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.
There’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that there was going to be a succession of “apostles” after the twelve died. And certainly no Pope either.
“I’m...”
“I’m...”
“...my...”
No one cares about your ego.
Sunday was never sanctioned by God. It was totally man made. Same with Christmas and Easter. Even the modern trinity doctrine wasn't "official" until more than 3 centuries after Christ died...which means Christ and the apostles didn't know it, teach it, or believe it.
“However, the Apostle John was still on the earth and talking to the risen Lord face to face during this time.”
What’s the scriptural basis for this claim? Is the writer assuming, as Revelation itself doesn’t AFAIK claim, that it was written by the apostle John?
“First century Christians, biblical Christians, observed God’s holy days that are listed in Leviticus 23.”
Even gentile converts? Evidence?
A pilot hole ?
Linus being the second appointed after Peter is based on Irenaeus and some question if Irenaeus’ Apostolic Tradition is or was accurate.
The generally touted Catholic position about that Linus being the second pope and that he was ordained by Peter, is based, to a great degree, upon the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon.
“One Catholic scholar and priest noted:
Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief—that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34)”.
There is more and I will leave the link:
https://www.cogwriter.com/linus.htm
Non sequitur. Whenever it became "official" has absolutely nothing to do with whether Christ and the apostles knew it.
Yep. Paul told them to.
The church in Corinth was composed of probably MOSTLY gentiles.
1Co 12:2 You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led.
And yet...
1Co 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
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.
“I think all of Christianity needs to abandon their priests and preachers”
Ummm...okay. : /
The nature of God is a pretty big deal. The fact that Christ didn't teach the trinity telling...it wasn't discussed, it wasn't thought of, it wasn't a thing. They KNEW the nature of God and it didn't look at all like the trinity of today.
Disagree scripture makes the trinity clear.
To assume that the early church was in the dark is an assumption.
If the presence of 'I' in a text was an indication of egoism, then your screen name doubly convicts you.
If we’re getting rid of humans who may have led us astray from the True Faith, then let us please do away with all of the publishers, printers, translators, Bible scholars, etc. who most likely have provided us with less than perfect renditions of the teachings of Christ.
So it’s a binity?
(Oh, and if you're counting ifinnigan, I will have used variants on 'I' five times in this reply. I am such an egoist!)
Ignatius.
Did your school chums call you 'Iggy' or 'Nate'?
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.