men this was initially an issue.

Mark 9:33-35 They came to Capernaum. When they went in the house He asked them, “What were you arguing about along the road?” 34 But they didn’t answer because along the way they’d argued about which of them should be the greatest. 35 Yeshua sat down and called the twelve and told them, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and be a servant to everyone.”

The difference is that the twelve disciples repented!

Matthew 20:25-27 Yeshua called them and told them, “You know that the rulers of other nations are tyrants and their great men have authority over them. 26 It won’t be that way with you, because whoever wants to become great among you will be your steward [Gr. diakonos], 27 and whoever wants to be foremost among you must be your servant,

Matthew 23:8-15 Don’t let anyone call you Rabbi, because there is only One Rabbi and you are all His friends. 9 Don’t call yourselves Father on earth, because there is only One spiritual Father—the Heavenly One. 10 Don’t be called guides [2] because there is only One spiritual Guide—the Messiah. 11 The greatest person among you will be your servant. 12 Anyone who exalts themself will be humbled and anyone with a modest opinion of themself will be honored. 13 I pity you Torah teachers, because you block the entrance to the Kingdom of the Heavens right in front of people. You aren’t coming in yourselves and you prevent those who are beginning to come in from entering [3]. 14 I pity you Torah teachers, Pharisees and pretenders, because you devour widows houses under the pretext of long prayers. This is why you’ll receive greater condemnation. 15 I pity you Torah teachers, Pharisees and pretenders because you traverse land sea to make a single convert to Judaism, and when they become one, you make them twice the son of Gehenna as yourselves.

[2] Rather than “Are chosen”, this is quite well illustrated in the parable of the invitations to the banquet (in Matthew 22). The Aramaic in verse 16 is in agreement with the Textus Receptus, and includes, “Because many are invited, but few have chosen to participate”, unlike most modern versions. [3] The Aramaic is in agreement with the Textus Receptus, and includes, “Are you able to drink the cup that I’m about to drink, and be immersed with the immersion that I’m immersed with?”, unlike most modern versions.

Should We “All Speak the Same Thing”

Chances are good that the people preaching sermons to you are also telling you to “all speak the same thing” that they do! Does heeding the viewpoints of a minister gain you “points” with Yehovah? Is that what it means to all speak the same thing? What if your minister’s opinion just happens to be right and your neighbor’s minister just happens to be wrong. Will Yehovah some day say to you: “Well done you good and faithful servant, because you just happened to listen to the right man, I will bless you more than your neighbor who just happened to listen to the wrong man” Is this any different than the parable where the one son told his father: “‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go.”, while the other son said: but after reflection, he begrudgingly did follow his father’s instruction? Which of Yehovah’s prospective Sons is right in this situation?

Many churches appeal to 1 Corinthians 1:10 for credibility as they require all of their followers to accept their viewpoints. “We must all speak the same thing”, they warn. The “same thing”, presumably being, that the “clergy” or “leader” or “leadership of the church” has the authority to determine for you what is supposed to be “the truth” and what is not the truth. Is this the position that Yehovah inspired Paul to explain or could this verse mean something entirely different? Where is the opportunity to grow when you are always told what to do and think?

1 Corinthians 1:9-12, KJV: God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son [Yeshua the Messiah] our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord [Yeshua the Messiah], that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:10 is continually used by many to reinforce the assertion that “lay” members are not qualified to discuss the Bible among themselves, rather they are encouraged to have a minister present. Better yet they should leave doctrinal matters to the “clergy”, preferably without questioning. Within the (Armstrong) Churches of God such has been the practice. This form of harmony worked perfectly well until the crutch of hierarchy failed—exposing the severe absence of His spirit. Honest questions are often interpreted as being argumentative and causing division. Such zealous people are subject to “disfellowshipment” (banishment), where friends and relatives may not even speak with them.

Now, let’s consider the context that “all speak the same thing” is used in. Verses 9 and 10 refer to Yeshua and the special one’s relationship with Him. Verse 12 pertains to how some people “associated” with certain other people, rather than literally consulting Yeshua’s own words. In reality, the context explains the exact opposite of what is generally taught! Paul taught that people are not to follow a man but rather that they must follow Yeshua. The implication is that we are to follow the instructions of Yeshua, rather than use any man as a mediator between Yehovah and ourselves in any sense of the word. With this in mind, verse 10 should be easier to comprehend. The actual meaning of Paul’s admonition was to persuade people to follow Yeshua, and specifically that they “all” are to speak, or teach, what He taught! Paradoxically this is a prohibition against blindly following a “religious leader”! We can, and certainly should learn from our Friends in the faith, but we are being judged by how we use our understanding of the Bible and not by how loyal we are to adhering to the judgments of others. It is our thoughts and behavior that Yehovah is evaluating in this life. Your character is ascertained by the decisions you make, that is, what you decide to do in every circumstance in your life, especially in new situations that challenge your conscience.

You can absolutely never be certain that you understand a truth unless you are willing to evaluate other possible explanations of an issue. If you are afraid to consider another person’s beliefs, then you should ask yourself why. Are you afraid that you may become confused? If so, then you are conceding that you are don’t really understand the truth of a matter. That should be a little scary! Are you subconsciously afraid that another explanation may be the true perspective? On Judgment Day, what will Yeshua have to say to you about that? Are you afraid to learn something new because you don’t feel that any truth that the “true church”, as you suppose it to be, does not yet understand could be of any value? The command to “prove all things” is valuable for many reasons; not the least of which is for your own peace of mind! Being taught to “never read dissident literature” is the backbone of religious mind control! The truth can set you free, but only when you have proven the truth to be the truth. Fear of discovering that you may be wrong is cowardly and sinful! Notice the very first sin mentioned on this list:

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the sinful, the unclean, murderers, male prostitutes, sorcerers, idolaters and all liars 'are destined for' the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.

Undoubtedly, the words “all speak the same thing” refer to speaking the same things as “our Master”. Paul was expounding against the dangerous present reality that people were following “the man of their choice”. This becomes evident if one swallows someone’s pre-selected grab bag of teachings without personally proving, to the very best of one’s ability, every aspect of each topic being taught. Again, Paul’s entire point is that “all” must follow the words of “Yeshua”. Disciples are to look to our heavenly Father and to Yeshua, and live by the written Word of Elohim (God) AND the Testimony of Yeshua. How can we all speak the same thing that Yeshua did if we are not “all” permitted to speak?

In 1 Corinthians 1:9, Paul pointed out that it is into Yeshua’s spiritual Assembly that the 'cherished ones' are called, and not into corporations. Yehovah’s Assembly, His “Church”, is not divided into sects—separated by time and distance; rather Yehovah’s Assembly is the one true spiritual body of Commandment Keeping

Practical Application

So how should a Sabbath Assembly be properly conducted? I believe that the modern talk radio format is a perfect rediscovery of how it should be done. A moderator presents an uninterrupted monologue to “set the stage” for a dialog. Questions are delayed long enough to allow the speaker to construct a sequential arrangement his thoughts that lay out the most relevant aspects of the dialog to follow, from his perspective. Then callers are allowed to ask questions on a point by point basis, or are given an opportunity to express differing conclusions that the moderator or guest speaker can respond to.

Sabbath dialogs with a speaker should consist of: 1) questions for clarification on the topic, 2) supportive comments and 3) challenges.

When Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:29 “two to three should speak, and afterward allow the others to evaluate” [critique], in a Sabbath Assembly; that would not mean that a second monologue on the same topic should follow. That would not be “dialegomai”. It is not about getting “equal time”, it is about learning to reason together in patience and love.

Again, Acts 17:2 Paul, as usual, went in with them and for three Sabbaths he discussed [Gr. dialegomai] the Scriptures with them...

QUESTIONS: Questions should be addressed quickly. That is the most teachable approach. “Striking while the iron is hot”, while the commentary is still uppermost in contemplation works best. Perhaps 15 minutes into an opening monologue questions could be addressed. Waiting too long would be detrimental.

SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS: Sometimes a brief added illustration makes the case of the moderator. As an example, during a sermon I heard, the speaker was talking about what liberty meant to people in the first century. I would love to have commented briefly about the goddess Libertas, who represented in essence freedom from laws, which in essence was the model for what became lawless (Torahless) Christianity!

CHALLENGES: This, if tolerated, would provide the essential checks and balances. It would force people to think rather than just absorb.

But commentary from the audience should not be an excuse to start yet another monolog! Again, “two to three should speak, and afterward allow the others to evaluate” [critique].

Questions would seldom need to more than one sentence long. Comments would be under a minute. Challenges would primarily be asking the speaker to reconcile his statements with a Bible passage that would seem contradictory. An actual dialog would be ideal where each challenge to the speaker be addressed. There would need to be succinct questions, not just rambling on; dialog, back and forth, like tennis.

Another analogy, but a bit more adversarial, would be that of a jury trial. The accused is given an opportunity to present the alleged facts in defense of his position. His accusers are then allowed to present alleged evidence to the contrary. The accused is then given the opportunity to respond to every charge. Hopefully in this manner the real truth will be determined.

If “equal time” were the objective, then in the radio analogy, the speaker, after presenting a monologue would be gagged as his opponents are given free range to come up with criticisms that he could not respond to.

Criticisms must be dealt with one point at a time.

In the court room analogy, “equal time” would be like the accused being given time to present his explanation of the circumstances that he is to be judged on, but then to be quickly rushed back to jail to await the verdict. Then the accusers would be allowed to make countless accusations that the accused could not respond to.

In the Sabbath Assembly, opposing viewpoints should be dealt with one point at a time, but unlike in the court situation where the jury is sequestered until a verdict is reached (which may be wrong), tho certain practical protocols may need to be agreed on.

A friend of mine asked me if I knew when sermons first came into use. My initial word searches took me to my own site. Then I found this short historic account.

To read some astonishing information about “Home Churches” check out this link.

Were more people familiar with what Paul was really saying in Romans 16, perhaps a few more people would take their spirituality into their own hands instead of subbing it out to paid professionals. Here is the text with the critical words marked with Strong’s numbers:

Romans 16:17-19 I urge you, friends, to watch out [1] for those who cause divisions and scandals [Gr. skandalon] contrary to the doctrine that you have learned, and avoid them. 18 Such people are not serving our Sovereign Yeshua Messiah, rather they feed their own stomachs. By eloquently prepared oratory [2] they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 But your obedience is known to everyone, and I’m full of joy for you. But I want you to be sophisticated [Gr. sophos] about good things and naive about evil things.

[1] KJV says “mark.” [2] Listening to eloquent public orators (sophists) was a popular form of entertainment in Greek culture. These celebrities were well paid. Constantine made professional oratory the norm as a way to increase the attendance in the massive church buildings that he built, replacing interactivity. Sophistry evolved into “giving sermons.” Sermons later fell out of use, under Catholicism, until the Protestant Reformation.

Sermons may be the biggest reason for the decline of Christianity! Some people may believe that “the church” is evolving into something even better than the “early church”; but if so, they are “being deceived”. Sermons create what I think of as spiritual communism—top down human government. It amazes me how people can accept whole packages of beliefs rather than study Bible passages and doctrines one at a time for themselves. Hierarchy creates dependency on organizations rather than Bereans who prove from the Bible what is true. The plan is to make people believe that they need a vicar or guru to intercede for them with a ready made package of beliefs.What do they have to loose?

The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy “coincidentally” developed the same pattern as the Roman military. The Cambridge Ancient History explicitly says that by the fifth century the Church had an organization “matching that of the empire.” A city normally had a bishop; the provincial capital had a metropolitan; and the bishop of an imperial-diodecese center acquired a superior status.

Roman military..................Catholic organization

Supreme commander...............Pope

Senior regional commanders......Patriarchs / archbishops

Regional officers...............Bishops

Local officers..................Priests

Subordinate service officers....Deacons

Soldiers........................Peons

Early elders were servants before they evolved into masters. In fact apostles were elders, even Peter. While different gifts were spread among elders there was no military style pecking order. Elders were the only “rank”. There is to be no totem pole of authority among His servants! They may guide you, but they can make mistakes. Most of them, as I see it, are actually working for the opposition (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

2 Timothy 3:13 But wicked people and impostors will grow worse and worse in wickedness, deceiving and being deceived themselves.

The End

Lonnie Martin, lonwmartin@yahoo.com

September, 2002

Expanded October 4, 2026

 

 

10/10/26 thoughts: I learned a very hard lesson about who my “brothers” are. Be really really sure you know who you trust “like a brother”. (Two of my spiritual “brothers”, early on, turned out to be sexual predators, but that is another story!) I was in the Worldwide Church of God from 1973 to 1993. It had an “Apostle General” (really a dictator) who made every incorporated (bad idea) decision. Everyone there claimed to believe the exact same things. In 20 years I never met anyone who disagreed with anything, and I asked people a lot of questions! Notably, every member had been hand picked by a local minister. Prospective members were interviewed on their compatibility with their teachings before ever setting foot into a congregation. Surprisingly the first test was a persons willingness to pay three tithes, as ancient Israel did—and constant encouragement to pay even more since we were on the “gun-lap” to the end of the age. In 1986 the dictator died. (I recently found him to be a relative of mine with lots of distant cousins in common.) After several years I began doubting some of the things that were taught in their abundant literature. It bothered me so much that for a while I considered whether I should quit reading my Bible or quit reading the literature—doubting my ability to discern truth without coaching. This was a fear based on statements like, “If you ever believe that the Church of God is wrong about something, you should conclude that it is you who are wrong” or “Truth always comes from the top down; never from the bottom up!”

When you find a religious group teaching several things that you have come to believe for whatever reason, and those beliefs are hard to come by, there is a strong tendency to see that as a sign, and begin accepting other issues that come along without any due diligence. That is what happened to me. In 1973 I had been looking for people who kept all of the weekly and annual Sabbaths, ate Biblically clean food and several other beliefs, each individually hard to come by. Herbert Armstrong had plagiarized very well, but if a person must accept an entire package deal I would never commit to that. I’d rather work out my own salvation (Philippians 2:12)! You will be judged from your own conscience—not by adherence to someone else’s!

Since WCG was for all purposes the only Christian assembly keeping the Sabbaths (other than regarding restaurants) as well as celebrating the annual Feast days (tho on the 4th-9th century Hillel calendar) and several other important considerations I had never thought to leave. But by 1993 so much degradation had taken place that I was “helped” to leave. By around 1995 90% of the 150,000 or so members had completely abandoned the very core beliefs that I thought that they would have died to protect, but they just quit. But it was the few people that I had spent considerable time with and knew well who never abandoned those core Biblical beliefs. They lighted into smaller groups. I wonder how many of them would have survived spiritually had there been persecution! Get to know who you can trust and who will betray you! Two of the ministers who helped me out of the WCG (had me thrown out and publicly condemned) ended up in a relatively larger splinter group—UCG. For a paycheck, they endorsed the very issue that they had condemned me for! For the record UCG is one of the better places to meet. And they dictator-proofed their government. You could ask ChatGPT about: [“United Church of God” on hierarchy]. It compares the old WCG government with UCG as well as the Bible quite well if you ask it to!

Chapter 33 is Our Father Demands Freedom of Speech! 

Book Endorsement

Click!

[Excerpt: “Where Did the Christian Sermon Come From?

The earliest recorded Christian source for regular sermonizing is found during the late second century.” Clement of Alexandria (150-215) lamented the fact that sermons did so little to change Christians.” Yet despite its recognized failure, the sermon became a standard practice among Christians by the fourth century.

This raises a thorny question. If the first-century Christians were not noted for their sermonizing, from whom did the post-apostolic Christians pick up the sermon? The answer is telling: The Christian sermon was borrowed straight from the pagan pool of Greek culture! Continues here! Far more here!]

“Pagan Christianity (Revised and Expanded) by Frank Viola and George Barna. Have you ever wondered why we Christians do what we do for church every Sunday morning? Why do we “dress up” for church? Why does the pastor preach a sermon each week? Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries? This volume reveals the startling truth: most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Coauthors Frank Viola and George Barna support their thesis with compelling historical evidence in the first-ever book to document the full story of modern Christian church practices.”

This book should start a revolution. While the authors don’t endorse living by both the “Torah (Law) of Elohim” (the “Old Testament”) and the “Testimony of Yeshua” (the “New Testament”), they nevertheless, expose numerous land mines for anyone claiming to be a follower of Yeshua. Decades ago I was astounded when I read The Two Babylons, a book exposing the pagan roots of Catholicism. I was just as shocked today (2/25/08), as I finished reading Pagan Christianity, which in essence rattles both Catholicism, and particularly Protestantism to the bone, but from a totally different perspective. It is not only the Sunday Christians who are in for a surprise, because if Sabbatarians have the courage to read outside of their corporate boxes, they will be shocked as well. Sabbatarians are taught that their cherished traditions come directly from the First Century “Church” (Assembly). Yet, as it turns out, many of their cherished traditions were unheard of until the Protestant Reformation! Iron clad evidence shows that many of their traditions stem directly from the fickle minds of the Protestant Reformers—in opposition to the Bible!

The Protestant Reformation barely scratched the surface in uncovering the changes that needed to take place. That revolution only wanted to reform Catholicism, it did not endeavor to return to the pristine condition of the first century Nazarene Assembly (Christianity). Worse still, many of the truths uncovered during the Reformation were quickly re-buried, and have remained hidden for 500 years! This book finds paganism where you least expect it. It is in the most dangerous of places. I hope to see virtually every situation described in this book rectified. Another wonderful thing about this book is that the authors are zealous for change, and the zeal rubs off on you as you turn the pages. My own book, Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom exposes the double edged sword of Nicolaitan hierarchy, and so-called “laymen” simply being uninvolved “sermon spectators”, but I had only searched out a very few historical references. I simply found hierarchy and sermons totally absent from the Bible. This book follows the paper trail tracing who started these heresies—providing names and dates, why they did it, and it exposes the totally unperceived damage done to each of us.—Lon

Lonnie Martin’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

 

.

To locate any word on this site, if just typing onto the page doesn’t highlite it, then holding the shift key and the letter F down for a moment will enable whatever you enter to show up immediately, starting with your first letter.

only search Everlasting Kingdom

 

ChatGPT Epilog #1: “200 hours to make a friend”

Yes. The “200 hours to make a friend” figure comes from research by Jeffrey Hall on how much time people spend together before relationships progress.

His findings were roughly: Acquaintance to casual friend: about 40–60 hours

Casual friend to friend: about 80–100 hours

Friend to good/close friend: about 200+ hours

The important point is that 200 hours isn't a magic threshold. It is an estimate of time spent interacting, and the quality and frequency of that interaction matter.

For example, 200 hours over a year is only about 4 hours a week. Regular shared activities—working together, gardening, church/community activities, hiking, volunteering, or simply talking—can accumulate surprisingly quickly.

If you're thinking about how to deliberately turn acquaintances into genuine friends, I can also break the 200 hours into a practical weekly/monthly plan.

Lon: Yes: Break the 200 hours into a practical weekly/monthly plan.

A practical way to think about 200 hours is not “I need to spend 200 hours with this person,” but consistent contact that gradually becomes deeper and more personal.

A workable 1-year plan

Frequency Time Annual total

Weekly main activity 2.5 hr 130 hr

Weekly meal/coffee/conversation 1 hr 52 hr

Occasional longer outing 1.5 hr × 12 18 hr

Total ˜3.5 hr/week average ˜200 hr

That could look like: Every week 2–3 hours: shared activity — gardening, walking, volunteering, Bible study, woodworking, exercise, etc. 1 hour of coffee, lunch, sitting and talking, or a phone/in-person conversation.

Every month: One 3–4 hour activity that is somewhat different from the normal routine. Invite the person into something you're already doing rather than making every interaction a formal “social event.”

If you want it faster you can compress the process considerably:

5 hr/week to 200 hours in ~9 months

7 hr/week to ~6½ months

10 hr/week to ~4½ months

But frequency probably matters as much as raw hours. Two hours every week for a year gives many opportunities to maintain familiarity and gradually disclose more about yourself; one 20-hour weekend together isn't equivalent.

The progression I'd aim for Months 1–2: 0–20 hours, “We're doing something together.” Keep it easy and repeatable.

Months 3–4: 20–50 hours: “We're becoming friends.” Add meals, conversation, and occasional invitations outside the original activity.

Months 5–8: 50–120 hours: “We know each other fairly well.” Talk about family, experiences, values, disappointments, plans, and things that matter personally.

Months 9–12: 120–200 hours: “This is becoming a genuine friendship.” Do some things together that aren't particularly productive. Friendship needs unstructured time, not just working side-by-side.

One particularly important trick: If you're trying to make a new friend, don't wait for them to initiate half the time. A simple pattern works well: Do something together or talk or invite again or gradually broaden the relationship. For example: “I'm going to work in the garden Saturday morning. Want to come over for a couple hours? We can have lunch afterward.” That single invitation potentially produces 3–4 friendship hours, and if repeated every week, you've created the equivalent of roughly 150–200 hours in a year. The biggest mistake would be trying to manufacture 200 hours. Build a recurring activity that you both enjoy, and let the hours accumulate.

ChatGPT Epilog #2

Lon: How do the effects of indoctrination differ from hyptotism?

ChatGPT: The effects can overlap, but indoctrination and hypnosis are fundamentally different processes. [Hypnosis is very temporary; Indoctrination “effects can persist indefinitely”]

Indoctrination vs. Hypnosis

INDOCTRINATION

HYPNOSIS

Basic Mechanism

Repeated teaching, social pressure, authority, rewards/punishments, restricted information

Focused attention, heightened suggestibility, relaxation/absorption

Time Scale

Usually develops over weeks, months, or years

Can occur in minutes and may be temporary

Consciousness

Person is generally fully awake and reasoning, though reasoning may become constrained by the learned framework

Attention becomes unusually focused; peripheral awareness may diminish

Beliefs

Can produce deep, enduring beliefs and identity changes

Usually does not create an entire belief system by itself

Critical Thinking

Can systematically discourage questioning or make certain conclusions feel unacceptable

Critical judgment can be temporarily altered, but it isn't simply "turned off"

Memory

Can reshape interpretation and recollection through repeated narratives

Can affect memory and recall, including creating confidence in inaccurate memories

Social Component

Usually very important—group, leader, family, institution, or culture

Not necessarily social beyond the hypnotist/subject relationship

Afterward

Effects can persist indefinitely

Most ordinary hypnotic effects diminish after the session unless reinforced

The biggest difference:

Hypnosis primarily changes a person's state of attention and suggestibility. Indoctrination primarily changes a person's system of beliefs and interpretation.

For example, suppose someone repeatedly hears: "Our organization alone possesses the truth. Outside sources are dangerous. Questioning the leadership shows rebellion."

That does not require hypnosis. If the person hears it repeatedly from trusted authorities, sees it modeled by everyone around them, receives social approval for accepting it, and encounters little contradictory information, the belief can become deeply embedded.

Eventually, something interesting can happen: the person may generate the conclusions themselves. They don't necessarily need someone constantly telling them what to think.

Why indoctrination can be particularly powerful: Indoctrination can involve several psychological mechanisms simultaneously:

Repetition — familiar claims increasingly feel true.

Authority — "God's minister," a teacher, parent, leader, etc.

Social conformity — everyone important to you believes it.

Information control — competing explanations are suppressed or discredited.

Fear — punishment, rejection, catastrophe, loss of salvation, etc.

Identity — the belief becomes part of "who I am."

Emotional conditioning — certain words, people, questions, or ideas acquire positive or negative emotional associations.

Self-policing — eventually the person suppresses their own doubts without anyone else having to do it.

That last stage is important. A person can become their own enforcer.

Where hypnosis can resemble indoctrination: There is an important overlap. Hypnotic suggestion can establish an association such as: "Whenever you hear this particular word, you will feel calm."

Repeated suggestion outside hypnosis can also establish powerful associations.

But hypnosis generally isn't necessary to create durable ideological conditioning. Ordinary waking learning, repetition, emotional experiences, authority, and group reinforcement are quite capable of doing it.

Conversely, being strongly convinced of something doesn't mean a person was hypnotized.

If you're asking this in relation to religious indoctrination, there is an especially useful distinction between indoctrination, conditioning, persuasion, coercive control, and hypnosis. They can look similar from the outside but produce rather different psychological effects.

Lon: Would it be fair to say that sermons are the most effective method of religious indoctrination?

ChatGPT Yes—with an important qualification. Sermons can be one of the most effective instruments of religious indoctrination, particularly when combined with a high-authority religious environment. But I would not say that sermons, by themselves, are necessarily the most effective method.

The reason sermons are powerful is that they combine several influences at once:

Authority: One person speaks while the congregation listens. The speaker may be regarded as God's representative or as having special spiritual authority.

Repetition: The same doctrines, interpretations, and vocabulary can be reinforced week after week.

Group reinforcement: Hundreds of people simultaneously hear and affirm the same message, making the belief appear socially validated.

Emotional arousal: Fear, hope, guilt, gratitude, awe, anticipation, and inspiration can strengthen learning and memory.

Scriptural legitimacy: The speaker can attach the teaching directly to sacred texts, making disagreement seem like disagreement with Scripture or God rather than merely with the speaker.

Reduced interaction: Unlike a discussion, the congregation generally doesn't interrupt and cross-examine the argument as it is being presented.

Ritual context: Worship, music, prayer, physical setting, and communal identity can make the message more emotionally salient.

Repetition over years: Perhaps most importantly, a sermon is not usually an isolated event. A person may hear hundreds or thousands of sermons from the same doctrinal tradition.

But there is something even more powerful than the sermon itself. I would distinguish the sermon from the entire religious socialization system. A particularly effective system can look like:

Sermon to Bible study to private reading to family discussion to friendships to group approval to repetition to identity to self-policing.

At that point, the individual doesn't merely hear the doctrine from the pulpit. The doctrine becomes the framework through which the individual evaluates everything else.

For example, if someone is taught: "You should prove everything from the Bible." That sounds like an encouragement toward independent examination. But if the same institution simultaneously teaches: "Our ministry has been specially commissioned by God, and those who reject its teachings are rejecting God's government," then the individual may technically be encouraged to "prove everything" while having a powerful constraint on which conclusions are considered legitimate.

That distinction is important when analyzing religious indoctrination.

Sermon vs. hypnosis

I would therefore not describe a sermon as a form of mass hypnosis. That's an attractive analogy, but it isn't scientifically precise. A better description is social and cognitive conditioning through repeated authoritative communication. And unlike hypnosis, its effects can become extraordinarily durable because the congregation eventually rehearses and reinforces the message among themselves.

So if you are writing about this historically or critically, I'd phrase it something like: "The sermon is one of the most effective instruments of religious indoctrination because it combines authority, repetition, emotional arousal, scriptural justification, and group reinforcement within a recurring ritual setting." That is a much more defensible statement than saying that sermons "hypnotize" congregations.

Lon: So people snap out of hypnosis, but not so much on indoctrination.

Lon: Differentiate indoctrination from teaching.

ChatGPT: Indoctrination vs. Teaching

The key difference is whether the learner is encouraged to think critically and evaluate the material for themselves.

Teaching	Indoctrination
Seeks to educate and encouraged to think critically	Seeks to establish belief
Presents information, explanations, and evidence	Presents selected information as the truth
Encourages questions and disagreement	Discourages or penalizes questioning
Allows the learner to reach their own conclusions	Expects the learner to accept predetermined conclusions
Acknowledges competing viewpoints when relevant	Minimizes, distorts, or suppresses competing viewpoints
Uses evidence that can be examined	May rely heavily on authority, repetition, or social pressure
"Here is what we believe; examine the evidence."	"This is what you must believe."
Teacher's authority is limited	Authority may become absolute or unquestionable
Changing one's mind can be considered intellectual growth	Changing one's mind may be treated as disloyalty or failure
Goal: understanding	Goal: conformity of belief

A Useful Test

“What happens if the student concludes that the teacher is wrong?”

If the answer is “That’s acceptable; let's examine the evidence,” you're much closer to teaching.

If the answer is “You must not reach that conclusion,” especially when questioning is discouraged or punished, you're moving toward indoctrination.

Important Distinction

Indoctrination can use teaching techniques. It may involve lectures, books, memorization, repetition, tests, and even substantial factual information. What distinguishes it is primarily how the information is presented and what intellectual freedom the learner is allowed afterward.

Likewise, ordinary teaching isn't automatically non-indoctrinating simply because it contains facts. A teacher can teach accurately while still indoctrinating if students are prevented from critically examining the underlying conclusions.

Teaching gives you information and tools for thinking. Indoctrination gives you conclusions and limits how you are permitted to think about them.

What kinds of organizations use indoctrinization other than religious and political?

Part 1: What Kinds of Organizations Use Indoctrination Other Than Religious and Political Groups?

Indoctrination is used by many types of organizations beyond religious and political groups. It can occur wherever an organization tries to establish beliefs, attitudes, loyalties, or behaviors that members are expected to accept without questioning.

An important distinction: teaching encourages understanding and independent evaluation; indoctrination discourages questioning or treating alternative explanations fairly. An organization can teach strong values or standards without necessarily indoctrinating its members.

Types of Organizations That May Use Indoctrination

1. Military Organizations

Use intensive training to establish obedience, loyalty, discipline, unit identity, and willingness to follow orders under dangerous conditions.

Warning signs: Discouraging independent judgment beyond legitimate operational requirements or treating all authority as unquestionable.

2. Corporations and Businesses

Corporate culture programs can instill loyalty to a brand, founder, mission,or management philosophy.

Warning signs: Demanding unquestioning loyalty, punishing criticism, suppressing unfavorable information, or portraying departingemployees as disloyal.

3. Educational Institutions

Schools, universities, and professional training programs can promoteparticular worldviews, institutional traditions, or accepted doctrines.

Warning signs: Grading students on ideological conformity rather than demonstrated knowledge, discouraging competing interpretations,or punishing sincere questions.

4. Fraternities, Sororities, and Exclusive Clubs

Initiation rituals, group traditions, and peer pressure can create powerfulconformity and loyalty.

Warning signs: Hazing, humiliation, secrecy, unquestioningallegiance, and pressure to put the group above personal judgment.

5. Sports Teams and Athletic Organizations

Coaches may cultivate team identity, a winning mentality, discipline, andloyalty to the coach or organization.

Warning signs: Demanding personal devotion, normalizing abuse, discouraging athletes from reporting misconduct, or treating dissent as betrayal.

6. Multilevel Marketing Organizations and High-Pressure Sales Groups

Motivational seminars, repetitive slogans, success stories, and groupreinforcement can encourage members to adopt the organization's financialand personal philosophy.

Warning signs: Dismissing outside criticism as negativity, blaming members for failure, or discouraging independent financial analysis.

7. Residential Treatment Programs and Therapeutic Communities

Some programs use structured routines, group accountability, and prescribed belief systems to change behavior.

Warning signs: Forced confessions, humiliation, isolation from outside support, or requiring acceptance of a particular explanation of one's problems.

8. Secretive Societies and Closed Membership Organizations

Exclusive membership, initiation ceremonies, internal rules, and restrictedinformation can reinforce group identity and dependence on insiders.

Warning signs: Prohibiting outside scrutiny, demandingabsolute loyalty, or making members afraid to leave.

9. Boarding Schools and Highly Regimented Institutions

Intensive supervision, strict routines, reward-and-punishment systems,and control over social contact can shape attitudes as well as behavior.

Warning signs: Suppressing individuality, discouraging contact with dissenting viewpoints, or demanding conformity outside legitimate institutional rules.

10. Self-Improvement Movements and Personal-Development Organizations

Some groups promote a single system of thought about success, human potential, relationships, or personal responsibility.

Warning signs: Portraying the leader as uniquelyenlightened, attributing every failure to insufficient belief, or making members dependent on increasingly expensive courses.

What Makes Indoctrination Possible Across These Organizations?

The specific subject matter varies, but the methods often overlap.

Method	How It Works
Repetition	Repeated messages become familiar and may be accepted as true.
Authority	Leaders are presented as more knowledgeable or entitled to determine what members should believe.
Social pressure	Members learn that agreement brings acceptance while disagreement risks rejection.
Information control	Competing explanations and outside criticism are discouraged or withheld.
Rewards and punishments	Approval, status, advancement, or continued membership depend on conformity.
Identity formation	Members come to equate the group's beliefs with their own identityand moral worth.
Fear of leaving	Members are led to expect failure, shame, isolation, or catastrophe if they leave.

Part 2: What Groups Tend Not to Use Indoctrination?

Organizations that generally do not rely on indoctrination are those thatencourage members to think independently, question established ideas,examine evidence, and disagree with leadership without fear of punishment.

Virtually any type of organization can use indoctrination. The distinctiondepends more on its methods and culture than on its name or stated purpose.

Types of Organizations That Tend to Discourage Indoctrination

1. Scientific Research Organizations

Encourage hypotheses to be tested, evidence to be replicated, andconclusions to be revised when new evidence contradicts them.

Defining principle: No claim should be immune to testing or criticism.

2. Academic Discussion and Debate Societies

Encourage participants to examine opposing arguments, defend their reasoning, and change their minds when warranted.

Defining principle: The quality of an argument matters more than agreement with the leader.

3. Book Clubs and Open Discussion Groups

Allow members to interpret material differently, challenge one another'sconclusions, and explore unfamiliar ideas.

Defining principle: Differences of opinion are acceptablerather than evidence of disloyalty.

4. Professional Peer-Review Organizations

In well-functioning examples, members evaluate work according to sharedstandards, disclose conflicts of interest, and accept substantive criticism.

Defining principle: A person's work can be challenged regardless of their rank or reputation.

5. Voluntary Community Service Groups

Groups organized around practical objectives, such as community gardening,habitat restoration, or neighborhood assistance, can focus on cooperationwithout requiring members to adopt a comprehensive worldview.

Defining principle: Participation centers on shared work rather than compulsory beliefs.

6. Democratic Cooperatives and Member-Governed Associations

Give members meaningful opportunities to question decisions, elect orreplace leaders, and influence organizational policies.

Defining principle: Authority is accountable to membersrather than treated as unquestionable.

7. Public Forums and Civic Discussion Organizations

Well-run forums expose participants to multiple perspectives and allow speakers and claims to be challenged.

Defining principle: Exposure to disagreement is encouraged rather than restricted.

8. Open-Source Technical Communities

In healthy communities, proposed solutions are evaluated through review,testing, reproducibility, and transparent discussion.

Defining principle: Contributions are judged on their merits, not simply on who proposed them.

A Practical Test: Is the Organization Indoctrinating Its Members?

The following questions help distinguish an organization that teaches or coordinates from one that seeks to control belief.

Question	Open, Non-Indoctrinating Culture	Indoctrinating Culture
Can members question leaders?	Yes, without retaliation.	Questioning is treated as disloyalty.
Can members examine opposing evidence?	Encouraged.	Restricted or automatically discredited.
Can members disagree with doctrine or policy?	Disagreement is permitted.	Conformity is demanded.
Can leaders admit mistakes?	Corrections are possible.	Leaders' claims are protected.
How are members persuaded?	Through evidence and reasoned argument.	Through fear, shame, pressure, or unquestionable authority.
What happens when someone leaves?	Departure is respected.	Departing members are threatened, shunned, or vilified.

The Critical Distinction

Not every organization that promotes conformity is indoctrinating itsmembers. The military needs discipline, businesses need consistentprocedures, and schools need to teach established knowledge.

An organization can have firm standards without indoctrinating its members.A scientific laboratory can require strict safety procedures, a businesscan require employees to follow lawful policies, and a school can requirestudents to learn established facts. Those requirements do not inherentlyconstitute indoctrination.

The key distinction is between requiring appropriate conduct and requiring unquestioning belief.

An organization is less likely to rely on indoctrination when it preserves members' ability to evaluate claims independently—even when their conclusions differ from those of the leadership.

No category is immune. Scientific institutions can develop dogmatic orthodoxies, democratic associations can punish dissent socially, and ostensibly open discussion groups can become ideologically rigid.

Ultimately, the strongest indicator is not what an organization calls itself, but how it responds when a member respectfully challenges one of its central beliefs.

***************************************************************************

ChatGPT: For a religious organization, for example, repeated teaching alone would be indoctrination only if it discourages independent evaluation [other viewpoints]; adding information restriction [Avoiding “dissident literature”], fear of outsiders [fear discussing {evangelizing} religion with acquaintances], severe punishment for dissent [disfellowshipment if they disagree with anything], and control over members’ relationships [“Marking” (banishing) people who pose no real threats] would move considerably closer to what people commonly mean by brainwashing.

“Church hierarchy” and Indoctrination

I decided to do a ChatGPT search to see if someone had written an argument critical of “church hierarchy” and especially indoctrination. Aware of my previous searches “he” asked if I wanted to restrict it to "Church of God” influencers, so tho usually too narrow of a search, I checked that box. Next I selected the “The Bible does not authorize a controlling church hierarchy” box. Next I checked the “Authors and researchers” box:

In short, “The strongest matches I found are below. I distinguish independent critics from organizations that merely use a different governance structure, because not every critic of authoritarianism rejects hierarchy as a biblical requirement.

Closest match: Frank W. Nelte — direct criticism of the “government of God” doctrine. Primary source: November 2020 article.”

Here is a quote that I had only pondered puting into words:

Frank: “Now there is a difference between indoctrination and teaching, when used for educational purposes. Do you know what that difference is?

“Satan uses indoctrination, and God uses teaching. While indoctrination most certainly involves repetition, not all repetition is indoctrination. Teaching also involves repetition. Now God does not want any people in His Family who are "indoctrinated". That is because indoctrinated people cannot build godly character. Indoctrination is in fact a character-killer.

“In our context the difference between indoctrination and teaching is this:

“Indoctrination never gives you a choice. Indoctrination never allows for another opinion. Indoctrination demands that people don’t use their own minds to think for themselves. With indoctrination someone else has already done your thinking for you...Indoctrination is very hard to overcome, because indoctrination does not respond to factual information. Indoctrination does not accept sound reasoning. Indoctrination refuses to let go of wrongly accepted premises. It is futile to attempt to argue with indoctrination.”

I’ve known Frank since 2020, mostly from a distance. I published several of his papers on my website when they were just emails to acquaintances, until his son created a website of his articles. I hate to write articles if I can find someone else who has written something close enough to my thoughts to share directly. I usually just post links without comments, but Frank’s link deserves bells and whistles!

As always, I often disagree with peripheral topics mentioned in passing. In this case I reject the “church eras” theory of Revelation Chapters 2-3 as representing about 2000 years of “Church of God” history (especially by that name). The context there is for the seven “true churches” extant at the end of this age—what is still afloat starting with Ephesus, that may exist as the 7th day Baptists (the oldest existing Sabbath observant “church”) that came from nowhere in about 1614 in England and then in Germany as German Seventh Day Baptists (my great great grandmother was one of them) that merged with the English Sabbath keepers.

Frank and I also differ on the theory of the 144,000 (mentioned in his article) being the totality of true Christians since Adam, rather than Revelation 14’s “144,000 who had His name and His Father’s name written on their foreheads”. I believe them to be the totality of flesh and blood Philadelphians in Revelation 3:12 protected from the Great Tribulation: ... “anyone who is victorious a pillar in the Temple of Yehovah, and... the name of New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from My Aloha [God], and My [Yeshua’s] own new name” being the same people—particularly suited to assist the “Great multitude” of Revelation 7:9-17, described in the very first verses after the description of the 144,000. Frank also supports the theory of a special 100 year long judgment period borrowed from the Seventh Day Adventists—The Signs of the Times or Charles Taze Russell’s (1852–1916) “Hundred Year Period”. (I found those links in a minute with AI! So easy!) Finally Frank was indoctrinated with the widespread notion that the New Heavens, New Earth and New Jerusalem must wait for 1,000 years to arrive when this world is beaten to a pulp (“destroyed” with a similar degree of destruction as with after the flood) by the time the Great Tribulation and the year long Day of Yehovah are completed. The heavens and earth will be in far more need of restoration at the end of this present era when humanity is largely wiped out, than it will be after a thousand years of peace! Check how many times “destroyed” is found in the prophets, not to mention the mess made in Revelation! If anything, earth will be pretty polished after a thousand years. The largest part of the “thousand generations” of Israel will still lie ahead of us by then!

1 Chronicles 16:15 Remember His covenant forever, the words that He commanded to a THOUSAND GENERATIONS [1],

[1] Surely if Yehovah had provided more details about the Covenant He had sworn (Hebrews 6:13-16) to a THOUSAND GENERATIONS, rather than just repeating that the Covenant was a sure thing (Psalm 105:8-11 & Deuteronomy 7:9) people would believe He wasn’t kidding, right?