If the church was in hiding ...

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
John received the same authority that Peter had received as recorded in Matthew 18:18-19 which was directed to the apostles.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

The gospel of John (book of John), contains many teachings and historical details that were not in the other gospels. John was with Peter and James and Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, a unique experience. After Peter’s death, John most certainly had more authority than Linus or Clement, and most certainly had experienced and received in first person more of the teachings and example of Jesus than Linus, Clement, Paul, or any other leaders, because he was with Christ in continuous association during Christ’s ministry.

Again you continue to say this to me. But why in 134 did you state John had more authority. Those are your words, Go back and read them. Now again did Jesus leave the keys to the kingdom to Peter or not. Now did Peter pass those keys on to John and I missed it or what?

Now why did Jesus give the Keys to only Peter? Why did Jesus only change Peters name. Oh yeah you said he didn’t.

Why does the word Peter in greek mean rock, and why would the word petro in greek mean rock?

Why does Cephias in Aramic mean rock?

Now you said Jesus didn’t change Peters name. Then explain this one. THOU ART PETER. WHATS THAT MEAN?

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
There is a major difference between how the Old Testament describes the change in Abram’s name and how the New Testament describes how the name Peter was used.

Genesis 17:5

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Thereafter, any subsequent reference calls him Abraham.

Not so with the “descriptive name” “Peter”. Simon is still called Simon many times, or Simon Peter, or Peter, or Simon called Peter. Note the name Jesus used when He said after His resurrection,

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.”
16 He saith to him again the second time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
17 He saith unto him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?” And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, “Feed my sheep.”

John also wrote “a stone” and not “the rock” when he described the event of Jesus designating Simon as “Cephas”:

John 1:42 And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

(In other words, Peter was steadfast and solid, and had integrity, but he was “a rock” or “a stone”, whereas Christ was the chief corner stone of the Church.)

Yes you wrote it yourself Simon PETER. Jesus called Peter Simon PETER! I agree, What is your point?

 

[ParkerD]

Nice try there Parker but no cigar for you.

Lets try it again.

Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;You are Peter and on this rock (PETRA IN GREEK) I will build my Church.

Sorry your story does not FLY! Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

Go back to the Parable of Mt 7:24-27

Gods house was built on Rock. Now sorry Jesus was a wise man would you not agree and the Lords house was built on a Famous Rock. Does scripture not tell you that.

When we remember the parable of the wise builder we understand why Jesus is building his Church on a ROCK that is ON PETER. And we also know the people who first heard that parable knew right away for Solomons Temple built on FOUNDATION STONE WE UNDERSTAND MORE OF WHAT JESUS SAID. SOLOMON BUILT THE TEMPLE AND SEALED OFF THE GATES OF HADES. Jesus the anointed one will build his church on rock and seal off the gates of Hades. The CHurch the whole community of belivers will replace solomons temple!

Rinnie,
I do appreciate your kindness and humor. The larger passage from Matthew about “thou art Peter” has important implications (note that Christ was addressing all of the apostles with His question):

Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Note the use of the term “gates of hell”. In Psalms 118 we read of Christ being the stone that is the “head stone of the corner” and opens the “gates of righteousness”:

19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the Lord:
20 This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

Note also that Christ has the keys of death and hell. Thus it is He who will open the gates of hell and prevail against it. Read this in the book of Revelation:

1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

So you see, Rinnie, being a lover of the Bible as I am, I will always disagree with you as to Who is the Rock, the Stone of Israel, the chief corner stone, He who holds the keys of death and hell, He of whom Peter testified.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes you wrote it yourself Simon PETER. Jesus called Peter Simon PETER! I agree, What is your point?

Rinnie,
In the passage in John we are talking about there, it was John who called him “Simon Peter”. Jesus called him simply “Simon, son of Jonas.” That was precisely my point. Jesus had not changed his name to Peter. He still called him “Simon.”

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie,
I do appreciate your kindness and humor. [SIGN]The larger passage from Matthew about “thou art Peter” [/SIGN]has important implications (note that Christ was addressing all of the apostles with His question):

Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Note the use of the term “gates of hell”. In Psalms 118 we read of Christ being the stone that is the “head stone of the corner” and opens the “gates of righteousness”:

19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the Lord:
20 This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

Note also that Christ has the keys of death and hell. Thus it is He who will open the gates of hell and prevail against it. Read this in the book of Revelation:

1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

So you see, Rinnie, being a lover of the Bible as I am, I will always disagree with you as to Who is the Rock, the Stone of Israel, the chief corner stone, He who holds the keys of death and hell, He of whom Peter testified.

Oh so they are all Peter, Come on now parker you can do better then that one.

Also I can’t believe I let it slip by you about the Pope. Of course he is a Bishop Parker, I was just messing with you. He is the Bishop of ROME. I am sure you realize that.

By the way you said you didn’t see Bishop in the Bible. Now Parker you are telling a fib here. No I believe you Parker, but let me REVEAl it to ya

In Greek (gotta loves the greeks) the word translated office (remember His office let another take, when they replaced Judas) anyway office is EPISKOPE from english we get EPISCOPACY thich is related to the word Bishop. SO SLAM there it is. Pretty easy huh?

Now Parker you gotta remember that. So I never wanna hear you say Bishop isn’t in the bible. Better brush up on your Greek there Parker.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
In the passage in John we are talking about there, it was John who called him “Simon Peter”. Jesus called him simply “Simon, son of Jonas.” That was precisely my point. Jesus had not changed his name to Peter. He still called him “Simon.”

Parker Parker Parker what am I going to do with you,

now Pay attention

Mt 16:17-18 And Jesus answered him…AND I TELL YOU YOU ARE PETER.

See Jesus said I TELL YOU. It don’t get more clearer than that now Parker ole boy. You gotta admit it.

Hey gotta roll now parker talk to you later. I have to invent a good story to tell to my husband why I didn’t get anything done today. I gotta stay off of here. I can’t get nothing done!

 

[ParkerD]

Rinnie,
We can disagree and try to understand each others’ point of view.

Again you continue to say this to me. But why in 134 did you state John had more authority. Those are your words, Go back and read them.

I was talking about after Peter had died, and made that very clear, that John had more authority than Linus or Clement.

Now again did Jesus leave the keys to the kingdom to Peter or not. Now did Peter pass those keys on to John and I missed it or what?

The keys to the kingdom meant that whatsoever Peter would bind on earth would be bound in heaven. Christ gave that same authority to all of the apostles, as shown in Matthew 18:18. The New Testament didn’t need to say that Peter passed the keys on to John–it shows John received them from Christ.

Now why did Jesus give the Keys to only Peter?

This is an incorrect assumption, as I have noted above.

Why did Jesus only change Peters name. Oh yeah you said he didn’t.

Why does the word Peter in greek mean rock, and why would the word petro in greek mean rock?

Have you not heard of anyone getting a “nickname” or an affectionate term of endearment that is used sometimes in place of their name?

Why does Cephias in Aramic mean rock?

Because Simon was steadfast and immovable and resolute with his testimony of Christ.

Now you said Jesus didn’t change Peters name. Then explain this one. THOU ART PETER. WHATS THAT MEAN?

I have explained. If Jesus had changed Simon’s name permanently, He would always thereafter have addressed him as “Peter.” He didn’t do that.

 

[ParkerD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Oh so they are all Peter, Come on now parker you can do better then that one.

Also I can’t believe I let it slip by you about the Pope. Of course he is a Bishop Parker, I was just messing with you. He is the Bishop of ROME. I am sure you realize that.

By the way you said you didn’t see Bishop in the Bible. Now Parker you are telling a fib here. No I believe you Parker, but let me REVEAl it to ya

In Greek (gotta loves the greeks) the word translated office (remember His office let another take, when they replaced Judas) anyway office is EPISKOPE from english we get EPISCOPACY thich is related to the word Bishop. SO SLAM there it is. Pretty easy huh?

Now Parker you gotta remember that. So I never wanna hear you say Bishop isn’t in the bible. Better brush up on your Greek there Parker.

Rinnie,
I do hope you have a great rest of your day.

I didn’t say the word “bishop” wasn’t in the Bible. I said Peter was never addressed with the title of “bishop”. He was not the “bishop of Rome”, nor do we know who was the “bishop of Rome” when Peter was alive, nor was the “bishop of Rome” (whoever he was) any more important than any other bishop of the time.

 

[Bill_Pick]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes he did change Simons name to Peter. Why do you think we call him Peter then?

[SIGN][/SIGN] What about the O.T is that enough. He changed Abram to Abraham also which means rock, And was Abraham not called Father Abraham.

Ever time Jesus changed a person name in the Bible He had a rreson

 

[ParkerD]

Every time Jesus changed a person’s name in the Bible He had a reason.

Bill,
Indeed He did when He changed someone’s name, but He didn’t change Simon’s name. He only added to it, and still called him “Simon” much of the time. John called him “Simon Peter.” As you read the New Testament, you will find this is true.

 

[placido]

Placido,
You could read Micah 4:
1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.
5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.
6 In that day, saith the Lord, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted;
7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the Lord shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.
8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.
9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.
10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
11 Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion.
12 But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor.

The words “church” in the New Testament and “house of Israel” in the Old Testament are synonymous, meaning the people of the covenant, or covenant people. Christ was certainly born of a woman, and she was certainly a Jew from the house of Israel.

There are several references in the Old Testament where the house of Israel is spoken of as being like a “woman in travail”. John would have been familiar with those references, and also had the Holy Spirit guiding him so that he was a prophetic witness of things to come as well as things that had already happened.

I am aware of all you said above, but that is just a way of side stepping the my question or some sort of confusion caused by the use of a Bible text in the wrong context.
You said the “symbolic woman” is the church and you also said the child is Christ.
Now, we know that the church did not give birth to Christ, therefore the woman cannot be the church. We also now that if the child is a single person then the woman has to be a single person. No amount of words can undo that reality.

placido

 

[placido]

Rinnie,
John received the same authority that Peter had received as recorded in Matthew 18:18-19which was directed to the apostles.

Yes, but unlike Peter, John did not have the keys (Matthew 16:19).

The gospel of John (book of John), contains many teachings and historical details that were not in the other gospels. John was with Peter and James and Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, a unique experience. After Peter’s death, John most certainly had more authority than Linus or Clement, and most certainly had experienced and received in first person more of the teachings and example of Jesus than Linus, Clement, Paul, or any other leaders, because he was with Christ in continuous association during Christ’s ministry.

That is like saying the most experienced member of the Congress authomatically becomes the president of the USA. In real life things don’t work like that.

placido

 

[placido]

Rinnie,
I do appreciate your kindness and humor. The larger passage from Matthew about “thou art Peter” has important implications (note that Christ was addressing all of the apostles with His question):
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Note the use of the term “gates of hell”. In Psalms 118 we read of Christ being the stone that is the “head stone of the corner” and opens the “gates of righteousness”:
19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the Lord:
20 This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
Note also that Christ has the keys of death and hell. Thus it is He who will open the gates of hell and prevail against it. Read this in the book of Revelation:
1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
So you see, Rinnie, being a lover of the Bible as I am, I will always disagree with you as to Who is the Rock, the Stone of Israel, the chief corner stone, He who holds the keys of death and hell, He of whom Peter testified.

Look, when Jesus shares His authority with His apostles, it is something like a teacher sharing his knowledge with his students. After giving the knowledge, the teacher still has the knowledge. So Jesus, after giving the keys, He still holds the keys. He did not give the keys AWAY, He shares them with Peter because He so wishes. The alternative is to say Jesus made a false promise.

placido

 

[placido]

Jesus had not changed his name to Peter. He still called him “Simon.”

No. He still called him “PETER”. If a page is missing from your Bible - go and buy a new one. Matthew 16:18: “And I also say to you that you are PETER …”. That is Jesus calling Simon PETER, yet you dare say He did not do that?

placido

 

[placido]

I was talking about after Peter had died, and made that very clear, that John had more authority than Linus or Clement.

Who says? Did Peter pass the keys to John or to Linus?

placido

 

[placido]

Rinnie,
I do hope you have a great rest of your day.

I didn’t say the word “bishop” wasn’t in the Bible. I said Peter was never addressed with the title of “bishop”. He was not the “bishop of Rome”, nor do we know who was the “bishop of Rome” when Peter was alive, nor was the “bishop of Rome” (whoever he was) any more important than any other bishop of the time.

You don’t know and you refuse to listen to those who know. Oh I see, that is a case of having ears but refusing to hear.

placido

 

[lucky_boi]

Rinnie,
I have explained. If Jesus had changed Simon’s name permanently, He would always thereafter have addressed him as “Peter.” He didn’t do that.

Hi ParkerD, could you kindly expound on this?

A new name does not necessarily invalidate the old one. If I recall correctly, Jacob was still referred to as Jacob even after Yahweh changed his name.

Does it matter if Jesus used “Simon” instead of Peter? Offhand, I can think of alternative interpretations.

1. When Jesus asked Simon, son of John “do you love me?”, it was to reinstate Simon, who denied him 3 times. Only after Jesus said “feed my sheep” did Simon become worthy of the name Peter, and to directly follow the lord.
2. When Jesus questioned “Simon, son of John” thrice, he wanted to emphasise the human nature of his apostle. Simon was literally begotten by John (hence Simon, son of John), but Peter was called by Jesus to form the church as Cephas. So Jesus said, “Simon, son of John” because it wouldn’t really make sense to say “Peter, son of John”.
3. Other apostles recognise that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (evident throughout the gospels). Even Paul recognised this. Doesn’t this apostolic recognition override any remaining doubts?

Sorry for jumping in suddenly like this, but i was following this thread, and am curious about this issue.

I am no expert on the bible, and I will appreciate if anyone can clarify my glosses, if any.

 

[TheQuestioner]

OK, well after spending literally hours after combing over this thread I’ve noticed something about brother Parker’s arguments that brother placido, as much as you have valiantly done you have missed. Its that Parker is consistently contradicting himself.

Take for instance that his stance that the true teaching of Christ went into hiding in heaven. He then says that heaven does not qualify as the wilderness. He then goes on to say that the wilderness is any place that civilization does not exist (which is not necessarily true).

Now the last two statements clearly contradict the first. The first of the two because it contradicts his first point. The second of the two for two reasons. 1. Wilderness does not imply a place that civilization does not exist so much as a place that humans have not modified to an extensive degree, for instance wilderness can be found in farms or preserve estates or national parks, although those places are integral to civilization. 2. If we use Parker’s definition then Heaven cannot be a wilderness as it is the city of God, and has been formed and shaped by God and is occupied by humans. There are many mansions and is prepared for us. Once again, heaven by both definitions cannot count as a wilderness.

Now let us take for instance his stance that the true Church went into hiding in heaven.

Well besides how problematic this truly is we run into the fact that Jesus continually promises that he will be with his Church till the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). Now Parker is left with no choice but to defend his doctrine of the Church going into hiding. He is forces to point to Revelations. However if we know this. The book of Revelation starts off by chastising and the seven churches. Now if the Church of Christ would end with John, there would be no need what so ever to send a message to the Seven churches as they would apostatize anyway. Unless however it was God acting through John to continually guide the Churches that he so loved. In the light of this evidence it hurts your claim to use Revelations since it starts of with showing that God is still guiding the Church on earth. Now, if we read the passage of the woman in full context we will see this
Revelations 12
13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

from the NIV

Now, first off in this version, as in some others, wilderness is generally meant to = desert. In fact given the environment and the upbringing that John lived in as a Jew who lived in the region of Palestine, the only place that would probably qualify as wilderness would be the desert. Since wilderness back then meant a place that was basically uninhabitable then desert would be a better translation than heaven, since heaven would be the exact opposite. Now, wherever the woman was, apparently Satan was able to attack her from there (how can Satan even try to attack anyone in the safety of heaven?) but then the earth helped the woman by swallowing the river. Now i know Revelations is not to be taken literally, but this does not help your case.

17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

If the Church was in heaven as you claim then this verse makes absolutely no sense what so ever, as those who obeyed God’s commandments and held the testimony of Jesus were not left on earth, since according to you no one till Joseph Smith opened their heart to Christ and held his testimony.

Again, I will address the issue of somehow thinking that since John was the last apostle alive Linus should not have been head of the Church. Like Placido already mentioned you are looking at things through a modern lense, and things may not have worked that way back in the time of the apostles. What you do not get about he seat of Peter is that it is analogous to a royal title. When a king dies the throne does not go to the most senior member of his staff, but to his successor. John was not successor to Peter, and thus he would not receive the seat of Peter and could not be head of the Church. He could be a faithful adviser, but not successor to Peter. You also seem to believe that “Apostle” is an office…not so. Apostle is someone who has learned from his teacher and now knows enough to himself become a teacher. Thus one can say that Linus was an Apostle of Peter and Peter was an Apostle of Christ (Apostolic succession, get it?). Bishop is an office that comes with Authority (there are things a bishop can do that other members cannot).

Keep in mind also the Bishop means “over seer” in Greek. As a Apostle would be an overseer of anywhere he was at the time, and Peter was overseer of the Church in Rome before his death, it would follow that he was Bishop of Rome. Why after his death did the Church in Rome not look to John? Well for one, John was overseer/Bishop of Jerusalem until his exile, and for another Linus was chosen as a good and plausible candidate to become the new overseer of Jerusalem. Thus the authority that was given to Peter was then given to him, as he effectively in taking the role of Peter after his death, took his seat and all authority that came with it (one cannot take the role of his father without effectively taking on the privileges and responsibilities that come with it) This was no accident, as they would not likely choose Linus if he was not strong in the faith and close to Peter. Also know remember that there seemed to be no opposition to this what so ever from John.

(Cont’d)

 

[TheQuestioner]

Now if Joseph Smith had his hands laid on him by Peter, James and John, it would follow that he too would be in the same position as Linus, and Apostle of the Apostle. If Peter or Paul had laid their hands on Linus then in fact to question Linus’ authority would be to question Joseph Smith’s, as Christ himself did not lay his hands on him or breath on him to make him have authority.

Also, to say that God does not confront anyone and then not answer the person who brought up the example of Paul is dishonest. Whether you liked his demeanor or not he brought about a very good point when you said God didn’t confront anyone and he rebutted you with the example of Paul. You have yet to answer this question. Also try to remember that there is a difference between the Holy Spirit making the Church infallible (cannot teach a formal doctrine that is false) and making it impeccable (its members cannot err). In the first case (which is part of Catholic doctrine) God is not forcing anything on anyone. But the Holy Spirit will guide its members to choose people who will do the will of God. If they reject it the Spirit will stop that person from formalizing a false doctrine. There will always be a road block. One can choose to be right or not but they will not be able to cause the Church to apostatize. In the second case the leaders of the Church cannot sin. This is not true. So in light of Church doctrine the Holy Spirit guiding the Church through the ages in no way goes against free will, and we know of numerous times when God actually does use force and shocks people into knowing He exists. (Paul is a prime example, as well as many many of the Saints, and if even Joseph Smith now that I come to think about it).

Also, to say that Jesus told the Sadducees the would be “like angels” because that is what they wanted to hear is highly problematic. I mean reeeeeaaaaaalllllly problematic. How much of what Daniel saw in his vision was what he wanted to see? How much of what John saw in his revelation was what he wanted to see? Jesus was known for saying things people didn’t want to hear (hence the crucifixion no?), so telling the Sadducees they would be like God should be no problem. When Jesus says “we will be like the angels” and then later “we will be likened unto him” you were dishonest in saying he was telling people what they wanted to hear. If you were honest you would have at least tried to acknowledge that one of the versus was symbolic (the one about the angels for you) and explain why what it really meant was that we would be Gods. Instead you chose to essentially say that Jesus was inconsistent because he was too afraid to shock people (often i hear women use this argument when they try to explain why Jesus called God Father instead of Mother) and essentially imply that he is a liar and an opportunist. No matter what you say this is what you basically implied and to stop from being dishonest much further i suggest you admit you were wrong here. Because these two versus conflict it can only mean 3 things. Either the first one was symbolic and the second one literal (which cannot be so as humans are not gods), the second one is symbolic and the first one literal (which also has major theological implications because angels are completely separate beings) or that both are symbolic, which is most likely the case since the word “like” or “likened” is used, which implies similarity but not equality.

So as we can see, though you truly believe what you preach Parker, because what you believe is incomplete and lacking truth you have simple logical fallacies in your reasoning that end up destroying your whole argument.

End

 

[ParkerD]

I am aware of all you said above, but that is just a way of side stepping the my question or some sort of confusion caused by the use of a Bible text in the wrong context.
You said the “symbolic woman” is the church and you also said the child is Christ.
Now, we know that the church did not give birth to Christ, therefore the woman cannot be the church. We also now that if the child is a single person then the woman has to be a single person. No amount of words can undo that reality.

placido

Placido,
John wrote the book of Revelation using symbolism and “types”. If you think his use of the word woman means Mary the mother of Christ, then it would be interesting to read your interpretation of the entire vision. When Christ is described as the “Son of David”, then the Bible was talking about His ancestry, no?