If the church was in hiding ...

[kalt]

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. 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.

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.

Angels in the infield?

Is a singlehanded triple play while hardly moving possible? Must be an angel. It happened last night at 2nd base.

The Gods shine on the Yanks, also. Again.

 

[ParkerD]

1. 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?
2. 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.
3. 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?
   Sorry, I am leaving now … God willing, I’ll be back online after 12 hours.

placido

Placido,

1. I didn’t say the “hands” were “hostile”. Just because ordinances were changed and the “simplicity” that Paul talked about was lost, does not mean the people who did that were “hostile”. It means they were imperfect (no surprise) and brought their own traditions with them into the church (no surprise with that either). They weren’t hostile. When some did the translating or the copying that they did, they could have chosen one word over another word and brought their own “meaning” into a verse of scripture, but I don’t think that happened very often and that still does not mean anyone was being “hostile”.
2. That doesn’t make God imperfect. God doesn’t “confront” at all, ever. He leads, He advises, He offers, He guides, He helps those who are absolutely humble and absolutely have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. He would be consistent with everything He taught humankind by not “confronting”. He gives what the world and people are willing to receive. Just because they weren’t willing to keep the church pure, does not mean they weren’t willing to have the Good Book that He inspired be written and preserved. They received according to their desires. So it is always.
3. The New Testament was still the writing of the house of Judah. The apostles were Jews, and Luke was a Jew. Isaiah wrote most of his writings talking about the last days of the history of the world, before and after the Second Coming of Christ. He talked about the scattering of Israel to the four corners of the world, and its ultimate gathering, including that Ephraim would be gathered. See also Hosea about this same gathering. The New Testament concerned its message about the new covenant gospel, and preserving that, plus John saw and prophesied about the end times, and saw angels coming to the earth to provide messages to the people that they needed in order for the world to be prepared for the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[placido]

Placido,

1. I do believe that angels have appeared with messages to Abraham, Mary, and Joseph, and that Stephen saw the Son of God on the right hand of the Father in a vision. I’m not sure what passage about Luke you may be referring to.

Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough but … I was not asking whether angels have appeared to those people … I was asking whether those people (Abraham etc.) did / do appear to people on earth bringing messages from God.

1. The Holy Spirit would confirm to the person and any others for whom the message is given, that it is from God, and its consistency with the Bible would be plain enough to not be misunderstood.

How do I know it is the Holy Spirit confirming the message and not just demons playing their games with me (remember they can appear like angels, e.g. appear holy).

1. The verse you cited from Paul should be lined up with verse 3, which says:
   “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Add to that 10:17-18:
   "But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
   “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.”

Oh, Paul … the same guy who once told us never to believe any other gospel even if preached by an angel from heaven. It seems, however, some people are following a different gospel supposedly delivered to someone by some of Jesus’ apostles in the 19th century.

So Paul’s message in these chapters has to do with not vainglorying, which Satan would of course entice people to do.

Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but then, yours is not the only interpretation and, since your interpretation is not infallible, you may be wrong.

You are right that Satan would do that by deceiving people into taking isolated verses of scripture or an isolated situation (which is part of what Paul seems to have been saying) and making that into the main gospel, or enlarging it so that the gospel would no longer be “the simplicity that is in Christ.” The gospel message is to remain simple, and never give the appearance of vainglorying or being pompous.

Oh yes, Satan can deceive people into distorting Scriptures. And while we at that point … do you remember some “isolated verses” in the Bible saying something to the effect that Satan was once an angel of God before he rebelled and was expelled from heaven? Apparently Satan wanted to be equal to God and God wouldn’t allow that.
However, ever since the church came out of hiding in the 19th century, it is now teaching that God has (in the meantime) changed His mind and even humans can now be equal to God and become gods.
It sounds almost like a different gospel …

placido

 

[placido]

Placido, I didn’t say the “hands” were “hostile”.
Just because ordinances were changed and the “simplicity” that Paul talked about was lost, does not mean the people who did that were “hostile”. It means they were imperfect (no surprise) and brought their own traditions with them into the church (no surprise with that either). They weren’t hostile.

That is not what Jesus said. He said clearly who is not for us is against us (that is hostility, brother) and who is not against us, is for us.
Based on this you are actually saying, those that were on earth were not hostile to the church (there was, therefore, no need for the church to go into hiding).

When some did the translating or the copying that they did, they could have chosen one word over another word and brought their own “meaning” into a verse of scripture, but I don’t think that happened very often and that still does not mean anyone was being “hostile”.

So, the Bible was in good hands on earth while the church was hiding in heaven, is that what you are saying?

1. That doesn’t make God imperfect. God doesn’t “confront” at all, ever. He leads, He advises, He offers, He guides, He helps those who are absolutely humble and absolutely have a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

But it seems Saul was literally confronted while on his way to Damascus … okay, you can chose to use a better word.

He would be consistent with everything He taught humankind by not “confronting”. He gives what the world and people are willing to receive. Just because they weren’t willing to keep the church pure, does not mean they weren’t willing to have the Good Book that He inspired be written and preserved. They received according to their desires. So it is always.

Do you really expect me to be satisfied with your mere opinion? The above is how you interpret Scriptures, but your interpretation is not infallible, it can be wrong.

1. The New Testament was still the writing of the house of Judah. The apostles were Jews, and Luke was a Jew.

How do you know Luke was a Jew and how do you know who Luke really was?

Isaiah wrote most of his writings talking about the last days of the history of the world, before and after the Second Coming of Christ.
He talked about the scattering of Israel to the four corners of the world, and its ultimate gathering, including that Ephraim would be gathered. See also Hosea about this same gathering. The New Testament concerned its message about the new covenant gospel, and preserving that, plus John saw and prophesied about the end times, and saw angels coming to the earth to provide messages to the people that they needed in order for the world to be prepared for the Second Coming of Christ.

That is how you interpret scriptures, but then, the question remains: is your interpretation infallible or can it be wrong?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

1. Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough but … I was not asking whether angels have appeared to those people … I was asking whether those people (Abraham etc.) did / do appear to people on earth bringing messages from God.
2. How do I know it is the Holy Spirit confirming the message and not just demons playing their games with me (remember they can appear like angels, e.g. appear holy).
3. Oh, Paul … the same guy who once told us never to believe any other gospel even if preached by an angel from heaven. It seems, however, some people are following a different gospel supposedly delivered to someone by some of Jesus’ apostles in the 19th century.
4. Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but then, yours is not the only interpretation and, since your interpretation is not infallible, you may be wrong.
5. Oh yes, Satan can deceive people into distorting Scriptures. And while we at that point … do you remember some “isolated verses” in the Bible saying something to the effect that Satan was once an angel of God before he rebelled and was expelled from heaven? Apparently Satan wanted to be equal to God and God wouldn’t allow that.
   However, ever since the church came out of hiding in the 19th century, it is now teaching that God has (in the meantime) changed His mind and even humans can now be equal to God and become gods.
   It sounds almost like a different gospel …

placido

Placido,
I consider that the scriptures make clear how God communicates with His children on this earth.

1. I have not read or heard that any of those you mentioned delivered messages to people on earth as an angelic messenger.
2. Demons or fallen spirits can try to mimic the Holy Spirit, but the person on the receiving end is the one who would need to be familiar enough–totally familiar–with the difference between the two “voices” to distinguish the difference. I don’t think that is a difficult undertaking. Elijah didn’t have a problem with it, nor Elisha, nor Abraham. Those who did become deceived in the Bible were those who were living unrighteously and were therefore subject to being deceived.
3. You have evidently defined “gospel” as “church.” I don’t think Paul defined it that way. Paul sometimes used hyperbole to emphasize his point, and I think that verse is an example of hyperbole. He was saying the new covenant gospel was something that could be relied on to stay consistent with what he and the apostles were teaching as the true gospel. As I’ve written before, one could make a list of all of the attributes of the “new covenant gospel” and its teachings and practices, as shown precisely in the New Testament and any carried over from the Old Testament that were not part of the Mosaic law, and then compare those with their own church’s teachings and practices. If the lists don’t agree, then one could say the church that has something different has “another gospel.”
4. Fine.
5. Satan had a counterfeit plan to destroy the agency of humankind, be superior to God, and lead spirits in rebellion. Of course he would be cast out of heaven. That has nothing to do with whether God’s plan included for humankind to become “joint heirs” with Jesus Christ, as the book of Revelation plainly attests. Evidently, Satan thought he could “outsmart” God either by gaining more power than Him or by deceiving the majority into following him. We know that ultimately, he will have a very tiny group of followers other than the third of the host of heaven who followed him in the pre-mortal world.

You and I and everyone else we know (all of humankind on this earth) followed Christ and rejoiced with the thought of coming to this earth. Christ will lead us along, and His triumph over Satan will happen just as John prophesied that He will triumph. Those who become “joint heirs” with Him will have followed the new covenant gospel taught by Paul and John. They will have made covenants with Christ to bring His grace fully into effect in their lives, so that they can become One with Christ, become “like Christ”. This is what John the Revelator was writing about in Revelation about “he that overcometh.”

 

[placido]

Placido,
I consider that the scriptures make clear how God communicates with His children on this earth.

Me too.

1. I have not read or heard that any of those you mentioned delivered messages to people on earth as an angelic messenger.

Let me make two thinks clear:

1. I put “etc” in there to include anyone who passed on from this world, not only those I mentioned by name.
2. I did not ask whether those people (Abraham etc.) did / do appear to people on earth bringing messages “from angels”. I asked whether they do bring messages from God, but anyways … you said you are not aware of such. Good.

1. Demons or fallen spirits can try to mimic the Holy Spirit, but the person on the receiving end is the one who would need to be familiar enough–totally familiar–with the difference between the two “voices” to distinguish the difference.

The problem is that “totally familiar” individuals would disagree on their discernment, each falling back on his church tradition.

I don’t think that is a difficult undertaking. Elijah didn’t have a problem with it, nor Elisha, nor Abraham. Those who did become deceived in the Bible were those who were living unrighteously and were therefore subject to being deceived.

Now you got it totally wrong. One lives “unrighteously” AFTER being deceived, not before. Take the example of Eve … was she living “unrighteouly” before she was deceived? I don’t think so.

1. You have evidently defined “gospel” as “church.”

Not at all. It is you who seem to define your private interpretation as the “gospel”.

I don’t think Paul defined it that way. Paul sometimes used hyperbole to emphasize his point, and I think that verse is an example of hyperbole.

You don’t think so, but I do think so. Those are our two different, fallible private opinions. What now?

He was saying the new covenant gospel was something that could be relied on to stay consistent with what he and the apostles were teaching as the true gospel. As I’ve written before, one could make a list of all of the attributes of the “new covenant gospel” and its teachings and practices, as shown precisely in the New Testament and any carried over from the Old Testament that were not part of the Mosaic law, and then compare those with their own church’s teachings and practices. If the lists don’t agree, then one could say the church that has something different has “another gospel.”

Each individual is fallible. There is therefore a possibility of one coming up with a wrong list. Having a wrong list distorts the gospel.

1. Satan had a counterfeit plan to destroy the agency of humankind, be superior to God, and lead spirits in rebellion. Of course he would be cast out of heaven. That has nothing to do with whether God’s plan included for humankind to become “joint heirs” with Jesus Christ, as the book of Revelation plainly attests.

“Joint heirs” of Jesus’ Divine nature? Is that what the book of Revelation “plainly attests? Why don’t I see that?

Evidently, Satan thought he could “outsmart” God either by gaining more power than Him or by deceiving the majority into following him. We know that ultimately, he will have a very tiny group of followers other than the third of the host of heaven who followed him in the pre-mortal world.
You and I and everyone else we know (all of humankind on this earth) followed Christ and rejoiced with the thought of coming to this earth.

When you mentioned “all of humankind on this earth” followed Christ, you were using hyperbole but without alerting me to the fact.

Christ will lead us along, and His triumph over Satan will happen just as John prophesied that He will triumph.
Those who become “joint heirs” with Him will have followed the new covenant gospel taught by Paul and John. They will have made covenants with Christ to bring His grace fully into effect in their lives, so that they can become One with Christ, become “like Christ”. This is what John the Revelator was writing about in Revelation about “he that overcometh.”

So, ever since it came out of hiding in heaven the church is now teaching human will become Divine. But before the church went into hiding the church was teaching human will become “like angels” … are angels Divine or why the discrepancy?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Me too.

Let me make two thinks clear:

1. I put “etc” in there to include anyone who passed on from this world, not only those I mentioned by name.
2. I did not ask whether those people (Abraham etc.) did / do appear to people on earth bringing messages “from angels”. I asked whether they do bring messages from God, but anyways … you said you are not aware of such. Good.

The problem is that “totally familiar” individuals would disagree on their discernment, each falling back on his church tradition.

Now you got it totally wrong. One lives “unrighteously” AFTER being deceived, not before. Take the example of Eve … was she living “unrighteouly” before she was deceived? I don’t think so.

Not at all. It is you who seem to define your private interpretation as the “gospel”.

You don’t think so, but I do think so. Those are our two different, fallible private opinions. What now?

Each individual is fallible. There is therefore a possibility of one coming up with a wrong list. Having a wrong list distorts the gospel.

“Joint heirs” of Jesus’ Divine nature? Is that what the book of Revelation “plainly attests? Why don’t I see that?

When you mentioned “all of humankind on this earth” followed Christ, you were using hyperbole but without alerting me to the fact.

So, ever since it came out of hiding in heaven the church is now teaching human will become Divine. But before the church went into hiding the church was teaching human will become “like angels” … are angels Divine or why the discrepancy?

placido

Placido,
When Christ said “I will make thee ruler over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord,” He was not using hyperbole.

John wasn’t talking about becoming an angel in his epistles nor in the book of Revelation. “Joint heir” means exactly that–it is not hyperbole. “We shall be like Him” means exactly that.

Paul and John weren’t afraid to teach that a person should seek the Holy Spirit in their life, and seek to be guided by the Spirit. They trusted that people could distinguish the difference, because they themselves understood the difference.

Eve didn’t have the Holy Spirit when she made the choice that she made. She followed the serpent’s temptation using her own reasoning.

Any person on earth with a listening heart can join Paul in understanding that being able to clearly discern and know that one has the Holy Spirit in their life is following the new covenant gospel. This is one of the major messages of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit leads to sanctification. Just because people have been conditioned not to trust that anyone can really know for sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding them and is actively involved in their life, does not mean that the conditioning that leads to that mistrust is founded on correct doctrine. But I can see how that strengthens your side of the question, why the conditioning occurs, and why you would restate that position.

I suggest you read the Bible more, seek discernment rather than the wisdom of men in your life as you read, and in the meantime you’ll be fine. At every point in your life, you will have exactly what you want, and exactly the kind of relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit that you want. There is no compulsion in these matters. You will find answers to your questions when you really, deeply want to find answers. Otherwise, it is a mental exercise that is only that–mental exercise. I honestly do wish you all the best as you continue to read the Bible and live by its teachings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,
Peter was the first-called apostle and was listed as the first ordained apostle. That made him the senior apostle. It is clear from the New Testament that he was the senior apostle while he was alive. Therefore, when Christ ascended and after He had told Simon (Peter) to “feed my sheep,” then I agree 100% that Peter was the “head of the earthly Church,” although he himself emphasized that Christ was the rock, the foundation, the “chief corner stone.”

James (the greater) was killed by Herod, so either Andrew or John was next senior after the death of James. The order of seniority would then be Peter, next Andrew or John, then Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alpheus), Lebbaeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Matthias. Add to that list either Barnabas or Paul (Saul), who were ordained apostles evidently at Antioch when the Holy Ghost “said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” (Acts 13:2) Thereafter, they are referred to as apostles. (Note that perhaps an apostle had died by that time besides only James).

By the time John was on the Isle of Patmos in exile, it appears likely that he was the only apostle left alive from the original twelve, and perhaps the only apostle alive at all. So he at that point was easily the senior apostle, Peter having been killed.

There is nothing in the New Testament that says or infers that the bishop of Rome was to be considered the earthly head of the church. Linus lived during the time that John was still alive. John was the earthly head of the church at that time, as the senior apostle.

First, why do you appeal to the NT for proof of Apostolic Succession? Do LDS accept it as the inspired, uncorrupted word of God?

Second, where does the Bible teach that everything must proved from the Bible Alone? If that is the case, I do not find ANY of the doctrines unique to Mormonism within the pages of my Bible. So, would it be reasonable to assume that there are theological truths to be found outside the pages of Sacred Scripture. You would likely point to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, etc.; I would point to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Third, why do you believe that leadership falls to the most senior Apostle? Where is THAT in the pages of the New Testament? Is this a "tradition’ of the LDS?

It is evident to me that the writings that imply Linus was “considered” the head of the earthly church is because those doing the writing were trying to sort out who should be the leader, and they wanted to justify that it should be the bishop of Rome, so that’s how they wrote the history–to support their position. Then they started calling the idea “apostolic tradition” to cement the idea in people’s minds.

Evident? Then produce the evidence. Surely you meant to write, “It is my opinion that…” for that is all you have offered…an opinion.

But at least you have admitted one crucial fact: history records that Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were the first successors of Peter, and this is undisputed.

Thanks for that.

Moving on from Clement, the Catholic Church can trace its popes all the way down to the present day. The Church, a city built on a hill, has never been in hiding, nor has it ever apostatized for Jesus promised to remain with us to the end of the age.

 

[ParkerD]

Randy Carson,
I certainly do accept the Bible as the word of God. The translation process was important, and is important. I don’t accept Catholic history as being necessarily complete and valid history.

I don’t understand why people such as yourself would think Linus had the authority to say in effect, “move over, John–I’m in charge now. The bishops have the leadership role: not the apostles.” Or that your history would even think that Linus thought he had a greater leadership role than the Apostle John. It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would think that. But, to each his (her) own. Have a good day.

 

[placido]

Placido,
When Christ said “I will make thee ruler over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord,” He was not using hyperbole.

John wasn’t talking about becoming an angel in his epistles nor in the book of Revelation. “Joint heir” means exactly that–it is not hyperbole. “We shall be like Him” means exactly that.

Paul and John weren’t afraid to teach that a person should seek the Holy Spirit in their life, and seek to be guided by the Spirit. They trusted that people could distinguish the difference, because they themselves understood the difference.

Eve didn’t have the Holy Spirit when she made the choice that she made. She followed the serpent’s temptation using her own reasoning.

Any person on earth with a listening heart can join Paul in understanding that being able to clearly discern and know that one has the Holy Spirit in their life is following the new covenant gospel. This is one of the major messages of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit leads to sanctification. Just because people have been conditioned not to trust that anyone can really know for sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding them and is actively involved in their life, does not mean that the conditioning that leads to that mistrust is founded on correct doctrine. But I can see how that strengthens your side of the question, why the conditioning occurs, and why you would restate that position.

I suggest you read the Bible more, seek discernment rather than the wisdom of men in your life as you read, and in the meantime you’ll be fine. At every point in your life, you will have exactly what you want, and exactly the kind of relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit that you want. There is no compulsion in these matters. You will find answers to your questions when you really, deeply want to find answers. Otherwise, it is a mental exercise that is only that–mental exercise. I honestly do wish you all the best as you continue to read the Bible and live by its teachings.

Let us have a look at Matthew 22:23-30: "On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. They put this question to him, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother. The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven. Finally the woman died. Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.” Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.”
Yes! Not “become gods” or “become Divine” but LIKE ANGELS - straightforward!
If what you say is true, then Jesus missed a golden oppotunity of clarifying a very importantt teaching.
Since angels are not Divine, humans will not become Divine. You can confuse yourself as much as you like, and employ as many verbal gynmastics as you prefer, but brother, there is simply no way around what Jesus said.
I know you will try, but the more you distort Scriptures to force them to agree with a 19th century “Prophet”, the more you discredit yourself.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Let us have a look at Matthew 22:23-30: "On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. They put this question to him, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother. The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven. Finally the woman died. Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.” Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.”
Yes! Not “become gods” or “become Divine” but LIKE ANGELS - straightforward!
If what you say is true, then Jesus missed a golden oppotunity of clarifying a very importantt teaching.
Since angels are not Divine, humans will not become Divine. You can confuse yourself as much as you like, and employ as many verbal gynmastics as you prefer, but brother, there is simply no way around what Jesus said.
I know you will try, but the more you distort Scriptures to force them to agree with a 19th century “Prophet”, the more you discredit yourself.

placido

Placido,
Why would Jesus tell the Sadducees who were trying to lay a trap for him using the scriptures, anything about the divine purposes of the higher covenant gospel? He responded exactly as the question was put to him–by talking about “they”–the brothers–the Sadducees. There is no question that some people such as the Sadducees will qualify themselves to be “like the angels in heaven.” But the new covenant gospel was for more than that, unless that is all one wants.

If one wants to prepare themselves to be “like the angels in heaven,” then that is totally fine with me. One can join the Sadducees in the resurrection and be just as the Savior said they would be, with a resurrected body that is like an angel.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Why would Jesus tell the Sadducees who were trying to lay a trap for him using the scriptures, anything about the divine purposes of the higher covenant gospel?

Esteemed members of the Catholic Answers Forums,
Do you hear what Parker is saying? He is saying, Jesus can tell the truth or tell a lie depending on the audience. Because His audience consisted of Sadducees, Jesus decided to tell a lie to conceal the divine purpposes. A liar can not be my saviour. Luckily, we know who is telling a lie.

He responded exactly as the question was put to him–by talking about “they”–the brothers–the Sadducees. There is no question that some people such as the Sadducees will qualify themselves to be “like the angels in heaven.” But the new covenant gospel was for more than that, unless that is all one wants.

I anticipated your verbal gymnastics, but no thank! You can try as many times as you like, but the Bible refutes you. Humans will not become divine. They will become “like angels”.

If one wants to prepare themselves to be “like the angels in heaven,” then that is totally fine with me. One can join the Sadducees in the resurrection and be just as the Savior said they would be, with a resurrected body that is like an angel.

You are implying jesus can tell a lie depending on the question.
Thank you for trying, but everybody here can see through your face-saving gymnastics.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Placido,
I don’t mind the name-calling you have chosen to do, but it has surprised me since I had honestly thought you were coming across with better personal character qualities than that. I think you are a sincere person, and I wish you all the best as you continue your studies and find answers to your questions in whatever way you choose to find those answers. Have a good day.

(By the way, Jesus did not tell an untruth with His answer, nor have I with any of mine. I realize you have reacted in a similar way to those described in the New Testament as “willing to justify himself.” It’s not a big deal with me. It has no impact.)

 

[wisdomseeker]

Placido,
Why would Jesus tell the Sadducees who were trying to lay a trap for him using the scriptures, anything about the divine purposes of the higher covenant gospel? He responded exactly as the question was put to him–by talking about “they”–the brothers–the Sadducees. There is no question that some people such as the Sadducees will qualify themselves to be “like the angels in heaven.” But the new covenant gospel was for more than that, unless that is all one wants.

If one wants to prepare themselves to be “like the angels in heaven,” then that is totally fine with me. One can join the Sadducees in the resurrection and be just as the Savior said they would be, with a resurrected body that is like an angel.

Jesus did not interact very much wiht Saducees, they did not believe in life after death. to them is all about living here on earth then die.

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus did not interact very much with the Saducees, they did not believe in life after death. To them is all about living here on earth then die.

Wisdomseeker,
That is a very good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[ParkerD]

You can try as many times as you like, but the Bible refutes you. Humans will not become divine. They will become “like angels”.

Placido,
I realize that what you wrote is the teaching you are familiar with. I think the Bible clearly states that Christ intended for humankind to become “like Him” and inherit a “joint heirship” throne “like Him.” That is taught in Revelation, in the Gospel of John during Christ’s intercessory prayer (John 17), in the parable of the stewards, and in other references but most clearly in those examples.

This would be an example of a change in key doctrine. It lessens our level of trust in Christ and His power of grace as well as less trust that His guiding influence during the course of our lives will lead us to make changes that will really sanctify us. Those trust components are essential parts of the covenant-making that is the basis of the new covenant gospel. Christ wants to lead us so that we are no longer the same person, but we have to make heartfelt covenants in order for Him to help us make those significant changes.

 

[placido]

Placido,
I realize that what you wrote is the teaching you are familiar with.

Yes, I follow the teaching I am familiar with until such time that you show me that the teaching you are familiar with can’t be wrong – then (and only then) can I abandon the teaching I am familiar with and follow your infallible teaching.

I think the Bible clearly states that Christ intended for humankind to become “like Him” and inherit a “joint heirship” throne “like Him.”

“Like Him” is what sense? Remember Jesus is fully human and fully Divine … and to be joint heir does not mean to be alike … my sister and I were the joint heirs of our father’s property but I remained a man and my sister remained a woman.

That is taught in Revelation, in the Gospel of John during Christ’s intercessory prayer (John 17), in the parable of the stewards, and in other references but most clearly in those examples.

How can you, in all honesty, bring up John 17, the very chapter that does more harm to your position. Jesus prayed for the protection of the Church in the world and specifically asked the Father not to take the Church from the world (v 15) … yet you claim God the Father did just that, totally ignoring Jesus’ prayer.
IMPLICATION: Jesus’ prayer is useless.

This would be an example of a change in key doctrine.

We can come to “changed doctrines” later but for now we have to solve the contradiction between what Jesus prayed for in John 17 and what you allege to have happened relying on your misunderstanding of John’s Revelation.

placido

 

[placido]

My rules for the interpretation of Scripture are:
a) Never pit Scripture against Scripture;
b) Any apparent contradiction or discrepancy between two or more Bible texts should always be viewed as a misinterpretation (e.g. failure to take some facts into account such as context, the intended audience, the literary style, etc);
c) If any text in any book of the Bibles seems to contradict Jesus’ own words, precedence has to be given to Jesus’ own words.
In the light of the above, I find this small exchange between myself (Post 1) and ParkerD (post 16) very interesting:
"placido:

If the church Jesus founded was in hiding for over a thousand years (as alleged by some here), can we try to trace its timeline? When did it go into hiding?

About the time John wrote about it from the Isle of Patmos

And post # 42:

John the Revelator saw that the church was going into disarray during the latter part of his life, and when he had his vision he found out that everything was going to be OK even though the “beast” was going to overcome the true church for a very long time

That is a direct contradiction of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, Matthew 28:20, John 14:16.
"placido:

What happened while it was in hiding?

It was “in the wilderness,” and the “beast” was allowed to have power: (Revelation 13:7) “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations”

That is a confusion caused by the misidentification of the ‘beast].
"placido:

How do we know?

John saw it happen in vision, and wrote down his vision, and you read the vision in the book of Revelation

That does not answer the question, “how do we know what happened while the church was in hiding?”
"placido:

When did it come out?

It comes out of hiding when you find it and have the same gifts of the Spirit that John had and that Paul had, and see with new eyes, and have a new birth–a second birth

There are so many who claimed to have those gifts throughout church history, including Montanism from the 2nd to the 8th century when the church as supposed to be in hiding.

placido

 

[Bill_Pick]

well Nero started the persecution my the Roman Empire in 64 and the next 150 years the church was in the catacombs… the church came out of the catacombs and spreadrapidly and in 325 Constantine called the Council of Nicaea and in 476 we had the fall of the Roman Empire
Benedict founded monastery at Monte Cassino in 520
1200 was the Beginning of the Renaissance and the development of cities
The great western schism 1378-1417
we had the Middle ages to take back the Holy Places that resulted in slaughter and looting ect. Heresies were rampant and then Inquisition
the protestant Revolution in 1517 it was a challenge from Luthern for the selling of Ilndulgences
Council of Trnt==Counter–reformation 1545–1563
Loss of the Papal States==creation of Vatican City
Vatican-Coucil 1 1869-70
Vatican-Council 2 1962=65 this got us to the modern world and we are still learning how to do it
Any selling error sorry

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,
I certainly do accept the Bible as the word of God. The translation process was important, and is important. I don’t accept Catholic history as being necessarily complete and valid history.

I don’t understand why people such as yourself would think Linus had the authority to say in effect, “move over, John–I’m in charge now. The bishops have the leadership role: not the apostles.” Or that your history would even think that Linus thought he had a greater leadership role than the Apostle John. It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would think that. But, to each his (her) own. Have a good day.

It boggles my mind that you refuse to accept the plain facts of history…oh, that’s right…they don’t support your attempts to discredit the Catholic Church. I get it.

Let’s look at this a different way, shall we?

The Corinthian church was experiencing some internal problems, and they COULD have appealed to John the Apostle who was still alive and in closer proximity than Clement of Rome regardless of whether you place John in Ephesus or on Patmos.

But they didn’t, did they? They looked to the successor of Peter as the head of the Church. Not only did Clement respond, but no one disputed HIS right to intervene in these affairs, and his letter was considered to be inspired scripture for many years before the Catholic Church determined that it was not.

By the way, Clement’s letter was once thought to have been written around 96 AD (still within the lifetime of the Apostle John), but recent scholarship supports a much earlier date. In 1996, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, supported a date of A.D. 70, and by 2002 most scholars support a date earlier than 96, some agreeing with the A.D. 70 date.

Now, let’s consider another of your “arguments”…

It wasn’t Peter but Peter’s confession that is “the rock” in Matthew 16:18, right?

:nope:

If true, then

Why Aren’t Andrew and Nathaniel Named “Rock” After Their Confessions?

After all, it was Andrew who first came to Peter and said, “We have found the Messiah!” (John 1:41). Similarly, why didn’t Jesus name Nathaniel “Rock”? Remember, Nathaniel immediately confessed to Jesus, “You are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel” (John 1:49) after Jesus had simply told Nathaniel he’d miraculously seen him under the fig tree.

No, Parker, you are sadly mistaken. Jesus named Peter “the rock” long before Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:

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