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.
You have to consider all of scripture. If those were the only references I’d think you have a point.
But from genesis 1 on we see the trinity. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yet there is only one God. The trinity is the word we use to express this rather than using 20 words, that’s all.
The article says they don’t know much about Linus at all.
Christ is the leader of the church. Period. It is His church. He is it’s head. At no time was Peter, or any man the head of the church. At no time.
Hmmm, I guess my old-fashioned inner pedant needs an update. :-)
That's not what it means at all. The seventh day, the sabbath, was part of the ONLY written record they had.
God made the 7th day holy and rested as an example to his people:
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
And Exodus 20 tells us why it was created for man:
Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
It wasn't changed. It was the same holy 7th day.
Mark chapter 2 concerns extra rigid rules imposed on the Sabbath by the Pharisees...so strict that a hungry man couldn't eat grain off the bush because it was like "work". A whole bunch goes into it...hypocrisy, judgementalism, etc etc..
He then makes his point:
Mar 2:27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
The sabbath was made for man to enjoy and relax...NOT to get in trouble for following hypocritical rules.
And THEN he puts the final stamp on it:
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."
He tells them he IS the Lord who MADE the sabbath so it's God's authority over the sabbath and not the Pharisees.
However he NEVER denigrates, puts down, or alters the sabbath. Your viewpoint is simply a viewpoint used by modern Christianity to get away from observing God's sabbath.
I posted two scriptures as representative examples. There are certainly more that prove the point....much more so than any points about the modern trinity theory. We can even extend that into the natural world...2 sexes....2 people make 1....two halves of the body make one....etc etc.
>> "That statement of course begs the question on which the entire Congress and the state legislatures and the Supreme Court have been stalled for years,.." -William F. Buckley
> In an article about John Kerry's pro choice remarks, William F. Buckley used "begs the question" in the same context that I do.
Actually, I'll disagree and say that a careful reading of WFB's sentence shows that he is using it in the original "logical fallacy" sense.
He's saying that "That statement" assumes the answer to a question that has stalled (and therefore is not answered), so that's the logical error of the original meaning.
Yes, that's how I've always understood it, and that's its original and first meaning.
But as GardenerForLife pointed out later ($47), the phrase has been misapplied to mean "suggesting the question" so often in modern usage, that even Merriam-Webster has thrown in the towel and allowed the "incorrect" usage as a legit alternate.
So I guess I'll broaden my horizon and accept that the definition has changed to be more "inclusive".
It still sets my teeth on edge to read it or hear it, but now that's my problem. :-)
Thanks to GardenerForLife for the update in #47, although on careful reading, the WFB quote does in fact use the phrase in its original "logical fallacy" sense.
You said you were using logic, and you used a very specific term of logic incorrectly.
If what you meant was a bastardized and non-sensical meaning for a logical term, then you were not getting to the point as you promised, but creating confusion.
Merriam-Webster is not the rest of the literary world, and it is a very poor reference, because it gets the term just as wrong as you, as it does with other words.
The Syriac version of the Book of Revelation begins by stating that it was “written in Patmos, to which John was sent by Nero Caesar.” Also, another Syriac work, The History of John, the Son of Zebedee, asserts that Nero exiled John.
John was imprisoned on the island of Patmos, writing the book of Revelation at that timr
The scriptures you posted and may post will reflect that The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each unique Persons. The doctrine of the trinity affirms this.
It just further affirms that they are all God and yet God is one, which is a mystery, but undeniable.
The father is given the attributes of God. Jesus is given the attributes of God. The Holy Spirit is given the attributes of God. We are baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for this reason as He directs. How blasphemous if we were baptized in the name of someone not God!
Also note that the bishop of Rome, like Peter was, is the primus inter pares. First among equals. He would be called upon to be the tie breaker in a dispute. But for a community under persecution from the Sanhedrin Sadduccees (so “beaten in the synagogues”), from the Pharisees and, from nero6onwards by the civil authorities, this community worked like churches in North Korea, not with daily day to day micro management.
The significance of the two prophets in Rev 11
Rev. 11:3–6. 3 And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if any one would harm them, fire pours out from their mouth and consumes their foes; if any one would harm them, thus he is doomed to be killed. 6 They have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
The two witnesses are likened to two “olive trees” and two “lamps.” This is probably a reference to Zechariah 4. There, two olive trees continually provide oil for the lamps in the temple. The meaning of the passage is explained to Zechariah: the temple in Jerusalem will be built despite the resistance of those who oppose it because it has God’s anointing (Zech. 4:1–6). These two witnesses, therefore, come to warn of the destruction of the earthly temple. Anyone who clings to it instead of following Christ, refuses to admit that the Spirit has left the earthly temple and anointed a better temple namely Jesus.
The image of the two witnesses who “stand before the Lord” is also taken from Zechariah (4:14). The two witnesses are those who have power to “stop the rain,” “turn water into blood,” and bring forth “plagues.” These images are associated with Moses and Elijah. Moses was able to turn water into blood through the plagues. Fire also came down and consumed Moses’ and Elijah’s enemies (Num. 16:35; 2 Kings 1:12)
Together, Moses and Elijah symbolize the two major parts of the Old Testament—the Law and the Prophets like
Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration of Jesus
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.