If the church was in hiding ...

[ParkerD]

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 ).

Randy Carson,
I’m OK with your beliefs and with how you arrived at them. It works for you and a lot of people.

As for me, Christ is the rock, the chief corner stone, the foundation stone, the head of the corner. He called twelve apostles, and gave them authority that was “greater” than the authority of the bishops. I can’t help it if some people didn’t understand that principle in the early days of the church. If Clement thought he was “in charge”, then I think he was mistaken. Still and all, I don’t think he would recognize the Catholic church of today as being the same church he thought he was in charge of from those early days. It does much good and has good roots and teaches good moral values, so it is fine for many, many people and will help them. I guess I’m an “Abraham” kind of person, who would seek more than that. I would seek to follow the rock who is the head of His Church on earth. I love Him with all of my heart and soul, and feel the Spirit often in my life. I love Hebrews 11 and 1 Corinthians 3. In those, Paul describes the kind of communication with God and the kind of faith that I want in my life. I’m grateful for that kind of communication and that kind of knowing faith. I’m different than you, I would suppose. Thanks for sharing your beliefs.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As for me, Christ is the rock, the chief corner stone, the foundation stone, the head of the corner.

Yes, He is Parker…in some place of scripture. But just because a metaphor is used one way in one verse, it does not follow that it MUST be used in ONLY that way throughout ALL of scripture, capiche?

He called twelve apostles, and gave them authority that was “greater” than the authority of the bishops.

Yes, He did. The Apostles were individually infallible and they had universal jurisdiction, but that does not apply to the Bishops to whom the leadership of the Church fell as the Apostles passed from the scene.

I can’t help it if some people didn’t understand that principle in the early days of the church.

By all means, please provide evidence that anyone was confused about this.

If Clement thought he was “in charge”, then I think he was mistaken.

This is just your personal opinion. The evidence from history is that EVERYONE realized that Linus, Anacletus, Clement and Evaristus were the popes after Peter, and there is NO dispute about this.

Please, I beg you…show us your proof if you think you can overturn 2000 years of Church history and scholarship on this matter. The academic world awaits your thesis.

Still and all, I don’t think he would recognize the Catholic church of today as being the same church he thought he was in charge of from those early days. It does much good and has good roots and teaches good moral values, so it is fine for many, many people and will help them. I guess I’m an “Abraham” kind of person, who would seek more than that. I would seek to follow the rock who is the head of His Church on earth. I love Him with all of my heart and soul, and feel the Spirit often in my life. I love Hebrews 11 and 1 Corinthians 3. In those, Paul describes the kind of communication with God and the kind of faith that I want in my life. I’m grateful for that kind of communication and that kind of knowing faith. I’m different than you, I would suppose. Thanks for sharing your beliefs.

You do realize, of course, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. Do not divert the discussion.

Did the early Church accept Linus, Anacletus and Clement as the legitimate successors of Peter despite the fact that John the Apostle was still alive?

Yes or no.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, He is Parker…in some place of scripture. But just because a metaphor is used one way in one verse, it does not follow that it MUST be used in ONLY that way throughout ALL of scripture, capiche?

Yes, He did. The Apostles were individually infallible and they had universal jurisdiction, but that does not apply to the Bishops to whom the leadership of the Church fell as the Apostles passed from the scene.

By all means, please provide evidence that anyone was confused about this.

This is just your personal opinion. The evidence from history is that EVERYONE realized that Linus, Anacletus, Clement and Evaristus were the popes after Peter, and there is NO dispute about this.

Please, I beg you…show us your proof if you think you can overturn 2000 years of Church history and scholarship on this matter. The academic world awaits your thesis.

You do realize, of course, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. Do not divert the discussion.

Did the early Church accept Linus, Anacletus and Clement as the legitimate successors of Peter despite the fact that John the Apostle was still alive?

Yes or no.

Randy Carson,
I suppose you realize that some history, including what happened to individual people and in some places, was not written or was lost. As far as I’m concerned, what you wrote in the above comments substantiates that there was a loss of authority, and the “people” accepted what they were left with. I don’t think of Christ being the rock and foundation of the Church as a metaphor, I think it is a statement of specific design of His Church, as Peter himself testified in his epistle. I think what I have written on this thread has everything to do with “the matter at hand”–what the Bible says about the church going into the wilderness, then coming back to the earth with all of the fruits of the new covenant gospel, and with Christ, the rock, as the head of the Church.

 

[placido]

Randy Carson,
I suppose you realize that some history, including what happened to individual people and in some places, was not written or was lost. As far as I’m concerned, what you wrote in the above comments substantiates that there was a loss of authority, and the “people” accepted what they were left with. I don’t think of Christ being the rock and foundation of the Church as a metaphor, I think it is a statement of specific design of His Church, as Peter himself testified in his epistle. I think what I have written on this thread has everything to do with “the matter at hand”–what the Bible says about the church going into the wilderness, then coming back to the earth with all of the fruits of the new covenant gospel, and with Christ, the rock, as the head of the Church.

“I suppose …” … “As far as I’m concerned …” … “I don’t think …” … “I think it is …” … “I think what I have written …” … Oh no, there are too many “I’s” in your above post.

1. Parker, have you carefully considered the possibility that you may have misidentified the “wilderness”?
2. Have you carefully considered that in the case of your interpretation of John’s Revelation being correct, the implication would be having Jesus as a liar?
3. Didn’t Jesus promise to be with His Church (in this world) till the end of ages?
4. Didn’t Jesus ask the Father not to take the Church out of this world?
5. Is the Church not the light of the world?
6. Didn’t Jesus say nobody lights a lamp and put it in hiding?
7. Would that make sense for Jesus to found a Church just to remain for less than a 100 years, go into hiding for 1 700 years and then come out of hiding at “later days”?
   I plead with you, brother, to please re-consider what you said so far in this thread.

placido

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,
I suppose you realize that some history, including what happened to individual people and in some places, was not written or was lost. As far as I’m concerned, what you wrote in the above comments substantiates that there was a loss of authority, and the “people” accepted what they were left with.

Nothing I wrote substantiates “a loss of authority”. The Apostles died as martyrs (save John), and their disciples, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, inherited the leadership of the Church. Paul specifically addresses the matter of succession with his disciple Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1) Paul himself, 2) Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3) Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4)Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. From this, we can see that Paul is not anticipating a loss or authority but the orderly transfer of that authority.

I would also point out that the election of Matthias in Acts 1:15-26 suggests the principle at stake: the existence of the office of Bishop and the replacement of the office holder.

I don’t think of Christ being the rock and foundation of the Church as a metaphor, I think it is a statement of specific design of His Church, as Peter himself testified in his epistle.

Is Jesus Christ a rock? What type? Igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic? The latter would come closer to our understanding of transubstantiation.

Seriously, Parker, do you think Jesus is a rock or a door or a vine? These are biblical metaphors. Your denial that Peter was also named “the rock” by Christ simply because Jesus is called a rock (as is God in the OT) is based upon a complete misunderstanding of this usage.

The “design” of the Church is evident enough from scripture: Jesus answered Pilate by declaring that He is indeed a king, and He reigns now from Heaven. Here on earth, we are led by Christ’s “Prime Minister” the Pope of the Catholic Church to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom and His own shepherd’s crozier (cf. Mt 16:18-19, Jn 21:15-19, Is 20:22).

I think what I have written on this thread has everything to do with “the matter at hand”–what the Bible says about the church going into the wilderness, then coming back to the earth with all of the fruits of the new covenant gospel, and with Christ, the rock, as the head of the Church.

I apologize if I missed it. Please cite the book, chapter and verse from the New Testament that speaks of the total apostasy of the entire Church.

In case you missed it, I have cited numerous passages from the scriptures which state that the apostasy of the Church is simply NOT POSSIBLE because of the actions and promises of God. You have not interacted with those verses.

Finally, you completely ignored my question which I pose again:

*Did the early Church accept Linus, Anacletus and Clement as the legitimate successors of Peter despite the fact that John the Apostle was still alive? *

Yes or no.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“I suppose …” … “As far as I’m concerned …” … “I don’t think …” … “I think it is …” … “I think what I have written …” … Oh no, there are too many “I’s” in your above post.

1. Parker, have you carefully considered the possibility that you may have misidentified the “wilderness”?
2. Have you carefully considered that in the case of your interpretation of John’s Revelation being correct, the implication would be having Jesus as a liar?
3. Didn’t Jesus promise to be with His Church (in this world) till the end of ages?
4. Didn’t Jesus ask the Father not to take the Church out of this world?
5. Is the Church not the light of the world?
6. Didn’t Jesus say nobody lights a lamp and put it in hiding?
7. Would that make sense for Jesus to found a Church just to remain for less than a 100 years, go into hiding for 1 700 years and then come out of hiding at “later days”?
   I plead with you, brother, to please re-consider what you said so far in this thread.

placido

:clapping:

 

[ParkerD]

“I suppose …” … “As far as I’m concerned …” … “I don’t think …” … “I think it is …” … “I think what I have written …” … Oh no, there are too many “I’s” in your above post.

1. Parker, have you carefully considered the possibility that you may have misidentified the “wilderness”?
2. Have you carefully considered that in the case of your interpretation of John’s Revelation being correct, the implication would be having Jesus as a liar?
3. Didn’t Jesus promise to be with His Church (in this world) till the end of ages?
4. Didn’t Jesus ask the Father not to take the Church out of this world?
5. Is the Church not the light of the world?
6. Didn’t Jesus say nobody lights a lamp and put it in hiding?
7. Would that make sense for Jesus to found a Church just to remain for less than a 100 years, go into hiding for 1 700 years and then come out of hiding at “later days”?
   I plead with you, brother, to please re-consider what you said so far in this thread.

placido

Hi, Placido,
No more I’s then–fine with me.

1. “Wilderness” definitely does not mean Rome. It means a place apart from the civilized world.
2. (and 3.) Jesus is always with the entire world, with tender mercy and tender love. He is God. He created the world. He has an interest in the entire world and every person who has ever lived. The question is not whether He is with us, but whether we are “with Him”, meaning following Him. He promised to be with the apostles, and promised them the Holy Spirit as a comforter. That is another way He is “with us” and was “with” the apostles. Your implication that having a different understanding of scripture is to say what you implied, manifests a complete lack of understanding about judging and about the good Samaritan principle in dealing with those not of your faith.
3. No. He said the believing members of the church and the apostles were “not of the world.” He prayed that the Father “shouldest keep them from the evil.” (John 17: 14,15)
4. Those who follow Christ are the light of the world. The physical “church” is not. Those who do not practice the love and forgiveness and generosity of spirit that Christ taught so abundantly, are not the light of the world. It is an individual choice people make, whether to be a “light” or not.
5. Yes, absolutely. One who has those qualities, is out among the people because they feel to do that, and while they are out among the people, then what they do is an example to others. Others see their joy, and want to have that same joy.
6. Thanks for the pleading request. The Bible is so clear on this subject that it is unmistakeable. The Jewish leaders didn’t recognize Christ for what He was, because they had their traditions and their learning and they did not know the meaning of scriptures such as Isaiah 53.

John, the beloved apostle and leader, was no doubt very concerned as he saw what was happening in the different cities as the gospel message was being accepted but the people were not following the pure doctrines and argued about doctrinal issues. Revelation gives the assurance that despite what John saw happening in his very day, Jesus Christ was promising that He would be the ultimate victor over the serpent, the dragon, Babylon the great. His promise is always that He “stands at the door and knocks”.

We decide whether to open the door, or not. He will not open the door, because He gives humankind their free and unfettered choice. If we do open the door, He will be there for us, for anyone who opens and looks and listens. He will give humankind as much truth and light as they ask to receive.

 

[placido]

Brother Parker D, in your post # 42 you told me this:

The authority of the apostleship, the keys of that authority, were restored by Peter, James, and John, who appeared back on the earth in a tangible appearance to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in June, 1829, and placed their hands on the heads of Joseph and Oliver and bestowed the authority and keys of the apostleship, so that that authority was again on the earth with mortal men. The written confirmation that this event happened is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 27:12 and 13. The authority of the apostleship has continued on the earth since that restoration in June, 1829

If my arithmetic serves me well, it has been 180 years and two months ever since the Church was “restored”, am i right?
In a layman’s language that would mean that where the Church founded by Jesus Christ went into disarray in less than 100 years and was forced to flee the world or withdrawn from the earth as a result, the church restored by mere men endured for close to 200 years and is still growing. That makes Peter, James and John our redeemers - better than Christ.
And to add insult to injury, you went on and described heaven as a hiding place or “the wilderness”.
Sounds too blasphemous to me.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

1. Nothing I wrote substantiates “a loss of authority”. The Apostles died as martyrs (save John), and their disciples, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, inherited the leadership of the Church. Paul specifically addresses the matter of succession with his disciple Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1) Paul himself, 2) Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3) Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4)Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. From this, we can see that Paul is not anticipating a loss or authority but the orderly transfer of that authority.

1. I would also point out that the election of Matthias in Acts 1:15-26 suggests the principle at stake: the existence of the office of Bishop and the replacement of the office holder.
2. Is Jesus Christ a rock? What type? Igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic? The latter would come closer to our understanding of transubstantiation.

Seriously, Parker, do you think Jesus is a rock or a door or a vine? These are biblical metaphors. Your denial that Peter was also named “the rock” by Christ simply because Jesus is called a rock (as is God in the OT) is based upon a complete misunderstanding of this usage.

The “design” of the Church is evident enough from scripture: Jesus answered Pilate by declaring that He is indeed a king, and He reigns now from Heaven. Here on earth, we are led by Christ’s “Prime Minister” the Pope of the Catholic Church to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom and His own shepherd’s crozier (cf. Mt 16:18-19, Jn 21:15-19, Is 20:22).

1. I apologize if I missed it. Please cite the book, chapter and verse from the New Testament that speaks of the total apostasy of the entire Church.
2. In case you missed it, I have cited numerous passages from the scriptures which state that the apostasy of the Church is simply NOT POSSIBLE because of the actions and promises of God. You have not interacted with those verses.
3. Finally, you completely ignored my question which I pose again:

*Did the early Church accept Linus, Anacletus and Clement as the legitimate successors of Peter despite the fact that John the Apostle was still alive? *

Yes or no.

Randy Carson,

1. You wrote previously, “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.”

I have underlined a crucial assumption you have made. If John was alive, and Peter was not alive at that particular time, then John was the most senior leader of the church Christ had organized. This is a simple concept. An apostle had more authority than a bishop. Just because the people liked Clement more, or thought he was the one they should ask for guidance, does not mean he had more authority than John had.

The passage you quoted from 2 Timothy uses the word “reliable” (“faithful” in the KJV), which means Paul was saying the gospel message should be “entrusted” to those who were completely reliable and faithful, and would teach others the exact same gospel message. I disagree that the passage is talking about a transfer of authority. It is talking about the teachers of the gospel message, and says what kind of people should do the teaching.

1. If you were referring to Acts 1:20 and its reference to Psalms 109:8, then the word “bishopric” is talking about “office” or “stewardship” or “position”. It is not saying the bishops are going to take over the authority from the apostles, who received it from Christ. There is no passage in the New Testament that says the bishops were to replace the apostles, nor is there a passage that says the bishop of Rome is the leading bishop over the entire church.
2. It seems to me that you disregard 1 Peter 2:3-8 and Isaiah 28:16. Peter knew exactly what he was testifying. He was testifying that Christ is the rock, the chief corner stone, always.
3. Revelation 12:13,14. The woman flies into the wilderness, and hides from the dragon who is on the earth. The civilized world is the opposite of the wilderness. The dragon has penetrated the civilized world, and makes war against the saints of the Most High. (See also the book of Daniel, but that is the Old Testament which you evidently don’t like to use?)
4. We disagree. Christ does not force humankind, ever. I have interacted with the verses you and Placido have mentioned, but not to your liking.
5. I did answer. If the church did that, then they were already on a wrong path, because John was the leader appointed by Christ Himself.

 

[ParkerD]

Brother Parker D, in your post # 42 you told me this:

If my arithmetic serves me well, it has been 180 years and two months ever since the Church was “restored”, am i right?
In a layman’s language that would mean that where the Church founded by Jesus Christ went into disarray in less than 100 years and was forced to flee the world or withdrawn from the earth as a result, the church restored by mere men endured for close to 200 years and is still growing. That makes Peter, James and John our redeemers - better than Christ.
And to add insult to injury, you went on and described heaven as a hiding place or “the wilderness”.
Sounds too blasphemous to me.

placido

Placido,
Christ is the head of the Church, always. He ordained Peter, James, and John, and gave them assignments. He could still do that from heaven. When Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith, they were acting under the direction of Jesus Christ, who had given them another assignment. Christ is the leader from heaven. He directs and gives assignments. He is the Redeemer, the King, the Prince of Peace.

You said “wilderness” meant “heaven”–I didn’t.

 

[placido]

Hi, Placido,
No more I’s then–fine with me.

1. “Wilderness” definitely does not mean Rome. It means a place apart from the civilized world.

“Wilderness” means heaven, right?

1. (and 3.) Jesus is always with the entire world, with tender mercy and tender love. He is God. He created the world. He has an interest in the entire world and every person who has ever lived.

Do you mean, withdrawing the Church for more than 1 700 years is a sign of “tender mercy” and “tender love”?

The question is not whether He is with us, but whether we are “with Him”, meaning following Him.

“I am with you always,” says Jesus (Matthew 28:20). “No, it is not true,” says Parker.

He promised to be with the apostles, and promised them the Holy Spirit as a comforter. That is another way He is “with us” and was “with” the apostles.

And the comforter failed miserably, so much so that the Church had to be withdrawn from the earth … do I understand you correctly?

Christ is the head of the Church, always. He ordained Peter, James, and John, and gave them assignments. He could still do that from heaven. When Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith, they were acting under the direction of Jesus Christ, who had given them another assignment. Christ is the leader from heaven. He directs and gives assignments. He is the Redeemer, the King, the Prince of Peace.
You said “wilderness” meant “heaven”–I didn’t.

You said - loud and clear - that the church “was hiding in heaven”. You also said - loud and clear - that the church was in the “wilderness”.
Now you have to make up your mind brother: was the church in “wilderness” or was it hiding in heaven?

placido

 

[Bill_Pick]

Was this tread how long the Church was in hiding and a Prost said 1500 or 1700 years some thing like that,not been watching it but no cathloic said,DID THEY Just asking so hold on to your hat

 

[wisdomseeker]

Brother Parker D, in your post # 42 you told me this:

If my arithmetic serves me well, it has been 180 years and two months ever since the Church was “restored”, am i right?
In a layman’s language that would mean that where the Church founded by Jesus Christ went into disarray in less than 100 years and was forced to flee the world or withdrawn from the earth as a result, the church restored by mere men endured for close to 200 years and is still growing. That makes Peter, James and John our redeemers - better than Christ.
And to add insult to injury, you went on and described heaven as a hiding place or “the wilderness”.
Sounds too blasphemous to me.

placido

perhaps mr. Parker should tell us, what happened to millions of people while his church was in hiding. did they get saved without being tought the Word of God? did they go to hell because his church was in hiding? or who was preaching the Gospel while his church was in hiding?

:byzsoc:

 

[ParkerD]

1. “Wilderness” means heaven, right?
2. Do you mean, withdrawing the Church for more than 1 700 years is a sign of “tender mercy” and “tender love”?
3. “I am with you always,” says Jesus (Matthew 28:20). “No, it is not true,” says Parker.
4. And the comforter failed miserably, so much so that the Church had to be withdrawn from the earth … do I understand you correctly?
5. You said - loud and clear - that the church “was hiding in heaven”. You also said - loud and clear - that the church was in the “wilderness”.
   Now you have to make up your mind brother: was the church in “wilderness” or was it hiding in heaven?

placido

Hi, Placido,
'Hoping all is well with you and your loved ones.

1. “Wilderness” does not mean “heaven.” “Wilderness” means “away from civilization.”
2. Christ’s plan has always included that there would be “prisoners” who would need to be freed from “prison.” One of the first things He did during His ministry is quote from Isaiah 61:1 in the Jewish synagogue. Proclaiming “liberty to the captives” and “the opening of the prison to them that are bound” are part of His mission to earth and to the spirit world. Peter understood this, and said Christ “preached unto the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19). The Old Testament talks repeatedly, hundreds of times, about the scattering of Israel and yet that the Lord would still be mindful of the house of Israel. The house of Israel would feel abandoned, feel like an orphan, but the Lord would finally show that they were not abandoned nor an orphan.

If people were responsible for the changes in doctrine and the changes in ordinances, then it was the fault of the people, not the fault of God or Christ. They do not force behavior. They do not force even good onto people. They offer, then allow people to choose of their own accord. The “tender mercy” and “tender love” are always extended, to everyone who chooses to receive those blessings. Those blessings are not exclusive to one church organization. They are extended to all of humankind, always.

1. As said before, Christ was not promising force in saying He would be “with you always.” He does not use force to guide a church or to guide people to a church. He is always there for people who pray to God for help and guidance, and who look to Him for the example of what kind of a person to be.
2. The comforter was promised to those who sought the comforter, not to those who did not seek the Holy Spirit or did not live the principles that are required for a person to keep the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit with them. The Holy Spirit could not force behavior, nor exert influence unless the principles required to be lived were being lived by the people who needed the Spirit. The Spirit guided Daniel to write what he wrote, and guided John to write what he wrote. The Holy Spirit knew the entire plan, beginning to end, of how the house of Israel would again receive the gospel before the Second Coming of Christ, along with many of the Gentiles.
3. Clarification: the church was “hiding” in the “wilderness”, away from civilization. Peter and James went to heaven to be with Christ. John stayed on the earth, but the pure church doctrine and church organization were no longer among civilization after the deaths of the other apostles. The church was “nourished” in the “wilderness” “for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (Rev. 12:14)

Thanks for your kindness in addressing me as “brother”. Appreciatively, thank you, brother, and God bless you.

 

[ParkerD]

perhaps mr. Parker should tell us, what happened to millions of people while his church was in hiding. did they get saved without being tought the Word of God? did they go to hell because his church was in hiding? or who was preaching the Gospel while his church was in hiding?

Wisdom Seeker,
It seems evident to me that in every age of time most people were doing the best they could with what they had, although they brought some of their own traditions and understanding with them. The people during the time period of 100 AD to (any date you like) certainly did not “go to hell” for not knowing everything they will eventually need to know–nothing of the kind. God’s plan has always been that people gain knowledge as they seek it, and ask for it, and are humble enough in that process to not think they already have all the knowledge they need. The knowledge of the gospel is fully available in the spirit world just as it is fully available on earth, and always God is no respecter of persons. Every sincere person who has ever lived, including those who have died, will have the complete opportunity to “get saved” by accepting the healing power of Christ’s gospel message and His saving grace. He made this very clear. He came to save all humankind who will accept Him, whether in this world or in the spirit world. (See Isaiah 61:1 and 1 Peter 3:19)

 

[placido]

Your implication that having a different understanding of scripture is to say what you implied, manifests a complete lack of understanding about judging and about the good Samaritan principle in dealing with those not of your faith.

Sorry, but I am not a relativist. Something is either true or false - there is no middle way.

1. No. He said the believing members of the church and the apostles were “not of the world.” He prayed that the Father “shouldest keep them from the evil.” (John 17: 14,15)

Yes, He prayed that the Father should protect the Church from the evil one, and He prayed that the Father should keep the Church in the world … no mention of taking it into hiding.

. Those who follow Christ are the light of the world. The physical “church” is not.

How could they be the light of the world while in hiding for 1 700 years?

Those who do not practice the love and forgiveness and generosity of spirit that Christ taught so abundantly, are not the light of the world. It is an individual choice people make, whether to be a “light” or not.
6. Yes, absolutely. One who has those qualities, is out among the people because they feel to do that, and while they are out among the people, then what they do is an example to others. Others see their joy, and want to have that same joy.

And who was setting the example while the church was in hiding?

1. Thanks for the pleading request. The Bible is so clear on this subject that it is unmistakeable. The Jewish leaders didn’t recognize Christ for what He was, because they had their traditions and their learning and they did not know the meaning of scriptures such as Isaiah 53.

For more than 1 700 years people failed to see thr truth because the church that was supposed to tell the truth was in hiding. And even know some people fail to see the truth not only because of “their traditions” but because of extra-Biblical writings like the Book of Mormon.

John, the beloved apostle and leader, was no doubt very concerned as he saw what was happening in the different cities as the gospel message was being accepted but the people were not following the pure doctrines and argued about doctrinal issues. Revelation gives the assurance that despite what John saw happening in his very day, Jesus Christ was promising that He would be the ultimate victor over the serpent, the dragon, Babylon the great. His promise is always that He “stands at the door and knocks”.

It seems, for you the rest of the Bible means nothing unless seen in the light of John’s Revelation.

Placido

 

[placido]

“Wilderness” does not mean “heaven.”
“Wilderness” means “away from civilization.”

Oh, I see. When you said the church was in the “wilderness” you simply meant it was “away from civilization” … it was not hiding in heaven afterall?

placido

 

[placido]

1. Christ’s plan has always included that there would be “prisoners” who would need to be freed from “prison.” One of the first things He did during His ministry is quote from Isaiah 61:1 in the Jewish synagogue. Proclaiming “liberty to the captives” and “the opening of the prison to them that are bound” are part of His mission to earth and to the spirit world. Peter understood this, and said Christ “preached unto the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19). The Old Testament talks repeatedly, hundreds of times, about the scattering of Israel and yet that the Lord would still be mindful of the house of Israel. The house of Israel would feel abandoned, feel like an orphan, but the Lord would finally show that they were not abandoned nor an orphan.

If people were responsible for the changes in doctrine and the changes in ordinances, then it was the fault of the people, not the fault of God or Christ. They do not force behavior. They do not force even good onto people. They offer, then allow people to choose of their own accord. The “tender mercy” and “tender love” are always extended, to everyone who chooses to receive those blessings. Those blessings are not exclusive to one church organization. They are extended to all of humankind, always.

1. As said before, Christ was not promising force in saying He would be “with you always.” He does not use force to guide a church or to guide people to a church. He is always there for people who pray to God for help and guidance, and who look to Him for the example of what kind of a person to be.
2. The comforter was promised to those who sought the comforter, not to those who did not seek the Holy Spirit or did not live the principles that are required for a person to keep the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit with them. The Holy Spirit could not force behavior, nor exert influence unless the principles required to be lived were being lived by the people who needed the Spirit. The Spirit guided Daniel to write what he wrote, and guided John to write what he wrote. The Holy Spirit knew the entire plan, beginning to end, of how the house of Israel would again receive the gospel before the Second Coming of Christ, along with many of the Gentiles.
3. Clarification: the church was “hiding” in the “wilderness”, away from civilization. Peter and James went to heaven to be with Christ. John stayed on the earth, but the pure church doctrine and church organization were no longer among civilization after the deaths of the other apostles. The church was “nourished” in the “wilderness” “for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (Rev. 12:14)

Thanks for your kindness in addressing me as “brother”. Appreciatively, thank you, brother, and God bless you.

Ok, I take note of what you said above, but let us first of all solve one problem: you said heaven and wilderness are not one and the same place, yet you also said the church was hiding in heaven (for more than 1 700 years) and at the same time it was in the wilderness. Clarify this for me before I misunderstand you.

placido

 

[placido]

Brother Parker, here are some samples of what you said about the “place” where the church WAS while away from the earth:

Post #16:
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.”

Post # 22:
The church was not on the earth when it was “in hiding” … the church had been withdrawn from the earth.

Post # 42:
The authority of the apostleship, the keys of that authority, were restored by Peter, James, and John, who appeared back on the earth in a tangible appearance to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in June, 1829, and placed their hands on the heads of Joseph and Oliver and bestowed the authority and keys of the apostleship, so that that authority was again on the earth with mortal men.

Post #47:
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.

Post # 53:
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.

Post 94:
“Wilderness” does not mean “heaven” … “Wilderness” means "away from civilization …the church was “hiding” in the “wilderness”, away from civilization. Peter and James went to heaven to be with Christ. John stayed on the earth, but the pure church doctrine and church organization were no longer among civilization after the deaths of the other apostles. The church was “nourished” in the “wilderness” “for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (Rev. 12:14)

Commending would be like kicking somone who is already dying. Everybody here can see for himself how you are mercilessly destroying your own arguments. “The church was hiding in heaven”, and it was “in the wilderness” but no, “heaven” is not the “wilderness”.
I repeat: please make up your mind brother. Was the church hiding in heaven or was it in the “wilderness”?

placido

 

[placido]

If people were responsible for the changes in doctrine and the changes in ordinances, then it was the fault of the people, not the fault of God or Christ. They do not force behavior. They do not force even good onto people. They offer, then allow people to choose of their own accord. The “tender mercy” and “tender love” are always extended, to everyone who chooses to receive those blessings.

But how, exactly, did people receive the blessings while the church was “away”?

Those blessings are not exclusive to one church organization. They are extended to all of humankind, always.

You mean even while the church was in hiding, blessings were still being extended to “all of humankind, always”? Does that not make the hiding church unnecessary?

1. As said before, Christ was not promising force in saying He would be “with you always.” He does not use force to guide a church or to guide people to a church. He is always there for people who pray to God for help and guidance, and who look to Him for the example of what kind of a person to be.

But people need to be taught (Matthew 28:19-20) how to “pray to God for help and guidance”, yet the church that was supposed to do this was withdrawn instead, and taken into hiding for more than 1 700 years, leaving the people without a teacher and guider.

1. The comforter was promised to those who sought the comforter, not to those who did not seek the Holy Spirit or
   How can one seek the conformer if one is not even aware of the existence of the comforter … and the church that was supposed to make the comforter known to the people, was hiding instead?

ParkerD;5636382:

The Spirit guided Daniel to write what he wrote, and guided John to write what he wrote. The Holy Spirit knew the entire plan, beginning to end, of how the house of Israel would again receive the gospel before the Second Coming of Christ, along with many of the Gentiles.

Let me share with you something I discovered in my studies:

1. For the Jehovah’s Witnesses it is always a) Daniel + b) Revelation + c) Watchtower (any other book is needed only as corroboration of those three).
2. For the Seventh-Day Adventists it is always a) Daniel + b) Revelation + c) Ellen White - the Spirit of Prophecy (any other book is needed only as corroboration of those three).
3. For the LDS it is always a) Daniel + b) Revelation + c) the Book of Mormon (any other book is needed only as corroboration of those three).
   Now I understand why they are always the ones coming up with the weirdest teachings ever.

placido