If the church was in hiding ...

[placido]

Wisdom Seeker,
I believe in all the books in the King James Translation of the Bible, except that the Song of Solomon is not necessarily inspired throughout it.

Like the Reformers who removed the deuterocanonical books, Parker’s watering down of Scriptures has to start somewhere. For a start, he has just informed us that parts of Scriptures are not God-breathed. I mean, Pretestants will have to seriously reconsider their interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16.

placido

 

[Bill_Pick]

Like the Reformers who removed the deuterocanonical books, Parker’s watering down of Scriptures has to start somewhere. For a start, he has just informed us that parts of Scriptures are not God-breathed. I mean, Pretestants will have to seriously reconsider their interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16.

placido

What does God breathed have to do with any thing he does not believe Read John 20;-23-24 its god breadthed and he does not believe in it. The Church was in the catacombs for but not 1,700 that just stupid,like some one said maybe the Cat had it;LOL

 

[placido]

What does God breathed have to do with any thing he does not believe Read John 20;-23-24 its god breadthed and he does not believe in it. The Church was in the catacombs for but not 1,700 that just stupid,like some one said maybe the Cat had it;LOL

Pssst! Please don’t mention the catacombs … they have no place in Parker’s interpretation of Daniel and John’s Revelation.

placido

 

[AdrianP]

Lets read the Liturgy of Apostle Mark that has prayers for the departed. Orthodox Church has prayers for the departed in their Holy Liturgy Protestants are against prayers for departed so who respects the Apostles.
Also there are 30 000 Protestant denominations today, there should have been 30 000 underground churches with 30 000 doctrines that today go into Protestant churches.
Again, why Luther was catholic and why most protestants were Catholics ?

Excerpts from the Liturgy of Apostle Mark:
allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgy-Mark.html
"(Deacon: Grant rest, O Lord, to the souls of the departed in the faith of Christ.)[xv]

Give rest to the souls of our fathers and brethren** that have heretofore fallen asleep** in the faith of Christ, O Lord our God. Remember, O Lord, our ancestors, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, teachers, bishops, venerable and righteous persons, every soul departed this life from all ages in the faith of Christ, and whose memory we keep this day, and our holy father Mark the Apostle and Evangelist, who hath shown us the path of salvation.
Remember, O Lord, the archangelic voice that said: Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Saviour of our souls. Exclamation:

 Especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.

(Deacon: Father, give a blessing.)

(Priest: May the Lord bless thee by His grace, now and ever and unto ages of ages.)

(Here the Deacon says the Diptychs of the Departed. Meanwhile, the Priest prays)

Priest: And to the spirits of all these give rest, O Master, Lord our God, in the habitations of Thy Saints, in Thy kingdom, vouchsafing to them the good things of Thy promise, which eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man, the things which Thou hast prepared, O Lord, for them that love Thy holy name. Grant Thou rest to their souls, count them worthy of the kingdom of heaven, and to us grant that the end of our lives may be Christian and well-pleasing to Thee, without sin, and that we may have a portion and inheritance with all Thy Saints."

 

[Bill_Pick]

Pssst! Please don’t mention the catacombs … they have no place in Parker’s interpretation of Daniel and John’s Revelation.

placido

Does he know what a catacomb is.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I think part of Parker problems is he believes the Book of Mormons more then he does the Bible,a good question, parker do you believe the BOM more then the Bible or do you think the BOM is superior to the christian bible

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdom Seeker,
I believe in all the books in the King James Translation of the Bible, except that the Song of Solomon is not necessarily inspired throughout it.

The pure original church was here until the leaders of the local areas stopped listening to the apostles and their specific teachings and started to teach the people different things, such as when a bishop taught that he personally had the keys from Peter and that his authority was the same as Peter’s, and that the Holy Spirit was guaranteed to be with him as he started to make changes in doctrines such as baptism by pouring rather than by immersion, and baptism of infants rather than of believers. I could make a long list of additional changes, but as I have said I am not here to try and upset people. I think such a list would be upsetting to the people who might read it here. I would rather they think about it themselves as they read the New Testament and the Old Testament and make their own list.

oh dear,
the pure and original Church. what do you call pure and original Church? explain please.

because as i read the NT, i can see many troubles in the Church and the Apostles obeying Christ, making sure that the teachings were passed on correctly. if you care to hear the Church, you will find that the Church to this day continues the fighting against heresies.

no need to worry about upsetting me. go ahead bring your list.
it is nothing new to us. i think we heard pretty much every argument against the Church for 2000 years. but the Church stands alone and strong with her Master, not because the arguments are not strong but because the Lord made a promise to HIs Church.

i cannot make you understand or accept what the Church teaches. only you can.

if you understood the history of the Jews and God, you would probably understand the Church, the CC.

you were not there wiht the Apostles. you dont know much of what happened then. you dont know what Jesus told the apostles. what you know is only what some religion told you. how old is your religion? really. how old? what can they really teach if they were not there. as for the CC, she has many witnesses. the line of succession, Saints, the miracles that this Church still here despite of so many opposition to Her. the apparitions of Mother of God at times of troubles that has caused so many to accept the Truth our Lord Jesus.
really parker, give us something about your church that is Biblical.

Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Lets read the Liturgy of Apostle Mark that has prayers for the departed. Orthodox Church has prayers for the departed in their Holy Liturgy Protestants are against prayers for departed so who respects the Apostles.
Also there are 30 000 Protestant denominations today, there should have been 30 000 underground churches with 30 000 doctrines that today go into Protestant churches.
Again, why Luther was catholic and why most protestants were Catholics ?

Excerpts from the Liturgy of Apostle Mark:
allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgy-Mark.html
"(Deacon: Grant rest, O Lord, to the souls of the departed in the faith of Christ.)[xv]

Give rest to the souls of our fathers and brethren** that have heretofore fallen asleep** in the faith of Christ, O Lord our God. Remember, O Lord, our ancestors, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, teachers, bishops, venerable and righteous persons, every soul departed this life from all ages in the faith of Christ, and whose memory we keep this day, and our holy father Mark the Apostle and Evangelist, who hath shown us the path of salvation.
Remember, O Lord, the archangelic voice that said: Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Saviour of our souls. Exclamation:

 Especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.

(Deacon: Father, give a blessing.)

(Priest: May the Lord bless thee by His grace, now and ever and unto ages of ages.)

(Here the Deacon says the Diptychs of the Departed. Meanwhile, the Priest prays)

Priest: And to the spirits of all these give rest, O Master, Lord our God, in the habitations of Thy Saints, in Thy kingdom, vouchsafing to them the good things of Thy promise, which eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man, the things which Thou hast prepared, O Lord, for them that love Thy holy name. Grant Thou rest to their souls, count them worthy of the kingdom of heaven, and to us grant that the end of our lives may be Christian and well-pleasing to Thee, without sin, and that we may have a portion and inheritance with all Thy Saints."

this is so right and beautiful. thank you for showing Parker this Prayer.
Parker does not care about what the EO and the CC teaches. like he said, there was no longer the Church after St John the Apostle.
according to Parker our Church is not the Church found by Christ because we have infant baptism, because if there is no lakes or rivers the Church should not baptise. because we have Holy Mary as our Mother. because… he cannot find nothing in our Church that resembles the Church of the Bible.

so i ask Parker to show us that his church as the church of the Bible. now, it is so easy for someone to read the Bible and immediatly try to imitate what is in the Bible. the problem is no one can. because the Church of the Bible is here, she has been here for 2000 years. the Covenant cannot be broken. no matter how many arguments are made against the Church. they only find themselves fighting against Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think part of Parker problems is he believes the Book of Mormons more then he does the Bible,a good question, parker do you believe the BOM more then the Bible or do you think the BOM is superior to the christian bible

a second thought, is it not the mormon church still in hiding? let’s be realistic. where is his church usually located? is it not in hidden places.

is it not lead by prophets? where is that in the Bible? where does it say that Church jesus built was going to be lead by a prophet?

if Jesus chose 12 man to preach the Gospel, where does this prophet fit in the history of the Church?

**
Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.**

 

[wisdomseeker]

Placido,
Perhaps your thinking matches the thinking of some bishop who was alive at the time of the apostles: “he is just a visitor–I have more authority because I am in charge of this group of people as their leader”–they could have thought. IF they thought that (which human logic could do) THEN they were absolutely wrong and absolutely didn’t understand the calling of an apostle or were trying to minimize the authority of an apostle. The apostles were called to preserve the pure doctrines, visit the saints and the local leaders and teach and encourage them (lead them), and to “go into all the world and teach all nations.”

now, Parker tell me how 12 Apostles could go into the whole world and teach? how long do you think they lived? do you think that the world has ended already?

called to preserve the pure doctrines! what doctrines? parker, do you know what pure Doctrines the Apostles were to preserve?
if you make statements, you are required to explain them.

Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.

 

[TheQuestioner]

“The end of marriage in heaven” would never and will never make sense to me. Marriage is not just to produce children, although that is a good thing. Marriage is for companionship and for “completing” each other because without each other, one is “incomplete”. Marriage was “meet” for Adam and Eve, because it was a good thing for them, a necessary thing. God would not take away a good and necessary and completing union that enobles man and woman and helps them learn an intimate (I am not talking physical) relationship with love and understanding and with Christ intertwined within that relationship. But if bishops and priests don’t know anything about that from their own lives, then of course they’re not going to teach about it and of course they’re going to say marriage goes away in heaven.

Ok…so marriage is not to produce children but for companionship? It completes and ennobles a man and woman…which part of “companionship, and ennobling” actually require marriage? As there will be no physical intimacy (sex) in heaven and you can have companionship and enobling in without marraige it follows that marraige would not be needed. You can still have that deep friendship and companionship but all you would really need is God and you would not need to be married for such. Because of the recent introduction of contraceptives in marraige life, marraige no longer became about providing a stable environment for children and completeness of God’s plan (in heaven we will have these anyway) but exclusively about companionship. If this is the case there is no reason homosexuals cannot get married. See what is wrong with this view of marraige? Anyway, its easy to point the blame on the bishops about marraige being abolished in the New Kingdom but fact of the matter is if you want to complain about it to bishops then you should take it up with Bishops Matthew and Luke, who both taught through the gospels they wrote that marraige will be abolished. Remember that during those times clergy were not banned from being married. So to link this teaching to bishops and priests holds no water.

Luke was not a first-hand witness of Christ’s ministry and teachings. He wrote what he had been taught about Christ’s ministry, and wrote beautifully, but as far as I’m concerned, the differences in the passages where he is describing what Christ said versus where Matthew and Mark are describing what Christ said, mean that he got the wording a bit wrong, but that’s OK–we have other witnesses who wrote about that event.

No no, you cannot do this. You cannot accept the Gospel of Luke as scripture and use it for correction and then at the same time try to discredit the person who wrote it. Just because it does not say what you want it to say does not mean that the writer or his writing was somehow less capable as the other writers were. Either it is scripture or not, either he got the wording just right or not. If he got the wording wrong and his scripture was not guided by the Holy Spirit and not God-breathed then it throws into question the entire gospel. If he can get the wording wrong here then where else could he have gotten it wrong? No, he did not get the wording wrong, rather you are having a hard time with this teaching and instead of conforming your will to God you are starting to deny the teaching and scripture outright. Do not be prideful, conform your will to God. If you start to do deny scripture here you will create a snowball effect and end up picking and choosing.

What you have written here is according to you. When John wrote “he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”, he was providing hidden meaning that could only be understood if the person reading has the Spirit and is spiritually attuned to understand.

To share Christ’s love and authority is to be like Christ. To be like Christ is to be like God the Father. To be like God the Father is to be a “son of God”, an inheritor of what God wants a son or a daughter to inherit. God is full of joy and love. He wants to share those qualities. They cannot be fully experienced without experiencing the kind of life God experiences. The joy and love would not be the same. It would be less.

But none of this implies godhood. Remember that God is not a title but a being. As such, since no one can become like the one God in from then we will not become gods. But we can be like him in character and joy and love. None of this requires godhood to be attainable. If God wants to do this for us he will. And we will all share in that joy and love if we win this race. That is Christ’s throne, love, and that is what he means when we will share in it. That is what is meant by joint-throne.

Christ taught the parable where faithful stewards “enter into the joy of thy Lord.” This is a simple concept. “Glorified” in Romans 8:30 means exactly what the word means–to have glory through Christ having redeemed and justified and the Holy Spirit having sanctified that person who is “gorified”.

And how does this imply godhood?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
When I had written that “God does not confront people” I was writing of the general case for how God interacts with humankind. I have clarified about there being specific exceptions to that general statement. You highlighted specific exceptions. I agree that those things happened, but they are not general case everyday examples of how God interacts with humankind.

As to my comment about people doing their best, as far as I’m concerned there were a few key leaders who knew they had their own agenda and were working on that agenda (such as gaining more leadership influence than their calling had placed within their assignment, or wanting to change doctrines and practices to suit their own understanding and their own traditions and later to make it easier for more people to believe and to help get the church increased power). Those key leaders deceived the people into believing what the leaders had to say. That does not mean the people were not doing their personal best, but it means they weren’t receiving the pure and correct teachings anymore because some key leaders changed the teachings to conform to what those key leaders wanted the people to understand.

Revelation and several Old Testament prophesies including Daniel clearly indicate that the above-noted deception was prophesied to happen. God let it happen. That is precisely what is indicated by Revelation 13:7.

So in other words you do not withdraw your statement about God “confronting people” (since here the exceptions break the argument that he doesn’t, even if the examples are rare. In this case to say he does not means that he never does after all).

Sigh…I tried to be nice

 

[TheQuestioner]

Yes, the office of bishop is different from that of apostle, but the office of apostle includes the duties of an overseer/pastor/bishop, that is why an apostle teaches and overseers and visits areas like a bishop.
And you failted to explain why an apostle can’t be a bishop yet he can be a priest/elder, a rather inferior office in relation to that of a bishop.

placido

Ok…Parker and Placido. I don’t mean to intrude on your convo but placido, you and Parker both have it wrong here. Apostle is not an office. I repeat, not an office. Apostle is a title of honor and description like “the great” or “the brave”. The apostles are not the only ones in history to be called apostles. We call them the apostles for short, instead of saying “Matthew, Mark, Peter, Levi, John, etc”. We also call them that to indicate they were the 12 chosen by Christ to set up the Church (hence the title of honor). They are apostles of Christ (hecne the description). However, Timothy is an apostle of Paul and Linus was an apostle of Peter. Barnabus was an apostle of Paul. The Pope is and apostle to the apostle to the apostle to the apostle to the apostle to the nth power of the apostle of Christ. Get it? Anyone can have that title apostle, but we use it specifically for the 12.

Bishop means “overseer”, and as such by defualt the Apostles were Bishops. Bishop is an office. The title of Bishop comes with authority and an office. The title of Apostle does not necesarrily have the same implications. As such, because Peter was their leader it would follow that when he died whoever would take over his position would also be leader. Because no other living apostle stepped it to take this position after the death of Peter and it was filled without any opposition from other apostles it would follow that they must have aproved of Linus filling in Peter’s place and becoming the new leader. The Church was not a democracy with Peter being the president with 11 other vice-presidents ready to take his place at death.

 

[TheQuestioner]

This pattern…

Questioner,
I had discussed the pattern in Revelation as follows:

1. The “woman” flew into the “wilderness” with the wings of an eagle, after she had “brought forth the man child” who had a rod of iron, and after “her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” You think this was Mary alone, but I think the verses that follow show that “woman” meant the righteous Jews living at the time Christ was born and ministered among men. (Mary was one of those righteous Jews.)
2. The “dragon” went to make war with the remnant of the “woman’s seed”, meaning the house of Israel who were still on the earth.
3. 13:7 says “And it was given unto him (the beast who was given power by the dragon) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

The war with the saints happened, and the dragon was overcoming them because he had been allowed to do that. He was prevailing.

1. Next in the sequence of events, “another angel” flies 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…” This angel restores true worship. (Revelation 14:6-7) This happens during the time preceding the Millenium, and preceding the day of judgment.
2. The dragon and Babylon are eventually overcome by the righteousness of the people on earth and by their testimonies of Jesus Christ (their faith in Him and knowledge and strength through Him).
3. The Millenium finally comes to the earth, after that angel (noted in Rev. 14:6) had restored true worship and after the people embrace righteousness.

Joseph Smith was visited by angels who restored truths about God and about the ordinances and covenants of the pure gospel. (This was step 4 of what I listed as the sequence of events, above.)

Contradicts this verse
Revelation 12

1. No mention of St. Michael (the most awesome Saint in my opinion btw)?

6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. 7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

The woman flees into the wilderness and then a war in heaven starts. So, if this is the case (and since we know the war in heaven was at the beginning of time) we can guess one thing. This whole vision is not in chronological order.

1. Now you have yourself in a pickle. If Mary wasn’t alone when she fled and the whole Church was taken with her then how is it that the remnant of her seed (the Woman that is, whom you claim is the Church) be the rest of the Children of Israel that were still on earth? So wait, Israel is a child of the Church? I thought Israel came before the Church was established. So obviously this interpretation of yours (which i assume is your own private one) does not work out.
2. This statement of yours…
   The war with the saints happened, and the dragon was overcoming them because he had been allowed to do that. He was prevailing.

Contradicts this statement of Christ’s…

Matthew 16
18And 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. **(forget the part about Peter for now)

Obviously your interpretation of this part of Revelations does not work. Try again.

And if it follows that “And it was given unto him (the beast who was given power by the dragon) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” means the Church is overcome by Satan then it must be that Mathew 16:18 and Revelations 13:7 contradict each other.

Since the bible does not contradict itself it must follow that either one or the other is figurative. Now given that Matthew is a book that describes the life of Christ and is not know to be very figurative and Revelations is a vision which is full of symbolism and mystery I think it would be alot more appropriate for Revelations 13:7 to be figurative. As such, what does it mean to “overcome the Saints” Does that mean physical death? More likely this may be talking about physical persecution. Who had the power to persecute and rule over the earth? The Roman emperor Nero at the time. There is alot of figurative talk and I, like the rest of the Church, tend to steer away from pointing to a passage in Revelations and saying “therefore this will happen, or this happened”.

1. Then what about the battle of Armageddon? That happens before the Millenium too. Once again, it is never a good idea to point to passages in Revelations and try to make something of them. Revelations is a ticking time bomb and before you know it you will end up apostisizing.
2. Then who is comming to fight him at the battle of armageddon. And once again Matthew 16:18 contradicts that interpretation.
3. Again, stay away Revelations is tricky. And between Revelations 14:6 and 22 alot happens. What about these parts?

 

[TheQuestioner]

I agree that there have been plenty of humble people who have wished to serve God with all of their heart. They could have asked, “What shall I do?” and they could have been led to find more truth in their life because of their sincere question and seeking. But the kind of faith of an “Abraham” sort of person doesn’t come along every day, nor very often at all in world history. We are talking tremendous faith–sincere belief that a prayer asked is a prayer that will be answered completely, specifically, clearly, and which the person will completely trust and will then do exactly what is asked in the answer. Abraham moved locations, then later when commanded to sacrifice Isaac he acted on that and prepared to do exactly what he had been asked to do.

Abraham was confronted. But since you too believe that God confronts people when it suites his purposes, then how come he didn’t do so to save the Church leaders by confronting them? Wouldn’t it have fulfilled his purposes by confronting his Church before it would die and save it from corruption? Wouldn’t it fulfill his purposes to fulfill the promise his son Christ made to His Church by saying “and the gates of hell will not overcome it”? As he confronts people when it fulfills his purposes, then does not mean he planned to have the Church disappear? Are you meaning to tell me that God would guide mankind since Abraham and then He himself set up a Church on earth that would fail and then poof…his influence through the Spirit leaves the earth for 1700 years? Why not avoid it if all it called for was to confront Linus or some other elders and say “you must follow John”? Why not confront after so many years of confronting through prophets, some of whom were at first unwilling like Jonah (proving that God even confronts those unwilling to follow him sometimes) Can you honestly answer these questions?

And to think…I tried to be nice.

Thank you for your continued responses on this thread brother Parker.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Abraham was confronted. But since you too believe that God confronts people when it suites his purposes, then how come he didn’t do so to save the Church leaders by confronting them? Wouldn’t it have fulfilled his purposes by confronting his Church before it would die and save it from corruption? Wouldn’t it fulfill his purposes to fulfill the promise his son Christ made to His Church by saying “and the gates of hell will not overcome it”? As he confronts people when it fulfills his purposes, then does not mean he planned to have the Church disappear? Are you meaning to tell me that God would guide mankind since Abraham and then He himself set up a Church on earth that would fail and then poof…his influence through the Spirit leaves the earth for 1700 years? Why not avoid it if all it called for was to confront Linus or some other elders and say “you must follow John”? Why not confront after so many years of confronting through prophets, some of whom were at first unwilling like Jonah (proving that God even confronts those unwilling to follow him sometimes) Can you honestly answer these questions?

And to think…I tried to be nice.

Thank you for your continued responses on this thread brother Parker.

many people rather believe in something like a man who showed up not to long ago calls himself a prophet and finds a religion by twisting the Words of Christ. others rather believe in some man like M Luther, Wesley, Calvin who have been rather proven to be wrong in many things, than believe that the pope is teh successor of St Peter and leads the Church found by Christ. there always going to be people who have the tendency to follow the darkness rather than the light.

these people always claim the HS is leading them. but if it is not written in the Bible they dont believe. and even if it is written, they twist to fit their believes.

anything as long as i can use to discredit the CC. even if i have to believe in lies. lies comes from the father of lies and it blinds people.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
I guess we have a significant difference in understanding about how the Spirit guides a person in their life. If a person doesn’t repent after being sinful, then that lack of repentance leads to not having the Spirit’s influence in their life. The Spirit withdraws that influence because the person no longer is “listening” and has resisted “listening.”

My point was that this could happen to a church leader also, especially if they think they have complete authority to say on their own whether they are being guided in every change they implement in a church, either doctrinally or otherwise, or being guided in what they write as they defend their position. If a leader says “anything I do will be guided by the Holy Spirit, because God would make me do the right thing”, then that is a wrong concept.

Yes, of course this could happen. But Christs promises in Matthew 16:18 show us that even if this does happen, the Church will not fall away in error, as always there will be good leaders. And if God will not protect it through his leaders, he will protect it through his people. And if not through his people, then through the elements and natural disasters or fire from heaven (note the link here with the Holy Spirit). God uses what he will but the Church would never fall away in its official doctrines.

Peter was not the bishop of Rome, nor John the bishop of Jerusalem. There is nothing in the New Testament that says the bishop of Rome has more authority than any other bishop, nor certainly that any bishop would have more authority than an apostle.

Let us replace the word Bishop with overseer here (as bishop means overseer).

Peter was not the overseer of Rome, nor John the overseer of Jerusalem. There is nothing in the New Testament that says the overseer of Rome has more authority than any other overseer, nor certainly that any overseer would have more authority than an apostle.

Now it is more easier to see why the first sentence is false. Peter did oversee Rome and John did oversee Jerusalem. Now…here is where I may surprise you but i agree with you here, there is nothing in the New Testament that says the overseer of Rome has more authority than any overseer. There is nothing about Rome per say that makes it special enough that whoever is Bishop of Rome is the leader. What in actuality is happening is this…who ever is overseer in place of Peter has more authority than any other overseer. Whether Peter’s seat is moved to Rome or France (this happened once). It is not about Rome itself, but Peter’s seat of office, and the one who took Peter’s seat of office after he died was Linus. Period.

You are correct that the church treated leadership “like a monarchy”, but that is not what Christ intended at all, and that is one of the initial evidences that the church began to change from its original form and purity.

And your proof of this is? How do you know that is not the way Christ intended it? Did he not say “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” (Matt 5:5). Is Christ not described as the Prince of Peace. Is not God King of all Creation? Doesn’t sound so democratic to me.You can’t just say “that is not how Christ intended it” because it does not suite you and not provide at least some evidence of this. Catholics at least have Matthew 16:18 in conjunction with Acts 1:12-26 as evidence for apostolic succession and the primacy of Peter. (Matthias did not merely become a bishop, but he actually replaced Judas, thereby filling in his office and position).

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
If one reads John 21:15-17 and thinks that the fact that Christ only included Simon in His plea for him to “feed my sheep,” and that John and the other apostles did not feel any need to also “feed my sheep” because of Christ’s instructions to Simon,

Not true, but clearly here Christ was choosing Peter as chief Shepard.

then one has disregarded numerous examples from the New Testament that Christ was usually teaching more than one person when He specifically addressed only one person during His teaching.

Just because one can learn lessons from what Christ is saying to one person does not mean he is teaching it to more than one person. It is dishonest to look at a passage where Christ is talking to one person and say “this applies to us all”. This may not always be the case.

That same concept applies to Luke 22:32. Each of the apostles needed to be converted, and to strengthen the other brethren around them.

Yes, and yet you don’t find it funny how he specifically said this to Peter numerous times? You don’t find it strange at all that about 90% of the time it is Peter who intercedes and speaks to Christ for the rest of the apostles.

Since I have responded numerous times about Matthew 16:17-19, (which I have meditated many times), then we have a major difference about the term “rock” in those verses as we have discussed before, or I have discussed with Placido (not sure which).

Unfortunately we cannot leave this topic aside, as, just like “God not confronting anyone” (which you reversed your stance on) it is integral to your argument that the Church apostatized and had to be hidden.

Thanks for your kindness and thoughtfulness in providing your point of view. Peace, all.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Placido,
We simply disagree about the calling of apostle. A bishop did not “visit areas”–he was the local leader who stayed there leading the people within a specific place. He didn’t leave and go somewhere else to teach another group of people. That was not his function

Simply not true. Bishops today go everywhere, from place to place, fly here fly there. Bishops do not simply stay put. Today’s Bishops are more inclined to do so because they have a number of other clergymen that are able to help them out in other places, and so can send them in their stead. However, despite how much Bishops move around today (and you have to take into consideration that one diocese today can sometimes be larger than most of the apostles even traveled) Bishops during the time of the early Church were even more active (as in they walked instead of taking cars) and some were martyred during evangelism.

Not just that, but I hope you realize that most of the apostles after years evangelism settled in certain locations themselves, and stayed put. Peter in Rome, John in Jerusalem, Mark in Egypt, Thomas in India, Andrew in Armenia. The rest (except John) were martyred while acting as overseer (bishop) of locations they were visiting.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Placido,
Perhaps your thinking matches the thinking of some bishop who was alive at the time of the apostles: “he is just a visitor–I have more authority because I am in charge of this group of people as their leader”–they could have thought. IF they thought that (which human logic could do) THEN they were absolutely wrong and absolutely didn’t understand the calling of an apostle or were trying to minimize the authority of an apostle. The apostles were called to preserve the pure doctrines, visit the saints and the local leaders and teach and encourage them (lead them), and to “go into all the world and teach all nations.”

Wait wait. If this is the case then God had already failed by sending Jesus away and letting the apostles be murdered. It is clear (at least in your view) without the constant guide of the apostles the Church fell into apostasy. If this is the case then we have a problem, as the apostles were mortal and would eventually die anyway. If the apostles (and not the other bishops) are the only ones who were called to preserve the pure doctrines then God’s Church was doomed to fail from the start…unless he confronted anyone, as that would be opportune for him, and you have already admitted that he does this once in a while.