Religio71,Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, which is surprisingly even accepted by those that do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome today, the largest church being the Orthodox Church, believing that Peter not only had a primacy, but that the Church of Rome did as well. We couple this not only with non-Biblical historical accounts, but with understanding of the Biblical nature of “bishop”/“bishopric”.
Why could Linus not have been Bishop of Rome if John was alive at the same time? Is this going by the “senior apostle” logic of the LDS Church?
Placido,But how do we know? Where is the concrete evidence. In his letters to Timothy and Titus Paul seems to suggest that the authority of the apostles was to continue. Do you have any “Scriptures” that contradict the above Scriptures?
How was it restored, by whom, when and how do we know? (Conrete evidence please).
placido
You have disappointed me. You mention a king but don’t identify the king, neither do you attempt to show me how and when what was prophesied in Daniel 7:25 happen, let alone provide historical evidence. But I am patient enough to wait for that information.Placido,
Daniel 7:25 says that a “king” “shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” The king prevails–the saints of the most High do not prevail for a long time.
I do read the Bible but i don’t see those “clues”. Why not do me a favor and identify them one by one - with the necessary explanaitions of course.There are literally hundreds of clues. Most of the teachings of Jesus included a clue. Isaiah is full of clues, Genesis has clues, Deuteronomy, the epistles of Paul and Peter and the book of Revelation. The gospel end product is a covenant people including the house of Israel and the Gentiles, “an holy nation” with the fruits of living the gospel including not relying on pageantry to try and mimic spirituality or spiritual feelings.
Yes.Because an event is prophesied to happen, I suppose one could say it was “supposed to happen that way.”
What does the above tell me anything about the-church-in-hiding? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING!I would look at it in a different way than that. God allows events to happen that will ultimately be turned into a good thing for humankind. The good thing in this case is that people have such a wide range of choices about religion that they can truly make their own choice based on what they desire deep inside of their heart and mind. We learn by choosing and by seeing the effects of our choices in life, sooner or later. Since this life is for learning, it is to be expected that we learn by choosing without any coercion or any obvious “right choice that everyone should make”. Learning faith requires such a process, and requires many religious choices rather than one path that everyone automatically follows.
Placido,You have disappointed me. You mention a king but don’t identify the king, neither do you attempt to show me how and when what was prophesied in Daniel 7:25 happen, let alone provide historical evidence. But I am patient enough to wait for that information.
I do read the Bible but i don’t see those “clues”. Why not do me a favor and identify them one by one - with the necessary explanaitions of course.
Yes.
What does the above tell me anything about the-church-in-hiding? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING!
placido
Placido,You have disappointed me. You mention a king but don’t identify the king, neither do you attempt to show me how and when what was prophesied in Daniel 7:25 happen, let alone provide historical evidence. But I am patient enough to wait for that information.
I do read the Bible but i don’t see those “clues”. Why not do me a favor and identify them one by one - with the necessary explanaitions of course.
Yes.
What does the above tell me anything about the-church-in-hiding? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING!
placido
Religio71,wait, Isaiah 24 and Revelations are talking about a Great Apostasy 2000 years ago, and not the end times?
If I remember correctly, I did bring up that circumcision was entry into the old covenant. The person had no choice in this, yet the choice was made by the parents to bring them into the covenant. Likewise, Catholics see baptism as entrance into the new covenant, and the parents make a choice to bring that infant into the covenant, as in circumcision. Feel free to respond in the other thread though.Religio71,
They are talking about both. The loss of the church (into the wilderness) precedes the end times, when the church will again be among the people before the Second Coming of Christ. The church was prophesied to be in the wilderness “for a time, and times, and half a time”–for a very long time. It was prophesied to be a time when the ordinances had been changed, and the “everlasting covenant” had been broken.
Our prior discussion about the age of baptism and baptism being a known covenant by the person choosing to be baptized and enter into a personal covenant with Jesus Christ, the Giver of the covenant and the chief corner stone of the church, is an example of the loss of the everlasting covenant and a significant change in the primary covenant ordinance of the new covenant gospel.
Religio71,If I remember correctly, I did bring up that circumcision was entry into the old covenant. The person had no choice in this, yet the choice was made by the parents to bring them into the covenant. Likewise, Catholics see baptism as entrance into the new covenant, and the parents make a choice to bring that infant into the covenant, as in circumcision. Feel free to respond in the other thread though.
Placido,Parker D, do you believe in ALL alleged apparitions or only in some alleged aparitions? What criteria do you use?
placido
Placido,Parker D, I have one more question: where was the Bible while the church was in hiding in heaven?
placido
That’s interesting logic, Parker.Randy,
Peter was never the Bishop of Rome, and Linus lived contemoraneously in the same time period as the Apostle John, so he could not possibly have been considered the earthly head of the church during his life.
Randy Carson,That’s interesting logic, Parker.
Using that reasoning, Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church during the lifetimes of any of the Apostles. (A position you may embrace, of course.)
However, the scriptures are clear that Peter was head of the Church regardless of whether he was in Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome. It was a subsequent development that the Bishops of Rome became known as the “Pope” (it’s just a word that means “Papa”, after all), but Peter did go to Rome, worked to establish the Church there, and was martyred there.
…
“This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (ibid.).
But do you also believe in the apparitions of saints like Abraham, Stephen, Luke, Mary, Joseph, etc?Placido,
I assume that you would mean the appearances of angels, or visions and dreams. As far as the appearance of angels, I believe that angels appear when no mortal person could otherwise do what the angel comes to do. It may be to give a message or to restore something to the earth that was lost from mortals.
Who is to determine whether the message is consistent with the Bible?Angels would not appear just to “prove” something to someone, unless it be to provide a witness for something the person has prayed about already. Then, if an angel does appear then their message would need to be totally consistent with the Bible and with the words of the prophets.
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light”. For him to do that, he has to disguise even his message to seem to be consistent with the Bible even if in reality it contradicts it, don’t you think so?Visions or dreams could provide information and guidance to individuals in a variety of ways, and if they lead a person to do good things and to love others, then I would suppose that they are believable as having been inspired.
Okay, the Bible was on earth while the church was hiding in heaven … but where was it exactly and who was its custodian on earth during that period?Placido,
The book of Revelation conveys that John was commanded to write, and that he did write, and that the “churches” in the area surrounding him received the writings but yet did not live by those writings completely.
Revelation 2:4 says, “Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.”
Revelation 3:4 says, “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.”
Revelation 3:15 says of the Laodiceans, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.”
Further to your question, in Ezekiel 37:16, 19 and 23 it is apparent that the “stick” (the writings) of the house of Judah and the children of Israel “his companions” (the Bible) will be on the earth and be familiar to the children of Israel, and that at some point the “stick” (the writings) of Joseph or Ephraim and the house of Israel “his companions” will be put with the stick of Judah to “become one in thy hand” and help them to no more “defile themselves … with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions… I will save them… and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.” That is the promise of the Lord to all the house of Israel and Judah.
So the Bible was to remain on the earth, even though the church would be in hiding in heaven until after a very long time had passed.
If the restoration is prophesied in the Bible, then it follows that the second set of writings that gives practical impetus to the restoration should be prophesied in the Bible too, no?God will fulfill all of the prophecies and promises in the Bible. He has already sent forth the “stick of Ephraim” and of his companions, so that it could be joined with the “stick of Judah” that has been preserved on the earth, to bring about the cleansing and the uniting of all the house of Israel into the true and everlasting gospel covenant. The promises in Isaiah 29 have been and are being fulfilled through the book that speaks “from the dust.” There are two sets of writings, and they are both important, and both testify of the Good Shepherd.
Placido,Okay, the Bible was on earth while the church was hiding in heaven … but where was it exactly and who was its custodian on earth during that period?
If the restoration is prophesied in the Bible, then it follows that the second set of writings that gives practical impetus to the restoration should be prophesied in the Bible too, no?
placido
Placido,But do you also believe in the apparitions of saints like Abraham, Stephen, Luke, Mary, Joseph, etc?
Who is to determine whether the message is consistent with the Bible?
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light”. For him to do that, he has to disguise even his message to seem to be consistent with the Bible even if in reality it contradicts it, don’t you think so?
placido
God gave Scriptures to the world and God gave the Church to the world, but when things started to go wrong, God takes the Church into hiding, leaving Scriptures in hostile hands. Do we then have any guarantee that those hostile hands (that forced the Church into hiding) did not falsify or replace genuine Scriptures with fake ones?Placido,
The Bible writings are the most powerful words ever written. They have changed the world. Those who participated in bringing those words forth to the world were inspired in doing what they did, even if they did not have the pure inspiration necessary to have preserved the pure ordinances. God gave the Biblical words to the world, and men became the custodians of those words, doing the best that they could do with the knowledge that they gleaned from the mixture of their own understanding and the Biblical writings they were reading.
Yes God’s Word is greater than people … that is not what I asked. I asked specifically the Bible (a book). It just seems odd that God protects a book, but is unwilling or unable to protect his people and His Church – rather taking it away to safety in heaven until such time it was safe again to bring it back to earth. How is that that earth was safe enough for God’s Scriptures, but not safe enough for God’s Church? I can’t understand this. In a sense that makes God a coward, who’d rather flee than confront the world.The words and the message were greater than the people who preserved them. This shows that inspiration can come to various people throughout history in order to bring about God’s purposes. He certainly wanted the Bible to go forth among humankind, even to the ends of the earth.
Now if the first set of writings you are quoting (Isaiah and Ezekiel are both in the Old Testament) prophesied the second set of writings, then that second set of writings must be the New Testament, but according to you there is still another set of writings … where was it prophesied?In answer to your second question, yes, and that second set of writings was prophesied in the passages that I have presented for your consideration, in Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37. I have appreciated your questions, and your kindness in asking them. Thanks!