English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why would Linus, Anacletus, and Clement becomes popes over John?

i think we can understand why Peter would be considered the first "pope" or leader of the church after christ since Peter is always mentioned first in the lists of the Twelve. He is also frequently mentioned in the Gospels as forming with James the Elder and John a special group within the Twelve Apostles, present at incidents to which the others were not party, such as at the Transfiguration of Jesus.

But when peter was martyered in A.D. 64 or A.D. 67. why would linus have taken his place since John who was reponsible for the book of revelations, the Gospel of John was alive untill around the year 101 a.d.. The "Son of thunder" or John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body.

Why would Linus, Anacletus, and Clement becomes popes While John was still alive and receiving revelation for the church?

2007-10-15 05:47:39 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

the problem is that the popes do not cliam to receive revelation for the church, so wouldnt someone who could and did, be a more favorable pope?

2007-10-15 06:02:17 · update #1

6 answers

There is no "S" in the Book of Revelation.

The author of the Book of Revelation is not the same person who wrote the Gospel of John.

The person who wrote the Gospel of John was not the same person named John who knew Jesus. (If the author knew Jesus, why wouldn't the author have said in the Gospel, "I knew Jesus?") http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

The first verses of the Gospel of John invited a lot of controversy among the gnostic movement of the early followers of Christ -- so even if John were alive, then there wouldn't have been universal support for him.

Also, you have to understand that in the first 100 years, the "church" was far from unified. Different groups, founded by different apostles or by Paul, had different theologies -- so there were probaly plenty of churches, all baptizing in the name of Christ, who had never heard of "John."

Also, a lot of churches were founded before the Gospel of John was ever written down.

Linus, Anacletus, and Clement all were church leaders in Rome -- I'm not sure when the word "pope" came into useage -- so that's who was generally called to lead - someone who was already in town.

Godspeed.

You may be interested in this . . .

Norman Perrin makes the following comments (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 81-2):

That John of Patmos can be identified as a prophet is more important to understanding his work than identifying him with some other individual named John in the New Testament. Traditionally it has been claimed that he is the John, son of Zebedee, known to us from the gospel stories, but this is most unlikely. It has also been claimed that he is the "John" of the fourth gospel, but the difference in language and style alone makes this identification quite impossible. However, that he is able to identify himself, and as a prophet (in sharp contrast to the pseudonymity and practice of apocalyptic writers in general), speaks volumes for the vitality, power, and self-confidence of New Testament Christianity.

Another most unusual aspect of the book of Revelation is its letters to seven churches in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (see chapters 2 and 3). This is unparalleled in apocalyptic writing and has to be due ultimately to the impact that Paul's letter writing made on the New Testament church. Paul's letters had become so important that the literary form was imitated even by an apocalyptic writer. The book of Revelation as a whole has the external form of a letter in that it begins with an opening salutation (1:4-6) and closes with a benediction (22:21). The contrast in literary form between the direct address of the letters and the symbolic drama of the remainder of the book is startling, but no more so than the fact that an apocalyptic writer identifies himself and calls his work a prophecy.

The fact that we have here the outward form of a Pauline letter helps us to grasp the essential thrust of the work. It begins with a salutation in the Pauline style: "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (Rev 1:5b-6; compare Gal 1:3-5). But then it continues: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amon" (1:7). This is a classic statement of early Christian hope for the return of Jesus as apocalyptic judge and redeemer. Similarly, the closing benediction, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen" (22:21), is in the Pauline style, but it is preceded by a prayer for the coming of the Lord, "Come, Lord Jesus" (22:20). However, this is the early Palestinian Christian Eucharist prayer Maranatha, which Paul himself used at the end of a letter: "Our Lord, come! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen" (1 Cor 16:22-24). It is a reminder that for all its surface strangeness, the book of Revelation is not to be separated from the rest of the New Testament. The hope it represents is a fundamental feature of a major part of the New Testament.

2007-10-15 06:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by jimmeisnerjr 6 · 1 0

My guess is that Linus Anacletus, and Clement had a more prominant role in the Church than John.

The Book of Revelation was not written by the same person as wrote the Gospel of John. The book of Revelation is an apocolyptic writing and the Gospel of John is not.

2007-10-15 05:58:17 · answer #2 · answered by Sldgman 7 · 1 1

The Pope is selected through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Who are we to question God on something like this?

With love in Christ.

2007-10-15 18:57:50 · answer #3 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 0 1

There is no "pope" in the Bible. Peter can't be considered a "pope" because he had no authority over anyone in the NT. Paul taught Peter, James was the head and final word in Jerusalem.

Peter was used by Jesus mightily, but there was no "pope" in the Bible, and the "pope" today is an antichrist

2007-10-15 05:53:45 · answer #4 · answered by CJ 1 · 4 3

Linus was rewarded for his faith in the Great Pumpkin, and the power of his blue blanket.

2007-10-15 05:52:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Because she was in France doing other things.

2007-10-15 05:58:59 · answer #6 · answered by Estrella E 4 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers