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.
I believe that is covered pretty well in 1Corinthians 3:4. Paul exposes this as carnal thinking.
"Begging the question" is the name of a logical fallacy. It's a logical error.
IMO, when you propose to question Christian spiritual doctrine, scripture, and a few millennia of religious thought and belief, it's probably best that you know what you're writing. Please don't undercut your own serious intent by making repeated mistakes of language usage.
That said, your essay was interesting and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for posting.
Adventist?
CC
“Paul uses terms and concepts about Passover and the days of unleavened bread that they would not understand unless they were already keeping the feast. And by the way that word translated ‘keep the feast’ means just that...observe one of God’s holy days.”
The very passage you cited shows the Passover feast was being taught as a spiritual analogy. They “kept” it spiritually by practicing “sincerity and truth”. Much of what the apostles taught was from the Old Testament, but the main point was the spiritual application. Even the Sabbath has its application spiritually as a symbol of resting from our works and entering into the finished work of Christ. See Hebrews 4:9-10. When the author of Hebrews explains the symbolism of the furniture of the tabernacle, it does not mean that the Gentiles need to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to a physical tabernacle or temple. Christ taught in John 4 that the time would soon arrive (after Pentecost) when true worshippers would not be limited to special locations.
1 Corinthians 10:11 NKJV
Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
The apostles were not sent to the Gentiles to convert them to Judaism. They were sent to preach the Gospel which was given under the dispensation of a New Covenant (as Christ implemented at the Last Supper).
2 Corinthians 3:6 NKJV
[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The council in Acts made it clear that the Gentiles throughout the Roman empire were throughly familiar with Judaism and could have already converted if they had been led to do so. That was NOT the message of the Gospel. Rather, they were commanded to adopt 3 simple Judaic principles that were foreign to the Greek religions of the day but had ALWAYS applied to Gentiles because they predated the Law of Moses:
Acts 15:19-21 NKJV
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
There was unanimous agreement to follow the council of James and Peter. Jews continued to follow the law of Moses as they always had done because it was written for the Jews. Gentiles were NOT commanded to follow the law of Moses. They did keep the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper with the bread and cup as in 1 Corinthians 11. Christ implemented this when He and the disciples observed the Passover celebration. The breaking of bread continued to be practiced apart from the Passover by both Jewish and Gentile believers. Sometimes breaking of bread was part of “love feasts” or community meals, but these were customs and not ordinances of the apostles, as is demonstrated by Paul telling the Corinthians to eat at home rather than bring divisiveness into the Lord’s supper. This is the closest thing the early church did together (Jews and Gentiles) that honored the symbolism of Passover. Gentiles did not offer a spotless lamb and put its blood on their doorposts.
There are only a few Biblical cases, to my knowledge, in which Gentiles were obligated beyond the council in Acts. One would be the example of Paul circumcising Timothy, whose father was a Gentile, but his mother was a Jewish believer. Gentile Christians might have observed the Sabbath when in the land of Israel because Gentiles were supposed to do this under the Law of Moses, but it does not apply to Gentiles generally. Nowhere in the entire Bible is there a command for Gentiles to rest on the Sabbath except when in Israel. Also, circumcision was given to Abraham to be for all of his physical descendants, not just Jews.
Paul specifically said the opposite of your claim about keeping feasts:
Colossians 2:16-17 NKJV
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Again, Moses gave us symbols and mere shadows. Christ is the substance. We no longer need the complex religious system God gave to Israel because we have Christ Himself.
RC Sproul’s very short and informative pamphlet, “Can I Believe the Bible?” will be a good resource for you. It will challenge your assumptions on apostles, church history, and a little on hermeneutics.
While we await another prophet, how about we have our churches, priests, ministers, bishops, and popes to teach and to administer what we have? And what if a prophet arrives and says to Christians, “I have a few things to say, but please keep things running. The Lord wants you to still do your jobs for Him.”
After a certain point during Jesus’ ministry, John began habitually deferring to Peter, named by Jesus as head of the Apostles and his Vicar on earth. It is evident in the fact that he reached Jesus’ tomb first but waited and allowed Peter to enter it first to confirm the claims of Mary of Magdala. There is no reason to believe John did not act in the same way toward the second and later popes. Mary was a doctor of the Church but always deferred to Church authority. Can you imagine being a post-Peter pope and having that kind of a brain trust from whiChapter to draw?
which
Linus was apostle to the Gentiles; John was apostle to the Jews. There was a difference.
“Begging the question” does not mean what you think it means. The phrase has a specific logical meaning not intended by your use.
You did not get right to the point, and used too many words to express yourself.
Effective writing, not to mention thoughtfulness for others, requires a person to spend more time in getting to the point. Writing which does not get to the point indicates that the writer does not have much respect for the reader.
“they would not understand unless they were already keeping the feast.”
Non sequitur - I understand those terms and concepts but don’t keep the feast.
Begging the question is the logical error of assuming that which you are seeking to prove.
Only because you live in a society that has had the bible at the center of society for centuries. Western society in effect is (or at least was) built around it.
The gentiles of that time were not so. They worshipped completely differently and were for the most part wholly ignorant of the creator God. Paul makes that point at the Acropolis.
If Paul had not been teaching and instructing about God's holy days when he used the term "paschal" (passover) the gentile converts would have been like "What the heck does he mean by that?" Same thing with the term "heortazo" (to keep one of the feast days of the bible").
In short Paul was teaching them spiritually by using terms and concepts that it would have been impossible for them to understand unless they knew the context.
Scripture does not make the trinity clear. Reading scripture with the supposition that there is a trinity reinforces erroneous ideas but that's not the same thing.
Again the modern trinity theory wasn't officially recognized as "truth" until over 300 years AFTER the death of Christ. This should make it evident that it's explicitly not clear in scripture. The test is what did Jesus believe?
Joh 10:30 I and My Father are one."
He doesn't say "I and my father and the holy spirit are one". Never.
What did Paul believe? In virtually every one of his epistles Paul sends a greeting similar to this:
Gal 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
Never a greeting from the holy spirit....which if it IS a separate God and part of a trinity would be a horrendous slight.
I don't know if that's the word I'd use but it's better than trinity.
The intent was for there to be twelve. Judas disgraced himself and was replaced. End of story. Remember Judas was not selected by Jesus but "volunteered".
But I'm no expert, that's just how I read it.
So where do you read this eternal perpetual succession? Chapter and verse please.
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.