If the church was in hiding ...

[ParkerD]

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 purpose in founding the church was so that He could hide it. The unthinkable is to believe He was “forced” to do that.

placido

Placido,
God planned the world including how to bring about the salvation of humankind. The atonement was the focal event in that plan. It is totally logical that that focal event would happen exactly at the midpoint of earth’s history speaking of the period of time when mortal people were on the earth.

God was not “forced” to “withdraw the church.” People chose to do what they did with “the church.” It was not God’s doing, it was the people’s doing. They chose.

The fact that there are so many different denominations in the world reflect that people have always been given the right by God to “choose” how and in what way they will worship and what doctrines they will believe in. God did not make all of the different denominations, but He allowed them to be made, and thereby people have a complete range of choices–which one will they choose?

Also keep in mind that God’s plan always included that His works on earth are not concluded (finished) until after the Millenium, including the salvation of as many people as will choose Christ. They can do that choosing in the spirit world just as they now can do it from whereever they are in the world, on earth. There was full provision for that in God’s plan for this world. That is why Christ preached to the spirits in “prison” (spirit prison), and why He opens the “gates of hell” and redeems the “prisoners” out of their “prison”. (See Isaiah 61:1-2, and 1 Peter 3:19)

God does not necessarily do things in a way that will always make “common sense” to every person on earth. His ways are not man’s ways.

 

[ParkerD]

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

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.

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

Placido,
I assume Peter could have been in Rome, and went many places during his ministry as the leading apostle. That does not make him the “bishop of Rome”.

I reject all of the changes that made the pure gospel no longer pure, and the authority from Christ no longer present with mortal people. I have listed some already. I worry that making a long list will be upsetting to people who read this, and my intent has not been to upset people–it has been to answer your and other questions and allow choice for people based on, hopefully, new insights into the book of Revelation and the book of Daniel and a passage in Ezekiel and messages in Isaiah.

I am going to wait, Placido, until I feel like there is a general consensus by others who may read this, that they would like a list of the changes. Have a good day.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Hi Parker, so then what you are saying is you deny original sin. Correct. Then tell me Parker why did Adam and Eve get thrown out of the Garden Of Eden? If not for original sin. And why are we free from that sin in Baptism? Or do you deny that Baptism frees us from Orginal sin. Or are you trying to say that once we are Baptised we can not fall from Grace? And can not possibly sin? Because something is very very wrong with this thinking if that indeed is what you are saying?

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker, so then what you are saying is you deny original sin. Correct. Then tell me Parker why did Adam and Eve get thrown out of the Garden Of Eden? If not for original sin. And why are we free from that sin in Baptism? Or do you deny that Baptism frees us from Orginal sin. Or are you trying to say that once we are Baptised we can not fall from Grace? And can not possibly sin? Because something is very very wrong with this thinking if that indeed is what you are saying?

Hi, Rinnie,
I hope you have had a good day, and that all is well with your family and loved ones.

Genesis 2-3 are very specific about the entire episode of the fall of Adam and Eve. As noted in Genesis 2:17 they had been told by God “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

They were commanded not to eat of that fruit, because if they did they would die.

So their experiences in the garden of Eden continued until the day that the serpent tempted Eve by telling her that the tree of knowledge of good and evil had fruit that they could eat and would not die from eating it (v. 5), and that the effect of eating that fruit would be that they would have their eyes opened to be “as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Eve reasoned that the tree’s fruit was desirable “to make one wise” (v. 6) That was her motive to eat the fruit.

Adam’s motive to eat the fruit was stated by him in verse 12, that “the woman thou gavest to be with me… gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” He knew that she had eaten the forbidden fruit, and would therefore die as God had said. He also knew that he had been commanded by God that “thou gavest to be with me” meaning he was to stay with Eve. He knew that she was “an help meet for him.” (2:18) God had given Eve to her to help him, and she was exactly what he needed for the help he would need, and to not be alone in the world.

They partook. They fell from the presence of God and were cast out of the garden of Eden where they had lived and talked with God as friends. They eventually died just as God had said they would.

They had sinned by breaking a commandment, so they lost the “easy” communication they had with God. Now they were going to have a more difficult time, with “harder” communication with God (through prayer and when they were ready, through the Holy Spirit) and with “hard things” in their lives–sorrow in Eve’s conception (3:16), sorrow for Adam and thorns and thistles and work in order for them to eat. (3:19)

There is nothing in those verses that say there was an original sin. They would die and their children would die, but God had made full provision for that through the planned event of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice for all of humankind including for Adam and Eve. They could receive the Holy Spirit into their lives to have communication with God, and they could have redemption through the Savior, Jesus Christ. They could also learn through the difficult experiences of life, including childbirth, grief, sorrow, work, and challenges in life. Eve chose more than perhaps she realized, but the consequences were for their benefit and growth.

 

[Bill_Pick]

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.

why because you do not believe in hell,well you will when you will when you get there

 

[rinnie]

Hi Parker and thank-you we had a wonderful day. Actually we are heading out tommorow to NY to the Indian Casino. Probally to get scalped

But we will be there for 3 days. It will be interesting to say the least. I know you can’t pray for me to win, but maybe that I don’t lose Just kidding

Anyway Original sin. Let me explain it to you and then I am sure you will agree.

Original sin is called sin only in an analogical sense. It is sin contracted not committed a state not an act. CCC 404.

Now see it is because of their sin that A&E brought sin into the world. You must agree with that. Sin is the reason for suffering. All the good things God planned for us will now be tainted by their sin. Because of that sin God said:

Childbirth will be painful. Trust me I can swear to that one!

Our family life will be a image of Gods love but MARRED by sin. which is why familys have anger, hurt etc.

Work which was supposed to be a joy will be toil. IT will not always be fruitfull and may bring thorns and thistles. Labor will be difficult in sweat. Bet you can relate there also.

Even life will end in suffering, and Physical death is inevitable.

Now you must agree with me that they did indeed bring all of the curse upon us, and themselves…

But remember it wasn’t a act of revenge on Gods part but actualllly the opposite it was Gods love.

See when we disobey God we refuse his love, like I told you before we can’t escape his love we just can’t enjoy it, We shut ourself off from it when we sin. So we must repent like Adam and Eve should have done.

But remember because of original sin evil entered into the world. And boy did it take root. Because of sin (the first sin) they were thrown out of paradise.

Hope this helps Parker my Friend. Will check back in a few days. For now I must get ready to leave. Tommorow morning will come quick.

Remember Parker tommorow is Labor Day, It is the only day of the year we should work:tiphat:

For now you take care, and Hope in some small way I helped you to see this the way the Church teaches.

 

[ParkerD]

why because you do not believe in hell,well you will when you will when you get there

Bill,
Thanks for providing a clear example of fear-based theology, threatening language, and a spirit of contention that unfortunately did not originate with you but you have chosen to carry on.

I choose differently. I choose the Holy Spirit. I choose Christ. When They teach and communicate to humankind, there is no fear-based decision-making unless someone else takes Their message and changes it into fear-based decision-making or fear-based teaching.

We need not choose fear-based theology. Christ and the Holy Spirit teach differently than that. I love how They teach. They teach faith in Christ, love, forgiveness, brotherly kindness, the true life-giving redemption offered by Jesus Christ, the Lord.

 

[rinnie]

And the rest of what you said is correct Parker. Jesus did indeed take away Original sin. But how he did that is when we die because of his death on the Cross we can enter heaven,

Adam was the one who gave us sin, It took someone sinless to take it away, that was indeed Jesus. He did by his death on the cross set us free, and by Baptism we indeed do receive the HS. You are correct there. See Adam brought physical and death to the soul. But Jesus by giving us Baptism promised us life in the soul that would never be taken away by death of the Physical body.

BY the HS we got Spiritual Life that can never die. Baptism is indeed that great gift. That is why he gave us the sacraments. Communion is another sacrament that give Spiritual life to the soul. That is why it is said every sunday this is my Blood, this is my Body when you eat this you will have eternal life. Jesus meant it.

See what A&E did not realize they did not die a physical death right away, it was death of the soul. Thats what sin is, death of the soul. Jesus gave that back to us.

 

[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”.

Ah, they can consider him as father on condition they never call him father. That is interesting, very much interesting.

placido

 

[placido]

By the term “the church” I meant "the groups of people in the surviving organizations which were regarded as “churches”.

Since you also believe the “woman” is the church, then the “woman” that gave birth to Christ becomes “the groups of surviving organizations which were regarded as churches”. That is how you can’t stop confusing yourself. You simply forget or easily disregard what you posted before.

Yes, of course there was still teaching going on.

In fact what you are saying is that the Christ’s Church is not needed since the teaching can go on even when the Church is in hiding.

placido

 

[placido]

(John didn’t die, by the way.)

What do you mean? If you mean to say that John did not experience physical dead like other apostles, then that is breaking news.

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.

I don’t know whether you know it, but what you are saying above is a direct admission that Peter was in fact the head apostle, whose authority needed to be passed on after his death.

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

If you got the word “submersion” directly from scripture provide chapter and verse.

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.

Is that your evidence of “changed” doctrine? You think giving money is “doctrine”? Seems you don’t even know the difference between doctrine, discipline and custom. For you, even the fact that modern church buildings are different from church buildings of the early centuries is evidence of changed doctrine?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Since you also believe the “woman” is the church, then the “woman” that gave birth to Christ becomes “the groups of surviving organizations which were regarded as churches”. That is how you can’t stop confusing yourself. You simply forget or easily disregard what you posted before.

In fact what you are saying is that the Christ’s Church is not needed since the teaching can go on even when the Church is in hiding.

placido

Placido,
If one says to oneself that use of the term “church” is always and forever only going to mean “the pure church Christ established on the earth”, then one has brought that term into a meaning that is personal and not based on the dictionary.

I have consistently meant that the church Christ established was no longer the same when it was changed by men. That doesn’t mean that no “church organizations” survived, and certainly church organizations do teach–of course they teach.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,

1. It is true that the Holy Spirit knows the hearts and minds of every person, and the collective rejection of Christ by the Jewish leaders (including His crucifixion) fulfilled prophecy and was ultimately necessary for the atonement to be fulfilled for all humankind. But isn’t it logical that those same Jewish leaders were saying to themselves (even though they had studied the very scriptures that made the prophecies about Christ) that they had the “truth” (which was in the Law) and that the promised David was to be a king Who would deliver Israel physically with power, which is one of the reasons they were so sure Christ was not their Messiah and rejected Him? They trusted their traditions and logic more than they followed their heart which surely was telling them that the love and example Jesus offered them was a spiritual leadership they should be listening to.

So they were rejecting the Spirit? There is nothing wrong with following tradition nor logic. The thing about the Jewish leaders was that they were forgetting the point of the traditions and logic. Love. Love was the point. They used the loopholes in their traditions to go against Love. They were betraying logic by making excuses for their bad behavior (a man would owe things to his parents, so to get out of it he would consecrate it and keep it saying it “was for God”).

The experience of Nicodemus provides an example of the Jewish leader mindset–although he at least was aware that Christ had an important message. Nicodemus wasn’t spiritually attuned to understand that there could be such a thing as a second birth by water and by the Spirit. Christ taught him the doctrine, then let him decide whether he would follow and receive “heavenly things” (John 3:12). Christ didn’t force the doctrine on him, or give some kind of sign to prove it to Nicodemus.

Nicodemus too missed the point. The reason why he was talking about being born from your mother again is because he was so material he could not comprehend heavenly things. He was thinking in too much of a worldly way. Not all the Jewish leaders were like this of course. It would not be too far fetched to assume that Joseph of Arimithea got the point.

1. It’s ironic that John’s leadership and pure testimony were being side-lined at the very time that he was receiving the visions that became the writings of the book of Revelation. I can understand him wondering, “Lord, how can this be happening–this loss of understanding by the people I have loved and taught?” It would have been on his mind constantly. Can you imagine how overjoyed he was as he realized that his vision was showing how Christ would ultimately triumph and the very saints who had been persecuted during his lifetime as an apostle, would ultimately not be part of a “lost cause” but instead be the beginnings of a grand triumph of righteousness and goodness? His visions did not place Peter in the primary leadership role. His visions continued to place Christ Himself in the primary leadership role, always.

This I already addressed. If i address this further I will be repeating myself. All that is left for you to do here is accept Christs teaching on this. All i can ask you to do now is meditate over Matthew 16:17-19 and Luke 22:32 before you say that Johns visions do not place Peter in the leadership role. The topic was already talked about by Matthew and Luke. In fact he himself addressed it. John 21:15-17

 

[ParkerD]

Placido,

What do you mean? If you mean to say that John did not experience physical dead like other apostles, then that is breaking news.

It needn’t be breaking news that John did not experience physical death. If you read John 21:22-23 you will find that Jesus said to Peter, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (23) “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:”

I don’t know whether you know it, but what you are saying above is a direct admission that Peter was in fact the head apostle, whose authority needed to be passed on after his death.

The other apostles had the same authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven and to protect the pure original church doctrine that Peter had. He couldn’t “pass his authority on after his death.” The authority of apostleship was passed on when the apostles were still alive, such as when Matthias and Paul and Barnabas were called and ordained as apostles.

If you got the word “submersion” directly from scripture provide chapter and verse.

I used the term “submersion” because some people don’t seem to understand the term immersion. Burial in the water means to be immersed in the water, and it was so commonly understood that the word baptism itself was understood to mean that precisely. See Romans 6:4 for the use of the words “buried with him by baptism…”

Is that your evidence of “changed” doctrine? You think giving money is “doctrine”? Seems you don’t even know the difference between doctrine, discipline and custom. For you, even the fact that modern church buildings are different from church buildings of the early centuries is evidence of changed doctrine?

I will answer both of these questions.

You may think “giving money” is a custom or a discipline, but I disagree strongly, absolutely and unquestionably, whether it is a correct practice, and if associated with ordinances of the gospel, then it completely violates the teaching by Peter in Acts 8:18-20. “…thou hast thought the gift of God may be purchased with money.” Ordinances of the gospel involve doctrines of the gospel. The doctrine leads to the ordinance, and the ordinance involves covenant-making between the person receiving the ordinance and God, who offers the ordinance and the covenant. The covenant is part of the gift of God given to humankind.

Church buildings where people worship God and Christ should be quite simple, not ornate or pretentious or attempting to mimic spiritual connection to God by some outward display. The spiritual connection to God comes from a person’s heart. The person knows when they have it. They don’t need drama or grandeur or a display to know that they have that spiritual connection. Those practices may be visually appealing and draw “oohs and aahs”, but the “oohs and aahs” are not spirituality. The visual appeal is an artificial creation of atmosphere that is intended to mimic spirituality, but only mimics.

 

[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.

If the “righteous Jews” joined the church, then they are not the church because you only join what was already in existence. You shall have to come up with a better excuse.

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.”

Heaven is “a place above earth”? Do you mean a distant planet – maybe Saturn or even Jupiter? Is heaven a distant place above the earth? Really?
God was not “forced” to “withdraw the church.” People chose to do what they did with “the church.” It was not God’s doing, it was the people’s doing. They chose.
You mean Christ did not know beforehand what people would do with His Church or why did He make unconditional promises that imply the church would remain on earth till the end of ages?
I assume Peter could have been in Rome, and went many places during his ministry as the leading apostle. That does not make him the “bishop of Rome”.
If an apostle can be an “elder” (meaning priest), why can’t he be a “bishop”? First try to figure out what “bishop” means. It means overseer, pastor. An apostle can be an overseer/bishop of churches in a specific area.

Placido

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner,

1. It is true that the Holy Spirit knows the hearts and minds of every person, and the collective rejection of Christ by the Jewish leaders (including His crucifixion) fulfilled prophecy and was ultimately necessary for the atonement to be fulfilled for all humankind. But isn’t it logical that those same Jewish leaders were saying to themselves (even though they had studied the very scriptures that made the prophecies about Christ) that they had the “truth” (which was in the Law) and that the promised David was to be a king Who would deliver Israel physically with power, which is one of the reasons they were so sure Christ was not their Messiah and rejected Him? They trusted their traditions and logic more than they followed their heart which surely was telling them that the love and example Jesus offered them was a spiritual leadership they should be listening to.

So they were rejecting the Spirit? There is nothing wrong with following tradition nor logic. The thing about the Jewish leaders was that they were forgetting the point of the traditions and logic. Love. Love was the point. They used the loopholes in their traditions to go against Love. They were betraying logic by making excuses for their bad behavior (a man would owe things to his parents, so to get out of it he would consecrate it and keep it saying it “was for God”).

The experience of Nicodemus provides an example of the Jewish leader mindset–although he at least was aware that Christ had an important message. Nicodemus wasn’t spiritually attuned to understand that there could be such a thing as a second birth by water and by the Spirit. Christ taught him the doctrine, then let him decide whether he would follow and receive “heavenly things” (John 3:12). Christ didn’t force the doctrine on him, or give some kind of sign to prove it to Nicodemus.

Nicodemus too missed the point. The reason why he was talking about being born from your mother again is because he was so material he could not comprehend heavenly things. He was thinking in too much of a worldly way. Not all the Jewish leaders were like this of course. It would not be too far fetched to assume that Joseph of Arimithea got the point.

1. It’s ironic that John’s leadership and pure testimony were being side-lined at the very time that he was receiving the visions that became the writings of the book of Revelation. I can understand him wondering, “Lord, how can this be happening–this loss of understanding by the people I have loved and taught?” It would have been on his mind constantly. Can you imagine how overjoyed he was as he realized that his vision was showing how Christ would ultimately triumph and the very saints who had been persecuted during his lifetime as an apostle, would ultimately not be part of a “lost cause” but instead be the beginnings of a grand triumph of righteousness and goodness? His visions did not place Peter in the primary leadership role. His visions continued to place Christ Himself in the primary leadership role, always.

This I already addressed. If i address this further I will be repeating myself. All that is left for you to do here is accept Christs teaching on this. All i can ask you to do now is meditate over Matthew 16:17-19 and Luke 22:32 before you say that Johns visions do not place Peter in the leadership role. The topic was already talked about by Matthew and Luke. In fact he himself addressed it. John 21:15-17

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

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).

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

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
I am going to set the “marriage” question aside, even though at some point I would like to understand how happily married couples can think heaven will be complete if their beloved is at that point only a friend. (I just don’t get that.) I brought up the Luke verses because I was aware they lean toward the meaning you have accepted, and I was willing to be honest about that.

In heaven we will live in perfect union with the Will of God and live in his love. As such the focus of our attention will be toward God. However there is no reason why we cannot have deeper friendships with others who we knew on earth. Still, you should really learn the reason why we get married. Through marriage couples are supposed to help each other reach heaven (most primary reason) and have kids (though even if this is not possible it would still be ok to get married). As we will no longer produce children in the New Kingdom and will have already reached God there would be no real need for marriage. Of course that is my quick synopsis. Study that and you will see why the end of marriage in heaven makes sense. And thank you for posting Luke. Remember to conform your will to that of Christ and not try to deny his words.

As to the joint throne, the verse is as follows: (Rev. 3:21)

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

There is another verse that clearly talks about ruling “nations”: (Rev. 2:26-27)

“And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron;”

I want you to understand that in and of myself, the idea of a “throne” or “rulership” does not appeal to me at all, but the idea of having the kind of unconditional love Jesus has, and being able to be involved in creation of an earth with all its beauty, sounds like a joyful situation to me.

Bingo, you have it right…half way. Remember that Christ was specifically talking to the Church in Thyatira in Rev. 2:26-27 (and does not make sense in the light of the resurrection where there will no longer be nations to rule and thus must apply pre-resurrection) and to the Church in Laodicea in Rev. 3:21. Are they the only Churches to recieve godhood? Also humans cannot become gods. So what does Christ mean when he says to share his throne? It means what you said, having the kind of unconditional love Christ has. To share in love and happiness with Christ in God’s Kingdom forever. That is the throne of Christ.

Besides, even if it meant joint authority, it does not mean godhood. God is not the authorit He posesses, God is what He is, God. Christ can give authority to anyone, but that does not mean they will become what Christ is, only that they will be able to share what he has. Love and Authority.

It is the antithesis of pride, which is self-centered. Giving spirits complete free agency while also rejoicing as they grow by experiencing their physical lives on an earth with all of life’s challenges, sounds like being other-centered to me. How does God receive joy? Not by the fact that He is adored by His creations, but by His unconditional love and by watching His creations progress through making freely available choices and His children being able to change those choices and not suffer the eternal consequences of wrong choices (but being able to learn from many wrong choices). The mission of Christ was essential to the joy of the Father, because through Christ’s infinite grace, perfect example, and His faith in us, we can become like Him. (1 John 3:2)

Yes again…half way. We will tackle the issue of hell in some other thread but you have the first part right. Christ was not here merely to set a good example mind you, but to free us from the oppression of sin and give us the keys to salvation.

Remember again that “like him” means to have a glorified body “like him” as John knew. There is no indication that we will have godhood in revelations nor in the teachings of Christ, but through many of the books in the new testament we see the teaching that man will have a glorified body like Christ, but the glorified body is not necessarily a divine one. Christ is the only human who is divine. (Romans 8:30 for example)

 

[TheQuestioner]

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.

Now, just to tell you, and this is me being nice…but, if you want your arguments (and I mean all of them) to continue to hold ground on the Church going into hiding i suggest you retract the statement that “God has confronted people when it suited his purposes”. First, because you will be going against what you said earlier about God not confronting people (unless you have been convinced that you were wrong earlier) and second because if this is the case then the philosophical and theological implications of the Church going into hiding and the saints being overcome (all the while the people were doing their best to preserve the faith and did not know they strayed) despite the fact that God confronts people when it suites his purposes would be so great that it would clearly indicate that both statements together would not be compatible.

So I will give you time to retract this statement if you still believe that “the Church went into hiding”.

 

[placido]

Placido,
If one says to oneself that use of the term “church” is always and forever only going to mean “the pure church Christ established on the earth”, then one has brought that term into a meaning that is personal and not based on the dictionary.

Christ founded One Church and that is the Church we are supposed to be talking about here, not the thousands of man-made churches.

I have consistently meant that the church Christ established was no longer the same when it was changed by men.

Making claims is one thing, providing proof is a totally different ball game.
Let me tell you this: One day I was analyzing two pictures of my elderly neighbor. One picture was taken when he was 7 years old and the 2nd picture was taken when he 55 years old. You know, that same person does not look exactly the same in both pictures. His appearance has changed dramatically but it is still him.
If that is the change you are talking about, I agree 100 % with you: change occurred.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
It needn’t be breaking news that John did not experience physical death. If you read John 21:22-23 you will find that Jesus said to Peter, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (23) “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:”

The breaking news is that you don’t quote the whole verse 23. You stop where it suits you.
Here is the whole verse:
King James Version: John 21:23 - Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?”

New International Version: John 21:23 - Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

New American Bible: John 21:23 - So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)”
I hope you can now see that Jesus did not say John won’t die.

placido