If the church was in hiding ...

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
Sorry to have been busy and not had the time to respond. 'Hope you are doing well.

1. Paul did indeed teach to rely on the Spirit, and also taught about the doctrines of Christ, the doctrine of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins and of seeking the fruits of the Spirit. He reinforced what Christ had taught the apostles and others, because he knew that reinforcement as well as the Holy Spirit’s guidance were both important.

Christ is with anyone who seeks after Him. John wrote by inspiration, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Rev. 3:20) This applies to any person on earth, since it was first written by the apostle John. Christ comes to those who open the door of their heart. This was what He was teaching the apostles, and what He was speaking to the world through John the Revelator. He will be with those who open to Him.

The Spirit will come to any person who seeks the things of the Spirit in humility and sincerity and without seeking a sign. I agree that Paul listened to the prompting of the Spirit, but he had to be familiar with that voice and he was. He obeyed because he was sure of the thing he was being prompted to do. Faith, righteousness, purity of heart and purity of purpose are all necessary for that guidance.

My friend, there is nothing in this post that I do not agree with. But are we really to believe that for 1700 years after the death of John not a single person on this entire planet looked to God, the sky, something, and asked “what shall I do?” There have been plenty of humble people who had wished to serve God will all their heart. Just a question I would like you to mull over.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner (kind Brother):

1. The two passages from Acts you referenced are about people who had lost the Spirit because of their sinfulness: Ananias and his wife, and those Israelites who persecuted and killed the prophets who had prophesied about the coming of Jesus Christ to the Jews and to the world, as well as the Jews who betrayed Christ. Sinfulness brings the loss of the Holy Spirit, always, unless the person repents. (Ananias and his wife were given the chance to tell the truth, but didn’t–they acted with knowing deception.)

No where in the verse does it indicate that they lost the Spirit. It says that they lied to it:
Acts 5
3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Or resisted it:
Acts 7
51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

You can’t lose the Spirit. Paul himself admits to being a sinner and continuing to sin but still undoubtedly had the Spirit. One can resisted all along the way, but they cannot lose it simply because, like I indicated with the example of Paul being led by the Spirit, it is the Spirit that chooses man, not man who chooses the Spirit. The Spirit is not a possession to be owned and sold, He is a person. The Spirit constantly drives a man to repent in the first place. If one loses the Spirit after sinning then he could not repent.

You spoke of the “Church as a whole”, but that is comprised of people, and if the leaders were “prideful” and not humble, they could stray and even assume they had the Spirit as they followed their own mind, especially if they believed “the Spirit will never let me make a mistake in my understanding, because I am the leader and we have been told the leaders will always be guided correctly.”

Like I said, it is not man who chooses the Spirit, but the Spirit who chooses man. The Spirit can make a King out of a beggar, no less a Pope out of a farmer, so the Spirit can have numerous ways to protect the Church. By saying that the Spirit is only limited to working through the leaders of the Church is to limit the Power of the Spirit, who can work through whom ever he wants however he wants.

I will comment again that for me the most telling situation (besides comparing actual Biblical doctrine) is that when John was still alive, he was seemingly pushed aside in the minds of the people and the church leaders. Why would that be, when he was the still-living apostle who was most familiar with the doctrines Christ Himself had taught?

You assume he was pushed aside. It could have been for the reasons I told you that he did not become the next Bishop of Rome. First, like a royal court, it is not the most elderly adviser of the King or the person with the most experience who takes over. It is the son of the King, no one else will do. At the same time, as Peter was given charge of the Church it would be his successor who would take over. John was not equal to Peter in authority, nor was he the successor to Peter, so he could not have taken over. Plus, Peter’s seat was in Rome, while John’s was in Jerusalem. As John was not around Peter all the time and followed him closely (the Spirit had not led him to, if the Spirit really wanted John to take over i think it would be obvious to have John in Rome, at least for me) and since John was in charge of Jerusalem while Peter was in charge of Rome, there is no way he could be successor.

You see…what people often do is examine biblical text through a modern lense, and this turns out disasterous 9/10 times. The early Church was not a democracy. In many ways it was like a monarchy. That was the way things worked in the days of the apostles. In fact, as the Pope’s successor was chosen by Bishops, it would follow that John must have approved of this, as he has never complained about it in his writtings. I’m sorry man, but things didn’t work the same way back then as they do now. Just because you don’t get how the early Church worked, does not mean it was corrupt. The oldest most experienced person may not become Pope today, but the one whom the Spirit chooses, because once again…it is not man who chooses the Spirit, but the Spirit who chooses man. It is up to men to say “sir, yes sir”.

I have cited and quoted two passages, one in Daniel and one in Revelation, that say the whole world will be in a situation of being deceived by the influence of the dragon or the beast. Christ will ultimately prevail, absolutely, but there was no guarantee that the dragon would not have pervasive influence for a period of time. The contrast is clear: Christ is victor in the midst of the dragon and the beast and Babylon having influence before they are overcome by the forces of good under Christ’s leadership.

Where specifically does it say the whole world will be decieved, and you may want to know that when they say the “whole world” that doesn’t necessarily mean every last person. And if the whole world will be decieved, where does that put the LDS Church, which by you will eventually be decieved?

Thank you

 

[Bill_Pick]

Yes, he is LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Later day Saints).

placido

placido The Mormon is a cult and any think he said you will not believe is he was notarise, the golden plates SMITH DEATH WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS A FROM A MISS GUILD CHURCH

 

[wisdomseeker]

Questioner,
Sorry to have been busy and not had the time to respond. 'Hope you are doing well.

1) Paul did indeed teach to rely on the Spirit, and also taught about the doctrines of Christ, the doctrine of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins and of seeking the fruits of the Spirit. He reinforced what Christ had taught the apostles and others, because he knew that reinforcement as well as the Holy Spirit’s guidance were both important.

and those teachings are only known to those who were there being tought by the Apostles so all generations could have the same teachings. according to your teachings many generations went by without the Church to teach them. you need to repent before God for such a teaching. Jesus came and built a Church and He promised the Spirit of Truth to guide the Church. He never promised to give the Spirit to each person to enterpret Scriptures. Just ask St Peter. you should be afraid and take consideration when the Apostles said that many false prophets would come and deceive many.
the CC has been here all along, if you care to educate yourself. the Church has nothing to hide. all these religions who try to disprove the CC, when we show them the way to find the Truth, they run away. they cant handle the Truth.

Christ is with anyone who seeks after Him. John wrote by inspiration, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Rev. 3:20) This applies to any person on earth, since it was first written by the apostle John. Christ comes to those who open the door of their heart. This was what He was teaching the apostles, and what He was speaking to the world through John the Revelator. He will be with those who open to Him.

If Christ comes to anyone who seeks Him and if the Church went into hiding, how did they hear about Christ, how would they know? are you implying that the Church has no part in preaching the Gospel to the world? all the letters of the Apostles were addressed to the Church to be tought to the people. none of the Apostles tought anything different from each other. all those who became believers, came into the Church. One Church spreaded everywhere there were no Jehovah witnesses, no mormons, no presbyterians, no lutherans, no assemblies of God. none of this. there were no people making themselves pastors or bishops. God is not a God of confusion. He did not leave man to himself. we have free will but we should not prophane the Word of God. we should not use the name of God in vain. if you really believe that our Lord intended for Christianity to be the way it is today, than you dont know Christ.

The Spirit will come to any person who seeks the things of the Spirit in humility and sincerity and without seeking a sign. I agree that Paul listened to the prompting of the Spirit, but he had to be familiar with that voice and he was. He obeyed because he was sure of the thing he was being prompted to do. Faith, righteousness, purity of heart and purity of purpose are all necessary for that guidance.

if the Spirit come to any person who seeks, how do you explain that the Church went into hiding? or are you implying that the Church has no part on this?

 

[ParkerD]

Rinnie,
My response to your post #198 is that I have a completely different experience than you have, including having had gifts of the Spirit and fruits of the Spirit in my life, so I have first-hand knowledge of what Paul writes about and Peter writes about in their epistles. You conclusions are valid for you, but not for me at all. I have different experience, including knowledge by revelation, and am familiar with deceptive spirits who try and control or bring contention or bring doubt or say “God is angry” or say “Adam and Eve had orginal sin that everyone carries with them.” None of those deceptions impact me at all.

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus did not change Simon’s name?

John 1:42
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

Jesus called Simon “Cephas” in John 1; Paul referred to Simon as “Cephas” in 1 Corinthians.

[1 Corinthians 1:12](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+1:12&version=NIV)
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Cephas is clearly used as a name and not merely as a descriptive term.

So do I. “Rock” does not mean “father”. However, Jesus gave Simon the new name, Kepha (or Cephas) which, when translated in Greek, was Petros. We call him, Peter, in English.

Forget tradition. Let’s establish the principle that one person can be a spiritual father to another from scripture, okay?

Jesus uses this principle:

Luke 16:24
24So he called to him, “Father (Gr. pater) Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”

Paul uses this principle:

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

James uses this principle:

James 2:21
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

So, would you agree that the Bible illustrates that one person may be considered the “father” of another person in a spiritual sense?

Randy Carson,
I had written that Jesus called Simon, Simon or Peter (more often Simon), and John referred to him as “Simon Peter”. Peter was an addendum to his name, not a change of his name.

The words “Abraham our father” were talking in a literal sense, not a spiritual sense. The children of Israel, including the Jews, as descendants of Abraham are “Abraham’s children”.

Christ is my spiritual father, not Paul or Peter or any human person living today. Only Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

may i ask you why the Church went into hiding?

Wisdom Seeker,
The concept of “the Church went into hiding” is not really what I have been expressing. People in the church were doing their best to live by its teachings, and gained from those teachings. But if the doctrines changed and the ordinances changed and the people looked to someone other than John as the final leadership authority on earth after the death of Peter, then the church had changed from how it was originally instituted and taught, so it wasn’t the same church. The original church was no longer around after all the changes were made. That doesn’t mean all the people were now “bad” or that God was going to punish everyone. It means they didn’t have the full scope of the gospel and its blessings if the doctrines changed and the ordinances changed and the leadership changed the basis of its authority.

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner,
You did indeed make some valid points.

It seems to me that Paul’s case and Jonah’s case were special, out-of-the-ordinary cases. Paul was acting in total sincerity as a scholarly Jew and a Roman citizen, but the Lord knew Paul’s heart and needed his zeal and his tirelessness for the work that the Lord needed him to do, which was to be a missionary and an apostle to the Gentiles. That became his major calling. His epistles tell the members to seek the Holy Spirit and seek revelation, not to seek to be visited by angels or have visions of Jesus Christ. His case did not set a precedent for him to say, “see how God will keep leaders from doing something wrong.” Rather, he repeatedly warned against false teachers and others who would lead the members astray.

And in warning against false teachers God was doing what through him? Keeping the sheep from following false shepherds. I have the feeling that when Paul mentions false teachers you are thinking of teachers who were taught by the apostles and close to them but suddenly went astray. False teachers can be anyone who teaches wrong, they don’t necessarily have to have learned from the apostles.

Jonah didn’t want to preach to the people of Ninevah because he thought they might repent and then he would look foolish. The Lord used his example as a wonderful example of why prophets are part of how God works among His children–to teach them to repent so that the kinds of calamities that otherwise would happen to them, don’t happen.

…so God confronts people, the willing and unwilling right?

Moses was reluctant because he was very humble and was not a gifted speaker, so he thought he wouldn’t be listened to or be believed or heeded. Aaron was to be his spokesman, and Moses was to provide the prophetic leadership. But note that Moses said a significant thing when he said, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29)

and?

The Lord used Moses to show Pharoah the power of the Lord and let the Israelites go, but that does not show His dealings with a righteous group of people, since the Egyptians weren’t righteous.(Nor were the Canaanites.) The Israelites weren’t a righteous group either, though they were the covenant people. They needed to be dealt with like children, not like a group of seasoned believers. God began to teach them through Moses, and they began to learn important lessons, one by one, and start to catch on. But it was a slow and long process. Yet Moses had wished they all had the spirit, and were “prophets”.

You have to ask yourself why he would wish this. So that they would have superpowers or so that they, like him, would hear from the Lord and be faithful? What is a Prophet but one who hears from the Lord and does what he says?

God wants His covenant people to have enough prophetic insight and enough of the spirit that they can lead themselves through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is what sanctification leads to–being guided in individual growth and needed individual repentance toward becoming what Christ will lead a person to become–a new creature, a changed person with love and forgiveness in their heart toward others and a deep love for God.

I don’t get it. So do you agree that God confronts people?
Thank you for continuing to respond by the way. I really appreciate it.

Questioner,
Yes, God has confronted people when it has suited His purposes, but that does not mean He confronts every person or every leader who has their own agenda and disobeys Him or His commandments. Eventually He will–ultimately they will be confronted and be judged for every action in life, but God lets free agency work within peoples’ lives without intervening, most of the time, even with leaders of churches.

 

[ParkerD]

Isn’t it clear that John is addressing “he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein:”? (1:3)

…and?

Revelation 20:4 is clearly talking about the thousand year Millennium, which John saw in vision and included in the writings because it was going to be pertinent to the majority of the people he was writing to.

The thousand year millennium came after the beast was defeated. Not only that but it was a millennium of peace and joy in Christ. Now unless you believe that millennium started when Joseph Smith began the Mormon Church, it would make no sense to attribute that millennium to the years the Church was “hiding”.

Yet he described most of the members of the “seven churches” (chapters 1-3) as being in some condition of unworthiness and having strayed from the truths of the gospel.

And through him the Holy Spirit corrects them. Like I said, the Spirit chooses man, not man the Spirit.

Plus, only 5 out of seven were in some sort of trouble. Two of them were completely fine and pleasing to the Lord (Church in Philedelphia and the Church in Smyrna). Of the ones that were in some sort of trouble, only two was completely condemned (Sardis and Laodicea). The other three were praised, but there were a few things wrong with them that Christ wanted to point out. That is how the Holy Spirit guides.

So, this is why I say using Revelations to point out that the Church went into hiding hurts you, because when we read all of Revelations it actually hurts your arguement because it in no way points to the Church going into hiding.

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.)

 

[ParkerD]

My friend, there is nothing in this post that I do not agree with. But are we really to believe that for 1700 years after the death of John not a single person on this entire planet looked to God, the sky, something, and asked “what shall I do?” There have been plenty of humble people who had wished to serve God will all their heart. Just a question I would like you to mull over.

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.

 

[ParkerD]

if the Church went into hiding for 1700 years, then how does he explaing the appearance of the Bible while the Church was in hiding?

Good people, who loved God, brought forth the Bible to the world. God helped them do that. It was fully a part of His purposes for that to happen.

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner (kind Brother):

1. The two passages from Acts you referenced are about people who had lost the Spirit because of their sinfulness: Ananias and his wife, and those Israelites who persecuted and killed the prophets who had prophesied about the coming of Jesus Christ to the Jews and to the world, as well as the Jews who betrayed Christ. Sinfulness brings the loss of the Holy Spirit, always, unless the person repents. (Ananias and his wife were given the chance to tell the truth, but didn’t–they acted with knowing deception.)

No where in the verse does it indicate that they lost the Spirit. It says that they lied to it:
Acts 5
3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?.. You have not lied to men but to God.”

Or resisted it:
Acts 7
51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

You can’t lose the Spirit. Paul himself admits to being a sinner and continuing to sin but still undoubtedly had the Spirit. One can resisted all along the way, but they cannot lose it simply because, like I indicated with the example of Paul being led by the Spirit, it is the Spirit that chooses man, not man who chooses the Spirit. The Spirit is not a possession to be owned and sold, He is a person. The Spirit constantly drives a man to repent in the first place. If one loses the Spirit after sinning then he could not repent.

You spoke of the “Church as a whole”, but that is comprised of people, and if the leaders were “prideful” and not humble, they could stray and even assume they had the Spirit as they followed their own mind, especially if they believed “the Spirit will never let me make a mistake in my understanding, because I am the leader and we have been told the leaders will always be guided correctly.”

Like I said, it is not man who chooses the Spirit, but the Spirit who chooses man. The Spirit can make a King out of a beggar, no less a Pope out of a farmer, so the Spirit can have numerous ways to protect the Church. By saying that the Spirit is only limited to working through the leaders of the Church is to limit the Power of the Spirit, who can work through whom ever he wants however he wants.

I will comment again that for me the most telling situation (besides comparing actual Biblical doctrine) is that when John was still alive, he was seemingly pushed aside in the minds of the people and the church leaders. Why would that be, when he was the still-living apostle who was most familiar with the doctrines Christ Himself had taught?

You assume he was pushed aside. It could have been for the reasons I told you that he did not become the next Bishop of Rome. First, like a royal court, it is not the most elderly adviser of the King or the person with the most experience who takes over. It is the son of the King, no one else will do. At the same time, as Peter was given charge of the Church it would be his successor who would take over. John was not equal to Peter in authority, nor was he the successor to Peter, so he could not have taken over. Plus, Peter’s seat was in Rome, while John’s was in Jerusalem. As John was not around Peter all the time and followed him closely (the Spirit had not led him to, if the Spirit really wanted John to take over i think it would be obvious to have John in Rome, at least for me) and since John was in charge of Jerusalem while Peter was in charge of Rome, there is no way he could be successor.

You see…what people often do is examine biblical text through a modern lense, and this turns out disasterous 9/10 times. The early Church was not a democracy. In many ways it was like a monarchy. That was the way things worked in the days of the apostles. In fact, as the Pope’s successor was chosen by Bishops, it would follow that John must have approved of this, as he has never complained about it in his writtings. I’m sorry man, but things didn’t work the same way back then as they do now. Just because you don’t get how the early Church worked, does not mean it was corrupt. The oldest most experienced person may not become Pope today, but the one whom the Spirit chooses, because once again…it is not man who chooses the Spirit, but the Spirit who chooses man. It is up to men to say “sir, yes sir”.

I have cited and quoted two passages, one in Daniel and one in Revelation, that say the whole world will be in a situation of being deceived by the influence of the dragon or the beast. Christ will ultimately prevail, absolutely, but there was no guarantee that the dragon would not have pervasive influence for a period of time. The contrast is clear: Christ is victor in the midst of the dragon and the beast and Babylon having influence before they are overcome by the forces of good under Christ’s leadership.

Where specifically does it say the whole world will be decieved, and you may want to know that when they say the “whole world” that doesn’t necessarily mean every last person. And if the whole world will be decieved, where does that put the LDS Church, which by you will eventually be decieved?

Thank you

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.

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.

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.

 

[placido]

Randy Carson,
I had written that Jesus called Simon, Simon or Peter (more often Simon), and John referred to him as “Simon Peter”. Peter was an addendum to his name, not a change of his name.

Technically and legally, an “addendum to a name” is a change of name.

The words “Abraham our father” were talking in a literal sense, not a spiritual sense. The children of Israel, including the Jews, as descendants of Abraham are “Abraham’s children”.
Christ is my spiritual father, not Paul or Peter or any human person living today. Only Christ.

The Corinthians had Saint Paul for their spiritual father (1 Cor. 4:14–15). If you claim to be different, then there is the possibility of you following a different gospel as well.

placido

 

[placido]

Wisdom Seeker,
The concept of “the Church went into hiding” is not really what I have been expressing. People in the church were doing their best to live by its teachings, and gained from those teachings.

“People in the church” you say? So people were still in the church and the church was still teaching people on earth after it was withdrawn for a long time?

But if the doctrines changed and the ordinances changed and the people looked to someone other than John as the final leadership authority on earth after the death of Peter, then the church had changed from how it was originally instituted and taught, so it wasn’t the same church.

And where do you get the idea that John was to be Peter’s only rightful successor and that Apostolic Succession had to end with John’s death?

The original church was no longer around after all the changes were made.

Alleging “changes” is one thing, but proving “changes” is a different game altogether. Can you provide at least one proof of the alleged “changes”?

That doesn’t mean all the people were now “bad” or that God was going to punish everyone. It means they didn’t have the full scope of the gospel and its blessings if the doctrines changed and the ordinances changed and the leadership changed the basis of its authority.

Until Joseph Smith came along and corrected the “changes”, right?

placido

 

[placido]

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.”

In other words you are saying, the “woman” (whom you identified as the church) brought forth the “man child” (whom you identified as Christ) and after Christ was “caught up unto God and His throne” the woman/church flew into “wilderness”. You earlier claimed the church was in heaven where Christ is, but now you are indicating the church/woman went to a different place, not where Jesus went.

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.)

Is the “woman” the church (as you claimed earlier) or is the “woman” the righteous Jews (as you are claiming now)? Or, is the righteous Jews and church one and the same?

placido

 

[placido]

Good people, who loved God, brought forth the Bible to the world. God helped them do that. It was fully a part of His purposes for that to happen.

I am sitting here and wondering: why did God not just wait until 1829 to sent Jesus to redeem humanity? Why sent Him to shed His precious blood to buy for Himself the Church (Acts 20:28) to provide humans with the means of salvation, but then, immediately withdraw the church, take it into hiding, only to restore it 1 700 years later? That is against common sense to think that God’s purppose in founding the church was so that He could hide it. The unthinkable is to believe He was “forced” to do that.

placido

 

[placido]

Peter was not the bishop of Rome, nor John the bishop of Jerusalem.

Would that make any sense if I told you that Peter never died because there is nothing about his death in the New Testament?

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.

But there is “something” in the New Testament that says Peter had more authority than any other, that is why you have to deny his presence in Rome to be able to deny what Catholics claim.

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.

Start proving your alleged “changes” - we are waiting … oh, and please don’t forget to tell us whether you reject all those changes or only some of them.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Technically and legally, an “addendum to a name” is a change of name.

The Corinthians had Saint Paul for their spiritual father (1 Cor. 4:14–15). If you claim to be different, then there is the possibility of you following a different gospel as well.

placido

Placido,
Thanks for reading my responses. When the discussion becomes one of semantics rather than the purpose and intent of the original speaker or writer, then to me the discussion becomes of no value. The “purity of the message” question is all about the original intent of the speaker or writer.

Paul, in 1 Thessalonians 2:11, shows his purpose in calling the saints “his sons”.

“As we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,”

He is saying that his affection and how his message is motivated by love for them is “as a father doth his children”. He is not asking the saints to address him as “father”.

 

[ParkerD]

Placido (good morning by the way),

“People in the church” you say? So people were still in the church and the church was still teaching people on earth after it was withdrawn for a long time?

By the term “the church” I meant "the groups of people in the surviving organizations which were regarded as “churches”. Yes, of course there was still teaching going on.

And where do you get the idea that John was to be Peter’s only rightful successor and that Apostolic Succession had to end with John’s death?

(John didn’t die, by the way.) John was ordained an apostle by Christ. He had more authority than a bishop. When Peter died, the authority of the apostleship remained on earth. Peter didn’t say nor did he ever imply that after he died, the authority of leadership was going to pass to the bishops.

Alleging “changes” is one thing, but proving “changes” is a different game altogether. Can you provide at least one proof of the alleged “changes”?

Read my immediately preceding sentence, and compare with the alleged “apostolic succession” versus the fact that John was still on the earth as an apostle.

Baptism was done by submersion (immersion) in water in the way Christ and the apostles did this ordinance.

No money needed to be paid in order for ordinances to be performed. In fact, such was completely contrary to what was taught in the New Testament.

Until Joseph Smith came along and corrected the “changes”, right?

The Reformation was about “changes” also. Joseph Smith came along and received the original authority from Peter, James, and John, and the complete, pure gospel message rather than having to “guess at it.” That is why an angel was involved in providing the “everlasting gospel to them that dwell on earth.” (Rev. 14:6).
placido

 

[ParkerD]

In other words you are saying, the “woman” (whom you identified as the church) brought forth the “man child” (whom you identified as Christ) and after Christ was “caught up unto God and His throne” the woman/church flew into “wilderness”. You earlier claimed the church was in heaven where Christ is, but now you are indicating the church/woman went to a different place, not where Jesus went.

Is the “woman” the church (as you claimed earlier) or is the “woman” the righteous Jews (as you are claiming now)? Or, is the righteous Jews and church one and the same?

placido

Placido,
The righteous Jews joined the church that Christ organized, so “righteous Jews” and “church” are one and the same as regards the vision about the “woman” whose “remnant” remained on the earth.

Jesus went to heaven to His throne, but He also went to the spirit world or “paradise” and to spirit prison to preach to the spirits and visit the righteous spirits. The term “heaven” is often understood to mean the same thing as the term “paradise”. John’s vision saw the “woman” fly with “eagle’s wings” to a place of refuge (a mountain refuge above the earth out of the reach of the serpent or dragon), which I am saying means “paradise” or “the heaven that is paradise for the righteous spirits, where Christ visits them.”