DiscussMormonism.com

If Peter, James, and John were the 1st Presidency, who are Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Shouldn't there be 15... not 12?
.
.
.
.
.
.

harmony wrote:If Peter, James, and John were the 1st Presidency, who are Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Shouldn't there be 15... not 12?
.
.
.
.
.
.

Mark and Luke were not apostles. Luke was not a contemporary of Jesus. He was a mission companion to Paul.

Scholars believe James was the head of the Jerusalem Church and not Peter though when one reads the account in Acts of the Jerusalem council that decided on whether gentiles should be subject to the Law of Moses Peter seemed to play a prominent role.

The idea of there being a FP in the early Church with 12 other apostles does not seem to fit really. After Jesus ascended the 11 apostles only chose one other to once again make them 12. There was not really fifteen

However, Paul was later accepted or called as an apostle and it seem the main reason was due to his vision. It is not clear if he was really one of the twelve or more like one of what we would call the 70. Barnabas is also referred to as an apostle and it is not likely he was one of the 12.

Jason Bourne wrote:Mark and Luke were not apostles. Luke was not a contemporary of Jesus. He was a mission companion to Paul.

Scholars believe James was the head of the Jerusalem Church and not Peter though when one reads the account in Acts of the Jerusalem council that decided on whether gentiles should be subject to the Law of Moses Peter seemed to play a prominent role.

The idea of there being a FP in the early Church with 12 other apostles does not seem to fit really. After Jesus ascended the 11 apostles only chose one other to once again make them 12. There was not really fifteen

However, Paul was later accepted or called as an apostle and it seem the main reason was due to his vision. It is not clear if he was really one of the twelve or more like one of what we would call the 70. Barnabas is also referred to as an apostle and it is not likely he was one of the 12.

So the Gospels were written by men who weren't even apostles, let alone prophets.

Why would Peter, James, and John be the ones to restore the Aaronic priesthood?

They didn't, harmony.

That was John the Baptist.

Daniel Peterson wrote:They didn't, harmony.

That was John the Baptist.

Well, Peter, James and John did something important. (I have a killer headache, so pardon me if I don't remember what it was.) They play a huge role in the temple too. So how come they didn't restore the Aaronic priesthood? And why isn't John the Baptist in the temple?

oi, oi, oi.. I think my head is about to explode. And I went to church this morning and everything! This is simply not fair.

harmony

So the Gospels were written by men who weren't even apostles, let alone prophets.

harm,

The only truth is that we don't know who wrote the Gospels.

harm,
The only truth is that we don't know who wrote the Gospels.

Yes, we know....
Four gospels were written by men, way, way after Jesus' death.
Not a single author who wrote Gospels had first hand experience that Jesus even existed They did rely on inflated, second-hand resources.
Gospels were perfected as Joseph Smith's First Vision was neatly explained.

I wish I didn't take the scholars word for this knowledge.
When Poor Moroni asks me to ask god if these things are not true, there is really no answer. It is the same for Sandra Tanner; She brilliantly exposes LDS fraud and falls into the same (Christian) pit.

fundamentalist Christians are fuming mad at Joseph Smith for exposing their weakness and fallacy. And what did he do for encore?
Fell into the same trap.

So the Gospels were written by men who weren't even apostles, let alone prophets.

Yep. And by the way, Matthew might not have been Matthew the apostle and John may not have been THE John.

Why would Peter, James, and John be the ones to restore the Aaronic priesthood?

Harm

I think you are a bit confused tonight. That was John the Baptist.

Jason Bourne wrote:Harm

I think you are a bit confused tonight. That was John the Baptist.

Yeah, Daniel told me. He was as gentle as you. I must be doing okay, if you two are both being gentle (not that you are ever anything other than gentle).

I'm blaming it on the headache.

Jason Bourne wrote:However, Paul was later accepted or called as an apostle and it seem the main reason was due to his vision. It is not clear if he was really one of the twelve or more like one of what we would call the 70.

On the circumcision issue, Paul pretty much told Peter where he could stick it. Maybe that's why he never made the First Presidency (if there was a FP, which I doubt).