If the church was in hiding ...

[placido]

Placido,
I was being deliberately vague. So was John, as you have noted by your questions.

No problem, but can we please start putting more substance on what we say?

The canonization of scriptures did not make them scriptures.
The revelation by the Holy Spirit made them the word of God, and those words were scripture at that point, when the words were first written down.

That is self evident. Scriptutures were Scriptures before canonization, canonozation was needed nonetheless.

The canonization could have been done by anyone who found the writings and decided to canonize them. It is not the same thing, nor the same event.

In the first centuries (while the church was in hiding) there was a variety of lists. How do we know that the final list is the correct one? And was the final list a product of the the-church-in-hiding or by the “false church” that had a free hand those years?

The historical evidence happened continously after the deaths of the apostles.

Okay, let us start putting the historical evidence on the table. What happened immediately after the death of the last apostle?

If all this is a nullity for you, then that is fine with me. I was merely attempting to provide you a way to find answers to your own questions. Have a good day.

Giving me verses from John’s Revelation was ok, but I was looking for contrete historical evidence regarding the church in hiding.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Placido,
Here are some answers:

In the first centuries (while the church was in hiding) there was a variety of lists. How do we know that the final list is the correct one? And was the final list a product of the the-church-in-hiding or by the “false church” that had a free hand those years?

I think most of the people who received possession of the writings of the prophets and apostles, treasured the words and treated them with great care, doing the best they could if they attempted to translate into a different language. I think making a “list” wasn’t all that important, once the New Testament writings were in possession of anyone. The New Testament writings contained the new covenant gospel, which was of primary importance and necessity.

Any “final list” would need to have been compiled by the full and complete, inspired influence of the Holy Spirit. The church was not on the earth when it was “in hiding”, so attempts by churches to canonize or make final lists would not be using the completely correct process (meaning not have the full ratification of the Holy Spirit because the church had been withdrawn from the earth). Such a church could have been doing their best, but could still have missed something or compiled something that was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Okay, let us start putting the historical evidence on the table. What happened immediately after the death of the last apostle?

Here is some of the history posted on another thread by another reader:

"From newadvent.org:
Pope St. Linus
tt=21

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus’s term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain."

The inconsistencies, the placement of the “bishop of Rome” at the head of the earthly church without any evidence that such was intended or authorized by the apostles, and the beginnings of changes in doctrines and the continuation of disputes about authority and about doctrines, with no apostles to be the final authoritative decision-makers, all show that the church had come to a point of being in disarray.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Here are some answers:
I think most of the people who received possession of the writings of the prophets and apostles, treasured the words and treated them with great care, doing the best they could if they attempted to translate into a different language.
I think making a “list” wasn’t all that important, once the New Testament writings were in possession of anyone. The New Testament writings contained the new covenant gospel, which was of primary importance and necessity.

You think the list was not that important and I think the list was that important. Now what makes your “thinking” better than my “thinking”?

Any “final list” would need to have been compiled by the full and complete, inspired influence of the Holy Spirit. The church was not on the earth when it was “in hiding”, so attempts by churches to canonize or make final lists would not be using the completely correct process (meaning not have the full ratification of the Holy Spirit because the church had been withdrawn from the earth).

You say the “church in hiding” was not on earth and you expect us to say “halleluiah”, no evidence needed.
Why not give us at least a date when the church was taken up to heaven and then reveal the source of your information, something like eye witness accounts?

Such a church could have been doing their best, but could still have missed something or compiled something that was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Here is some of the history posted on another thread by another reader:
“From newadvent.org:
Pope St. Linus
tt=21
(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.
We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.
Linus’s term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain.”

Okay, that is the “contradictory” evidence of the “false church”. Now where is the evidence of the true church?

The inconsistencies, the placement of the “bishop of Rome” at the head of the earthly church without any evidence that such was intended or authorized by the apostles, and the beginnings of changes in doctrines and the continuation of disputes about authority and about doctrines, with no apostles to be the final authoritative decision-makers, all show that the church had come to a point of being in disarray.

Does it really matter who the head of the “earthly church” was since the true church was in heaven anyway?
If what you are saying is true, then what happened is not “change of doctrines” because the “earthly church” was a totally different church altogether.
I do understand those fantasies very well …

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Placido,

You think the list was not that important and I think the list was that important. Now what makes your “thinking” better than my “thinking”?

My thinking isn’t better than your thinking. We can think differently, and both be fine.

You say the “church in hiding” was not on earth and you expect us to say “halleluiah”, no evidence needed.
Why not give us at least a date when the church was taken up to heaven and then reveal the source of your information, something like eye witness accounts?

John gave the closest thing to an eye-witness account one could expect. Daniel had prophesied of the same event happening, when he was alive and wrote down his vision.

Okay, that is the “contradictory” evidence of the “false church”. Now where is the evidence of the true church?

Christ and the prophets of the Old Testament gave all sorts of “clues” about what would constitute true worship, the true covenants of the gospel, its true “fruits”, and that the house of Israel as well as the Gentiles would be brought in to the covenant gospel during the last days of the world’s history. You read the Bible, list the “clues”, look around, and match the “evidence” with the “clues”. Included in that process would be “seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened.”

Does it really matter who the head of the “earthly church” was since the true church was in heaven anyway?

No. Good point.

If what you are saying is true, then what happened is not “change of doctrines” because the “earthly church” was a totally different church altogether.

The root source of the doctrines was true, and was from the true church and true prophets and apostles. The “earthly church” wasn’t a “totally different church altogether”–it had much of the truth, but made some changes to accomodate what people wanted to believe or what the leaders wanted to have them believe. It became “impure”. It became a changed church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that most of us who are Protestant do not believe the church was in hiding…it was quite visible as those who had faith in Christ and sought to worship God in spirit and in truth existed as the People of God in the existing institutional organization.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

A few names, a date or two, maybe a link to an ancient writing by someone who is an orthodox Christian but NOT Catholic from any century prior to 1000AD?

Oh, could you point to any examples of the missionary activity of these non-Catholic Christians that proves that they were fulfilling the Great Commission?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. About the time John wrote about it from the Isle of Patmos.
2. It was “in the wilderness,” and the “beast” was allowed to have power: (Revelation 13:7) “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”
3. John saw it happen in vision, and wrote down his vision, and you read the vision in the book of Revelation.
4. It comes out of hiding when you find it and have the same gifts of the Spirit that John had and that Paul had, and see with new eyes, and have a new birth–a second birth.

Hmmm…I thought the Church fell away from the truth during the Great Apostasy. But you seem to be suggesting that at least some remnant of the true Church has always existed which means that the Church founded by Christ still exists and does not need a restoration by latter-day prophets.

These appear to be contradictory positions. Please explain.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The canonization of scriptures did not make them scriptures. The revelation by the Holy Spirit made them the word of God, and those words were scripture at that point, when the words were first written down.

True. However, the New Testament was not “revealed” as already written nor were the authors of the NT books mere copyists. The NT was INSPIRED, and there is a huge difference between the two.

The canonization could have been done by anyone who found the writings and decided to canonize them.

By just anyone? ANYONE who found the writings (presumably dropped from heaven in this scenario) would have the authority to declare them to be the inspired word of God?

So, if I have a burning in my bosom about the New Testament, I can declare those 27 books to be canonical and this is binding upon you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The inconsistencies, the placement of the “bishop of Rome” at the head of the earthly church without any evidence that such was intended or authorized by the apostles, and the beginnings of changes in doctrines and the continuation of disputes about authority and about doctrines, with no apostles to be the final authoritative decision-makers, all show that the church had come to a point of being in disarray.

Is there any real scholarly doubt that the record shows that Linus succeeded Peter as the Bishop of Rome?

 

[ParkerD]

Hmmm…I thought the Church fell away from the truth during the Great Apostasy. But you seem to be suggesting that at least some remnant of the true Church has always existed which means that the Church founded by Christ still exists and does not need a restoration by latter-day prophets.

These appear to be contradictory positions. Please explain.

Randy,
The root doctrine, centered in Christ’s atonement and the need for repentance, continued in various forms. The authority of the apostles to preserve the true and pure doctrine was no longer on the earth, so humankind was, in a manner of speaking, “winging it.”

The restoration was of the authority of the apostleship, and of the authority to administer all of the ordinances of salvation. Once the apostleship authority was restored, the doctrines could be restored also and kept pure once they were restored in their purity.

 

[Convert66]

I have a few problems with this “church-was-in-hiding-theory.”

1. Why were they hiding? Didn’t Jesus tell us to let our light shine to the world, and that a candle hidden under a bowl is useless? Then if one holds to this theory they are admitting their uselessness.:crying:
2. Why were they so afraid if they had the true revelation? Didn’t Jesus say to rejoice when you are persecuted for His name’s sake? How could they possibly overcome the dragon or the world if they didn’t bear the “testimony of Christ” and if they, contrary to the Scriptures, loved their lives so much that they hid instead of preached the Gospel openly like the Apostles and their successors?:frighten:
3. Why are only the non-Catholics the true Church? If they preached openly (Catholic Church) then they are the false church??? . . .Hide and remain silent, and you are the true Church? That’s preposterous! What, let the Catholics take all the beatings, stonings, immolations, beheadings, boilings and lion-chowders, and then once they get everything up and running, NOW you are the True Church???

That sounds like one of those greenhorn lieutenant nitwits from West Point riding up the hill after the Marines have rooted out the enemy and then claiming his genius and bravery for fighting it out tooth and nail. Someone’s gonna get fragged, you know what I mean?:nunchuk::knight2:

The Catholic Church proclaimed Christ openly, were martyred and yet still overcame the world (Rome) like the Scriptures say. The “church-in-hiding” needs to get lost again.

There’s something very rotten in Denmark. And it ain’t frikadeller.

All my best . . .

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,
The root doctrine, centered in Christ’s atonement and the need for repentance, continued in various forms. The authority of the apostles to preserve the true and pure doctrine was no longer on the earth, so humankind was, in a manner of speaking, “winging it.”

The restoration was of the authority of the apostleship, and of the authority to administer all of the ordinances of salvation. Once the apostleship authority was restored, the doctrines could be restored also and kept pure once they were restored in their purity.

Parker-

Does the Bible actually suggest that the authority of the Church would disappear? Or does the Bible teach that apostasy of the Church was impossible since Christ Himself would protect it?

Well, let’s take a look…and, yeah, this is a little something I put together…I’m not pulling a “cut & paste” on you, okay?

Questions for Mormons Concerning the Great Apostasy

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the true, restored Church established by God after all other Christian churches had fallen into total apostasy. In a 1992 article for This Rock magazine, author Patrick Madrid provided a compelling argument that this Mormon claim is the lynchpin of LDS theology:

“The late Bruce McConkie, a Mormon apostle and, during his life, perhaps Mormonism’s leading theologian, explained the concept of the Great Apostasy this way: “This universal apostasy began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves; and it was known to and foretold by them. . . . With the loss of the Gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages. Apostasy was universal. . . . [T]his darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored Gospel.”(Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966 ed.), 43-44.
“Mormonism’s claim to be the “restored” church hangs upon there having been a complete apostasy. The late James E. Talmadge, prolific Mormon writer and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote:

‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel, and re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the holy priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of priesthood and power, since the meridian of time [the time of Christ].
​

‘The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of the great apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims’(James E. Talmadge, The Great Apostasy (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 1968 ed.), iii. For a discussion of apostolic succession see Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom and The Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1985, 1987).) (emphasis added).
“TALMADGE is correct in evaluating the consequences, of course: if no apostasy, no restoration, and if no restoration, no Mormonism.”
​

The issue to be examined, therefore, is whether total apostasy of the Christian Church was possible. The following verses suggest that apostasy was not possible, and questions are submitted to our Mormon friends.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church fell into total apostasy, does this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into totally apostasy for nearly 1700 years, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into apostasy, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church fell into total apostasy, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into total apostasy? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Madrid also reported that “in a written exchange (*This Rock, *(July 1991), 18.), Mormon apologist Robert Starling, attempting to prove the divine origin of the Mormon Church, cited the Rabbi Gamaliel’s prediction regarding the New Testament Church: "f this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39). Starling unwittingly undercut his own claim of a great apostasy. Gamaliel was right. The Church Jesus built could not be destroyed.”

 

[ParkerD]

Is there any real scholarly doubt that the record shows that Linus succeeded Peter as the Bishop of Rome?

Randy,
Peter was never the Bishop of Rome, and Linus lived contemoraneously in the same time period as the Apostle John, so he could not possibly have been considered the earthly head of the church during his life.

 

[ParkerD]

Randy Carson,
I’ve had extensive online discussions about all of the things you brought up. Thanks for your kindness and thoughtfulness. I think you have figured things out for yourself for your own peace of mind, and I think that is just fine and the Bible will lead you along as you follow its teachings. Peace to you. (I’m not copping out–I just don’t like to repeat myself, nor do I have the time. You can click on my name and find several such discussions, albeit needing a little patience to find them.) I really do wish you all the best, and I’m not worried about your salvation or anything like that. God bless you always. I know He will.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I can give you a timeline of the real church, I believe it was around 30 A.D. this was said

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

After that, He who said it was crucified and rose from the dead 3 days later. After a bunch of events that you can read more about in the bible, Peter set up the church and became the first pope.

 

[placido]

John gave the closest thing to an eye-witness account one could expect. Daniel had prophesied of the same event happening, when he was alive and wrote down his vision.

I was expecting you to be more concrete, but as it now stands you are so vague. I read Daniel and I read John’s writings but I don’t see any hint of the church-in-hiding theory there.

Christ and the prophets of the Old Testament gave all sorts of “clues” about what would constitute true worship, the true covenants of the gospel, its true “fruits”, and that the house of Israel as well as the Gentiles would be brought in to the covenant gospel during the last days of the world’s history. You read the Bible, list the “clues”, look around, and match the “evidence” with the “clues”. Included in that process would be “seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened.”

I expected you give me the details of those “clues” and the “evidence”, not just mention them because I don’t them.

The root source of the doctrines was true, and was from the true church and true prophets and apostles. The “earthly church” wasn’t a “totally different church altogether”–it had much of the truth, but made some changes to accomodate what people wanted to believe or what the leaders wanted to have them believe. It became “impure”. It became a changed church.

Were those “changes” the reason why the “true church” fled into heaven, or was that supposed to happen that way any way?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

I was expecting you to be more concrete, but as it now stands you are so vague. I read Daniel and I read John’s writings but I don’t see any hint of the church-in-hiding theory there.

I expected you give me the details of those “clues” and the “evidence”, not just mention them because I don’t see them.

Were those “changes” the reason why the “true church” fled into heaven, or was that supposed to happen that way any way?

placido

Placido,
Daniel 7:25 says that a “king” “shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” The king prevails–the saints of the most High do not prevail for a long time.

There are literally hundreds of clues. Most of the teachings of Jesus included a clue. Isaiah is full of clues, Genesis has clues, Deuteronomy, the epistles of Paul and Peter and the book of Revelation. The gospel end product is a covenant people including the house of Israel and the Gentiles, “an holy nation” with the fruits of living the gospel including not relying on pageantry to try and mimic spirituality or spiritual feelings. It includes understanding about the promises to the house of Ephraim (including Joseph) and the house of Judah, the stick of Ephraim and the stick of Judah, understanding why the baptismal covenant is a personal decision to be ratified by God and made by each person with a knowledgeable choice having been made by them, understanding why apostles and prophets are needed, understanding why the Holy Spirit’s presence is always conditioned on individual righteousness and has never been guaranteed to stay if the people aren’t righteous to keep the Spirit in their lives.

Because an event is prophesied to happen, I suppose one could say it was “supposed to happen that way.” I would look at it in a different way than that. God allows events to happen that will ultimately be turned into a good thing for humankind. The good thing in this case is that people have such a wide range of choices about religion that they can truly make their own choice based on what they desire deep inside of their heart and mind. We learn by choosing and by seeing the effects of our choices in life, sooner or later. Since this life is for learning, it is to be expected that we learn by choosing without any coercion or any obvious “right choice that everyone should make”. Learning faith requires such a process, and requires many religious choices rather than one path that everyone automatically follows.

 

[Religio71]

Placido,
The canonization could have been done by anyone who found the writings and decided to canonize them. It is not the same thing, nor the same event.

Except there’s something called authority.

 

[Religio71]

Randy,
Peter was never the Bishop of Rome, and Linus lived contemoraneously in the same time period as the Apostle John, so he could not possibly have been considered the earthly head of the church during his life.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, which is surprisingly even accepted by those that do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome today, the largest church being the Orthodox Church, believing that Peter not only had a primacy, but that the Church of Rome did as well. We couple this not only with non-Biblical historical accounts, but with understanding of the Biblical nature of “bishop”/“bishopric”.

Why could Linus not have been Bishop of Rome if John was alive at the same time? Is this going by the “senior apostle” logic of the LDS Church?

 

[placido]

Randy,
The root doctrine, centered in Christ’s atonement and the need for repentance, continued in various forms. The authority of the apostles to preserve the true and pure doctrine was no longer on the earth, so humankind was, in a manner of speaking, “winging it.”

But how do we know? Where is the concrete evidence. In his letters to Timothy and Titus Paul seems to suggest that the authority of the apostles was to continue. Do you have any “Scriptures” that contradict the above Scriptures?
T

he restoration was of the authority of the apostleship, and of the authority to administer all of the ordinances of salvation. Once the apostleship authority was restored, the doctrines could be restored also and kept pure once they were restored in their purity.

How was it restored, by whom, when and how do we know? (Conrete evidence please).

placido