Posted on 02/25/2021 8:31:53 PM PST by GardenerForLife
A Plot Hole Of The Early Christian Church
I'm not much for flowery words. I don't flatter people. I try to get to the point when ever I can. Which is what I'm going to try to do right here.
I'm going to use a couple logic tools in this writing, connecting the dots and begging the question.
Because this how I read scripture.
In my search for truth, I came across what I call a plot hole in the early Christian Church. Primarily in how it's seen and taught today and the possible effects on Christianity. I'm not slamming on any church or anybody. To some degree this is a shared history.
It has been said that the leader of Christ's Church after Peter was Linus. Today he's called Pope Linus 1. Linus was said to lead the Church from 67AD until 76AD.
However, the Apostle John was still on the earth and talking to the risen Lord face to face during this time. John was a true prophet, receiving visions and receiving instructions directly from Jesus after Jesus had ascended. This begs the question, how can Linus be the head of Christ Church with a living Apostle on the earth? It would seem that someone forget to tell Jesus... Because He was speaking to John. It should be noted, that it was never recorded that Jesus ever visited Linus or any of his successors.
We've seen this before though right? When Moses was late coming down from Mt Sinai, the Children of Israel became impatient and built a golden calf. Much like Moses, John was separated from the people and they grew impatient. They chose a new leader for their church.
Did the people creating a golden calf invalidate Moses authority or his calling from God? No of course not. So did the people choosing Linus invalidate John in Jesus' eyes? No and for the same reason. Men have their free agency. They can choose good or evil, right or wrong. God does this so that His judgment is just.
This begs the question, if John was the true leader of God's Church, what does that mean for the church being lead by Linus?
Think of it this way:
Jesus -> John -> to the people
Linus -> to the people that picked him
Linus did hold the position of Bishop in the original Church. In the early Church, a Bishop lead a local congregation. Being that he was in Rome, it was probably a large congregation. It would be speculation but you could assume that played a part in his being picked to lead the church as a whole.
Connecting the dots, it has to be said then, that the people choosing Linus, did in fact create a whole new church. Because Christ's church was again, being lead by John by the direct instruction of Jesus Christ. As recorded by the Apostle John.
Again, connecting the dots, if this were true there would be signs that Linus wasn't the guy, right?
One sign is the demonstrable way at which doctrines are delivered. In 1995, Pope John Paul II taught, "Many centuries were necessary to arrive at the explicit definition of the revealed truths concerning Mary." In fact, the view of Mary as "Mother of the Church", wasn't arrived at until 400 years after the ascension of Jesus. Up to this time, God had delivered his doctrines via Himself directly, or by a prophet. This is the unchanging pattern of God.
But this very important doctrine, which has erected great cathedrals, churches, and shrines in honor of Mary and has a billion people world wide chanting her name and praying to her... wasn't delivered by God at all. According to John Paul II, it was "arrived at" after 400 years of thinking about it...
I mean that's not how God does things. So it's made up by man...
And no choice of men after Linus will be acceptable to God either. The choice has to come from God directly. God doesn't bend to the will of men.
I could keep going, there are many dots to connect. But it can all be traced back to this one event. The people choosing to follow Linus rather than Jesus and His Apostle and Prophet John. So the next time some religious leader starts making overtures to homosexuality or wokeness, you can trace it back to where it all went off the rails.
Also, is this the purpose of the two prophets the Lord promised in the last days as recorded by John in Rev 11? As it was with the children of Israel in Egypt, God sent Moses to straighten them out and get them back on track and lead them. Is this why the gospel of Jesus Christ is taught by an angel in Rev 14? Because we've been going down the wrong path for so long, fraught with false doctrine and false teachers? God in His omnipotence would know this was the course of mankind and He would have made this correction part of the plan from the beginning.
Rev 14:
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
I mean if it was all here and correct, we wouldn't need angels and prophets to teach us. John only writes about the two prophets that are killed. It begs the question, are there more?
In conclusion, I think all of Christianity needs to abandon their priests and preachers and start giving some effort into finding these promised prophets. I mean if you think it's all real of course. Praying to God in the name of Jesus to direct us to true prophets would be a great start. Because every day I see more and more churches folding to the ideology of the devil. We need correction. We need true doctrine and direction of God just like what Moses did for the children of Israel.
Just my thoughts, thanks for your time.
But it was Jewish. Monotheism was weird.
Heck, I know devout Hindus and they cannot get their heads around monotheism.
The Jesus followers only really get distinguished after the Kitos war when Jews slaughtered gentile civilians in Cyrene and Cyprus.
Christianity’s break from Judaism helped a bit but you forget that it couldn’t be a big break as, to the Romans anything new was suspect. So Christianity had to stick close to ancient traditions. But not too close!
Can you elaborate on your statement “ Anti-semitism was so deeply ingrained into Rome that it followed was a strong force in the early history of protestants today.”
There were no pogroms in the high middle ages in Europe with the first pogrom being in the 11th century in Muslim ruled Al Andalus.
Early Protestants like luther were not anti Semitic. Bear me out, I know Luther called on horrific acts to be done to Jews. But
1. He called the same on Catholics, on Zwingli Reformed, on peasants, in short on anyone who disagreed with him.
2. He had no problem with Jews who converted to luther’s way of thinking.
Jesus was not a sabbatarian. On the contrary He was Lord of the Sabbath.
Peter wasn’t either, neither were the Apostles. They worshipped and kept the Lord’s day holy.
I think the proper way to look at Luther and the Jews was that he was willing to put aside his hatred because his hatred of Catholicism was more important to him . He was trying to build a coalition against the all powerful Catholic church. When the Jews refused to come on board as protestants he let loose his true feelings and this permeated the modern church for centuries ...and to a certain extent still does. Any Christians that advocate keeping the holy days of the bible or God's sabbaths are often automatically branded as an outsider, a heretic or worse. I think this is a cultural remnant of the anti Jewish sentiment that permeated the Roman empire at all levels for centuries.
I believe this is called confirmation bias. Along the lines of grass is not green, it just looks that way because of the color. The sun is not hot but it has a very very high surface temperature. This Dr. Suess thinking is okay for childrens books but is not suitable for science or theology.
Jesus was under scrutiny and attack from the day He was born. He led a perfect life. He followed every Law given to mankind. He showed it could be done. To suggest He broke the Ten Commandments is blasphemy.
Quote’
The whole idea of the sabbath is for it’s effect on people. Reverence, remembrance, rest, and worship.
And Gardener,that is why Satan counterfeited the Sabbath.
To steal glory and worship from the Creator.
Satan then allows the major religions to pick the days they want.
And even labels days after false gods and goddesses.
Deceitful.
But predicted in scripture.
He didn’t change the commandments - He boiled them to the essentials - love of God and love of your fellow men.
Luther didn’t hesitate to call Zwingli, a fellow Protestant leader, “son of the devil” for disagreeing with Luther.
Luther did not hate Jews racially - an anti-Semite hates them for their race, not for their religious views. It is a difference. Luther hated EVERYONE who’s religious and other views differed from him.
“this permeated the modern church for centuries” — There was no anti-semitism based on race among any of the Christian churches unless one includes German “Positive Christianity” among those ranks (and I don’t)
“I think this is a cultural remnant of the anti Jewish sentiment that permeated the Roman empire at all levels for centuries.”
—> That’s not correct. Jews were treated well enough under the Romans AFTER 150 AD — they were given trade rights, they were allowed exemptions from Emperor worship (which Christians were not accorded). Outside the Middle East, they thrived - with large Jewish communities in Rome, in Iberia, Greece, etc.
Julian, the only emperor to reject Christianity after the conversion of Constantine, allowed the Jews to return to “holy Jerusalem which you have for many years longed to see rebuilt” and to rebuild the Temple. However Julian was killed in battle on 26 June 363 in his failed campaign against the Sassanid Empire, and the Third Temple was not rebuilt at that time.
If you look at the period from 378 AD (Roman empire becomes Christian) to 1000, there are no pogroms or acts against Jews. There is prejudice in Iberia from the 700s onwards because Jews were aiding the Muslims in their conquest of Iberia (this is similar to Jewish support for Muslims in the Middle east etc - the Jews probably saw a community of stern monotheist warriors as somehow possible converts to rabbinical Judaism or help for rabbinical Judaism)
Of course - I don’t read your New World Translation.
As I wrote - Jesus was not a sabbatarian. On the contrary He was Lord of the Sabbath
Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week.” Because it is the “first day,” the day of Christ’s Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the “eighth day” following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ’s Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord’s Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica)
“Upon the first day of the weekσαββατων let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2 AV).
Now if you think Paul changed Christianity, do you reject the Pauline epistles?
Which means He rested (in death) on the Sabbath like a good Sabbatarian. He arose on the first day of the week after observance of the Sabbath but you use twisted pretzel logic to say He changed the day of worship mentioned in the Law. You say. What does the Bible (Jesus) say? Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
You say He changed it. He didn't. Do not embarrass yourself further. It's all there in the Bible for those willing to read and understand.
- He boiled them to the essentials - love of God and love of your fellow men.
No, you boiled them, not God. Boiled them to meaningless platitudes which could mean anything. Jesus was answering their question. Which laws because they had several confusing sometimes contradictory laws. There was the Law of Moses (ceremonial laws), man made laws the priests elaborated on (made up) and there was the universal law for all of mankind, The Ten Commandments. This was the Law Jesus referred to. The first part of which describes mans obligation to God (including Sabbath observance) and the second part of mans obligation to man. It is a complete unit wrote on stone by Gods Finger. You don't boil stone.
But you don't worship Him. You worship the counterfeit, lord of the first day of the week. You defile Gods Law. And teach others to do the same. How will you meet your maker? How will you explain your error in NOT obeying Him?
"If you love Me, keep My Commandments" is as plain as day. But you don't like those laws and rebel against them ,just as Satan. You will not submit to His Will. You will do your own thing.
The sun and moon.
But take note,the Father doesn’t count just 6+1.
The Father counts 1+6+1 at the beginning of each of His months.
Ezekiel 46:1 proves that
Nope, I worship the Lord of the Sabbath, who rose on the day after Sabbath.
You worship the Sabbath rather than your Lord.
The essentials are love God and love your fellow man. God rose on Domenica, that is why it is holy in the new covenant
On Sabbath He won over death and opened Sheol. Not rested, because He inaugurated a new covenant.
on the contrary, Bipolar Bob - as your name suggests, you do not worship the Lord but rather the Law and your own diatribes.
That is sad.
You disrespect His words which said
John 6: 35 [q]Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
John 6:50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
You disrespect Jesus’s own words - repeatedly said and then you act like those in John 6:66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
May God bless you and open your eyes to the truth.
The Law doesn't save. That is not its job. It only points out sin. We are not to sin. We are to follow the Law in order not to sin. But that still doesn't save us because we are born into sin. We still need Jesus.
Paul wrote Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
So how come you worship on Sunday? It certainly is NOT commanded like the Sabbath is. If you still don't know I'll let you know if you want me to. I'll show you the writings you cannot find.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.