If the church was in hiding ...

[placido]

Placido,
Christ is the head of the Church, always.

That is 100 % correct. He founded His church on earth and it will endure (no hiding, no running away) until His second coming.

He ordained Peter, James, and John, and gave them assignments.

Are you 100 % sure about the identity of those that allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith? Did they identify themselves with those names? What if they were not really whom they claimed to be? Mindful that even Satan can appear in a disguised form, what criteria was used to positively identify those alleged apparations?

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.

“Another” assignment; “Another” gospel!

placido

 

[ParkerD]

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 after all?

placido

Placido,
My response to your question in post #52 was to agree with your choice of language when you chose the words “hiding in heaven.” If that was what “made sense to you,” then it seemed to me that you could think of it that way. Christ was in heaven. Peter and James were in heaven. Christ is the head of the church. Peter and James and the other apostles had keys and authority to direct the church, so if you wanted to think of the word “wilderness” as being equivalent to the word “heaven” then that was OK by me.

 

[ParkerD]

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

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.

1. How could they be the light of the world while in hiding for 1 700 years?
2. And who was setting the example while the church was in hiding?

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

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

Placido

Placido,
Your interpretation of John 17:15 is much different than mine when you introduce the use of the word “church.”

Viewed as rhetorical questions, your questions that were items 3 and 4 in your comments are very good questions.

When you started this thread, you basically were alluding to the book of Revelation. If you already didn’t believe John and the book of Revelation, then you were doing yourself a disservice by bringing it up. My responses used other books in the Bible. They are all important.

 

[ParkerD]

That is 100 % correct. He founded His church on earth and it will endure (no hiding, no running away) until His second coming.

Are you 100 % sure about the identity of those that allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith? Did they identify themselves with those names? What if they were not really whom they claimed to be? Mindful that even Satan can appear in a disguised form, what criteria was used to positively identify those alleged apparations?

“Another” assignment; “Another” gospel!

placido

Placido,
No, the assignment was to “go back to the earth and restore the authority that was lost” when the people chose to abandon the fullness of the new covenant gospel and made changes. Peter, James and John were not restoring “another gospel”. They were restoring the authority to practice the ordinances in their purity and teach the gospel to “all the world” just as the apostles had received the commission to do. They were recognizable by what they did and how they did it. They were not a “house divided against itself.”

But some people have enough, and like what they have. If you like what you have, and you keep studying the Bible and living by its principles, then you are just fine and will be just fine and can keep learning and growing. Others may want more of the full blessings of the pure gospel in their lives. That doesn’t take anything away from what you have chosen for yourself.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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)

but how could they know, if there was no Church to teach them? we are talking about many generations forward after the death of the Apostles. how could they know about Christ if there was no Church? if the Church was in hiding, then no one would see the hiding Church would they? also, tell me. who was during the time the church was in hiding, was preaching to the people throughout the world that the church was hiding but some day the church would appear again?

 

[Randy_Carson]

“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

Too simple, because that is not what actually happened, is it? The plain fact of the matter is that the early Christians accepted the successors of Peter as leaders of the Church. Period. End of story.

You can speculate all you want about this issue; it won’t change history one bit.

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.

Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

How did Timothy become a bishop?

[2 Timothy 1:6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+1:6&version=NIV)
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

And what does Paul tell Timothy with regard to the ordination of others?

[1 Timothy 5:22](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+5:22&version=NIV)
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

So, let’s put this all together. Paul ordained Timothy through the laying on of hands. Paul tells Timothy to entrust the gospel to reliable men in the passage I quoted to you previously, and to be careful in discerning who he (Timothy) will ordain.

Similarly, Paul instructs Titus with these words:

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church. Is Titus an Apostle? Where does scripture tell us this? No, Titus is a bishop appointing other bishops (elders).

Paul is instructing Timothy and Titus to ordain reliable men through the laying on of hands by which the apostolic authority is passed on from one generation to the next. The men whom Timothy and Titus ordained would be able to point to their authority by declaring, “I was ordained by (Timothy or Titus) who was ordained by the Apostle Paul.”

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.

Thank you for this. You are correct. The office was established, and it continues as seen in Acts 1:20. If Judas was replaced, then so were the other Apostles. However, since the number of those who were with Jesus during His entire ministry dwindled over time, the role of the Apostles as leaders of the Church fell to their successors, the Bishops. (By the way, since NONE of the so-called “apostles” of the Mormon Church were witnesses of Jesus earthly ministry, none of them meet the qualifications of Apostle, do they? So, just as the Catholic Church is not so bold as to declare its Bishops to be Apostles, so the LDS should not claim that its leaders are apostles. They aren’t.)

1. 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.

I have dealt with this confusion over metaphors previously, but since I may not have done so in this thread, I will post my response to this separately below…don’t touch that dial!

1. 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?)

Sure I do…constantly. I have a large pile of papers on my desk under an OT which I use as a paperweight. Seriously, Parker…

1. We disagree. Christ does not force humankind, ever. I have interacted with the verses you and Placido have mentioned, but not to your liking.

Correct. Jesus does not force us into obedience but leads by the Holy Spirit. As promised, He has protected the Catholic Church from formally teaching doctrinal error. If you think otherwise, then by all means, start a thread…but please, one topic at a time, okay? Shotgunning dozens of points in one post is not an effective way to discuss anything.

1. 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.

Jesus never appointed John to be the head of the Church, did He? He appointed John as an Apostle to be sure, but John was never viewed as the head of the entire Church at any point in his lifetime nor any time thereafter. The Church, led by the Spirit, rightly followed the Shepherd, Peter, and those who filled THAT office.

Can you point to a verse which specifically states that Peter was the oldest of the Apostles? Can you point to a verse that states that the oldest living apostle would take the reigns of the Church?

I didn’t think so…so, isn’t your belief that John had to be the head of the Church really just a product of your own reasoning?

God’s ways are not our ways, Parker.

 

[ParkerD]

but how could they know, if there was no Church to teach them? we are talking about many generations forward after the death of the Apostles. how could they know about Christ if there was no Church? if the Church was in hiding, then no one would see the hiding Church would they? also, tell me. who was during the time the church was in hiding, was preaching to the people throughout the world that the church was hiding but some day the church would appear again?

Wisdom Seeker,
Of course a church organization would not say the real church was hiding but it was taking its place for the time being. Any church organization would insist it was the right church.

John’s testimony in the book of Revelation would teach whoever would get the Bible in their hands and read that book. Besides this, Christ promised “seek and ye shall find” to every person in the world, regardless of the church organization they might belong to.

You are correct that “no one would see the hiding church.” That is what John was saying by saying it would be in the “wilderness.”

Those using the Bible to teach their people were doing an important thing, to the extent they were teaching about repenting of sins and believing in Jesus Christ, the living Savior and Redeemer. That is a starting point. After that basic beginning, the covenant gospel offers more. If offers sanctification and personal revelation through the power of the Holy Spirit throughout life. It offers growth in understanding and growth in the ability to really have charity and compassion in one’s relationships. This growth is part of the new covenant gospel–an essential part.

So if people had the Bible, they had the beginning. If they wanted more, they could ask for more through prayer and sincere study. They didn’t need a church or preachers to do that. If they came to the point of wanting to make sincere, heartfelt covenants with Jesus Christ, then they may have asked “what shall we do?” just like the people asked Peter in Acts 2:37. You will remember that Simeon recognized the baby Jesus as being the promised Messiah, but he had had to wait until the right time for the Savior’s birth. Waiting for the right time is part of how the gospel goes forth in the world. This is made clear over and over again in the Old Testament. That does not mean God is not mindful of every single person ever born. It just means He has a plan, and He is in charge of that plan, and that plan has a timetable that He is also in charge of–not men.

 

[ParkerD]

Randy Carson,

Too simple, because that is not what actually happened, is it? The plain fact of the matter is that the early Christians accepted the successors of Peter as leaders of the Church. Period. End of story.

You have said correctly that it is the end of story for you. If you think you know the exact history of every early Christian believer, then you are truly amazing.

You can speculate all you want about this issue; it won’t change history one bit.

Correct, neither the written history nor the actual history as it was lived by the people who lived it.

Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

It’s OK. The power of God is manifest in correct ordinances, correct doctrine, and personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. I am very familiar with the power of God. I used the power of God last night when I placed my hands on the head of my daughter and gave her a blessing through the power of the priesthood and the whisperings into my heart of what I should say to her.

How did Timothy become a bishop?

[2 Timothy 1:6](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+1:6&version=NIV)
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

And what does Paul tell Timothy with regard to the ordination of others?

[1 Timothy 5:22](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+5:22&version=NIV)
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

So, let’s put this all together. Paul ordained Timothy through the laying on of hands. Paul tells Timothy to entrust the gospel to reliable men in the passage I quoted to you previously, and to be careful in discerning who he (Timothy) will ordain.

Similarly, Paul instructs Titus with these words:

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

That’s all good.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church. Is Titus an Apostle? Where does scripture tell us this? No, Titus is a bishop appointing other bishops (elders).

Paul didn’t say anything about Apostolic Succession. He was in charge when he “appointed Titus.” You are correct that Titus was not an Apostle. Paul was the superior authority who had appointed Titus.

Paul is instructing Timothy and Titus to ordain reliable men through the laying on of hands by which the apostolic authority is passed on from one generation to the next.

Paul never said he was passing on apostolic authority.

The men whom Timothy and Titus ordained would be able to point to their authority by declaring, “I was ordained by (Timothy or Titus) who was ordained by the Apostle Paul.”

Yes, but if they said they now had “apostolic authority”, then they were talking about something they did not have.

Thank you for this. You are correct. The office was established, and it continues as seen in Acts 1:20. If Judas was replaced, then so were the other Apostles. However, since the number of those who were with Jesus during His entire ministry dwindled over time, the role of the Apostles as leaders of the Church fell to their successors, the Bishops.

That happened in the church that the bishops became “in charge of”. But since John was still alive, he had more authority than the bishops.

(By the way, since NONE of the so-called “apostles” of the Mormon Church were witnesses of Jesus earthly ministry, none of them meet the qualifications of Apostle, do they? So, just as the Catholic Church is not so bold as to declare its Bishops to be Apostles, so the LDS should not claim that its leaders are apostles. They aren’t.)

One can be a witness without seeing with physical eyes. The Holy Spirit is the perfect witness, but is a witness to the heart, not to the eyes. I can testify that I know that Jesus lived, was crucified, and was resurrected and lives today, even though I haven’t seen those events with my physical eyes. I know the reality of the events, because the Holy Spirit has borne perfect witness to my heart and soul. (Not saying I would qualify to be an “apostle”, but my words are an example of how the Holy Spirit brings a witness that is unshakeable into the heart and soul of a person, even today.)

Correct. Jesus does not force us into obedience but leads by the Holy Spirit. As promised, He has protected the Catholic Church from formally teaching doctrinal error.

How could the Holy Spirit do that, without “forcing”?

Jesus never appointed John to be the head of the Church, did He? He appointed John as an Apostle to be sure, but John was never viewed as the head of the entire Church at any point in his lifetime nor any time thereafter. The Church, led by the Spirit, rightly followed the Shepherd, Peter, and those who filled THAT office.

So you have been taught. But all of the apostles had the same authority, and it was greater authority than the bishops had.

Can you point to a verse which specifically states that Peter was the oldest of the Apostles?

I didn’t say “oldest”, I said “most senior.” Simon Peter was the first called apostle, as you would be familiar with.

Can you point to a verse that states that the SENIOR apostle (not oldest) would take the reigns of the Church?

That would be understood in that they were called in an orderly way, and listed as apostles in order, and each had apostolic authority including the power to bind on earth and in heaven.

I didn’t think so…so, isn’t your belief that John had to be the head of the Church really just a product of your own reasoning?

Why would that be, if Jesus Christ called and ordained John to his calling? How is that a product of my own reasoning?

God’s ways are not our ways, Parker.

This is absolutely true. Well said. This means we may not understand God’s ways, and if we think we do, we are probably wrong.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

You have said correctly that it is the end of story for you.

And the end of the line for you.

I used the power of God last night when I placed my hands on the head of my daughter and gave her a blessing through the power of the priesthood and the whisperings into my heart of what I should say to her.

As a non-Christian, you are no priest of God.

Paul didn’t say anything about Apostolic Succession. He was in charge when he “appointed Titus.” You are correct that Titus was not an Apostle. Paul was the superior authority who had appointed Titus.

And yet, Paul gave the example by his actions. He appointed and commanded that his disciples appoint others. This succession, plain and simple.

Paul never said he was passing on apostolic authority.

Then exactly what did Paul do when He laid hands on Timothy and Titus?

Yes, but if they said they now had “apostolic authority”, then they were talking about something they did not have.

Apostolic Authority does not mean that they themselves were Apostles (though Timothy was) nor that they had the same authority as the Apostles. Apostolic Authority means that the authority that they had was conferred upon them in direct succession from the Apostles.

That happened in the church that the bishops became “in charge of”. But since John was still alive, he had more authority than the bishops.

And yet, the Corinthians appealed not to John but to Clement. The earliest Christians viewed things differently, Parker, and unlike you, they did not have Mormon theology to defend. In other words, they had no “axe to grind”. Jesus built His Church His way. I’m sorry that you think He did a poor job and was unable to protect it from Apostasy.

Tell me…was Jesus a liar, impotent or simply incompetent when He promised to build His Church and protect it so that the gates of hell would never prevail against it?

How could the Holy Spirit do that, without “forcing”?

It’s called free will, Parker, and the Spirit could lead men into all truth in such manner that they recognized and were convinced of the truths that were revealed. God has perfect foreknowledge as you admitted in another thread. Therefore, God would also be in a position to ensure that those who would remain faithful to Him would be in positions to guide and protect the Church by their own free will. Nothing coercive about it.

So you have been taught. But all of the apostles had the same authority, and it was greater authority than the bishops had.

And so all true Christians were taught for 1500 years before the Protestant Rebellion and waaaaaaay before Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. Yes, the Apostles all had the same authority. But this does not preclude them from deferring to Peter who was clearly established as the head of the Church by Christ. My wife and I have the same authority with regard to our children, but she defers to me as head of the house.

I didn’t say “oldest”, I said “most senior.” Simon Peter was the first called apostle, as you would be familiar with.

Simon was not the first disciple called as you should be familiar. Andrew and John were disciples of John the Baptist and followed Jesus after John pointed Jesus out as the Lamb of God. Andrew brought Simon to Jesus later. (cf. John 1)

This is absolutely true. Well said. This means we may not understand God’s ways, and if we think we do, we are probably wrong.

Consequently, you would be wise to listen to “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and to lean not on your own understanding.

 

[ParkerD]

And the end of the line for you.

As a non-Christian, you are no priest.

And yet, Paul gave the example by his actions. He appointed and commanded that his disciples appoint others. This succession, plain and simple.

Then exactly what did Paul do when He laid hands on Timothy and Titus?

Apostolic Authority does not mean that they themselves were Apostles (though Timothy was) nor that they had the same authority as the Apostles. Apostolic Authority means that the authority that they had was conferred upon them in direct succession from the Apostles.

And yet, the Corinthians appealed not to John but to Clement. The earliest Christians viewed things differently, Parker, and unlike you, they did not have Mormon theology to defend. In other words, they had no “axe to grind”. Jesus built His Church His way. I’m sorry that you think He did a poor job and was unable to protect it from Apostasy.

Tell me…was Jesus a liar, impotent or simply incompetent when He promised to build His Church and protect it so that the gates of hell would never prevail against it?

It’s called free will, Parker, and the Spirit could lead men into all truth in such manner that they recognized and were convinced of the truths that were revealed. God has perfect foreknowledge as you admitted in another thread. Therefore, God would also be in a position to ensure that those who would remain faithful to Him would be in positions to guide and protect the Church by their own free will. Nothing coercive about it.

And so all true Christians were taught for 1500 years before the Protestant Rebellion and waaaaaaay before Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. Yes, the Apostles all had the same authority. But this does not preclude them from deferring to Peter who was clearly established as the head of the Church by Christ. My wife and I have the same authority with regard to our children, but she defers to me as head of the house.

Simon was not the first disciple called as you should be familiar. Andrew and John were disciples of John the Baptist and followed Jesus after John pointed Jesus out as the Lamb of God. Andrew brought Simon to Jesus later. (cf. John 1)

Consequently, you would be wise to listen to “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and to lean not on your own understanding.

Randy Carson,
Your comments have been a bit contradictory, but that’s OK by me. Life is good, and thankfully I don’t need to look to you for an approval of whether I believe in Christ or whether He is involved in my life. For you to think that you are in charge of that, is quite a supposition on your part.

I had been referring to Matthew 10:2 “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;” when I said Peter was the senior apostle of those called by Christ.

We differ in much, but I did live in Georgia for some seventeen years, and enjoyed the people there and their kindness and friendliness. It is a good place.

It appears we have thoroughly covered this topic. Thanks for sharing your points of view.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,
Your comments have been a bit contradictory, but that’s OK by me.

I’m sorry if you think so. I’m even sorrier if they actually were. Please point out my contradictions so that I might clarify.

Life is good, and thankfully I don’t need to look to you for an approval of whether I believe in Christ or whether He is involved in my life. For you to think that you are in charge of that, is quite a supposition on your part.

I’m not responsible for that nor have I claimed to be. There is no question that Jesus is involved with your life as He is with all of His creation, but there is also no question that the Jesus of the Bible, the real Jesus, is not the Jesus of Mormonism.

I had been referring to Matthew 10:2 “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;” when I said Peter was the senior apostle of those called by Christ.

I agree that Peter had the primacy, but it is not clear from scripture that he was called first nor is there any evidence that he was the oldest. The point of all of this is that you claim that John the Apostle would have been the head of the Church before Clement since John as an Apostle outranked Clement.

Aside from the fact that there is no historical evidence that the early church thought as you do, I have to ask: are you unaware of the fact that the second pope, Linus, is also mentioned in scripture?

[2 Timothy 4:21](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+4:21&version=NIV)
Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.

Where was Paul when he wrote this letter? In Rome. Where was Linus? In Rome? Where was Peter when He ordained Linus? In Rome.

Oh, and was Clement completely unknown to the Apostles? Hardly.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Parker, you have been refuted on all points.

 

[placido]

Your interpretation of John 17:15 is much different than mine when you introduce the use of the word “church.”

Firstly, the existence of “my” interpretation and “your” interpretation makes the existence of a guide (the church) crucial. The alternative is chaos, with billions of different interpretations of the same Bible text. So, hiding the church for more than 1 700 years, while keeping the Bible on earth (if true), was God’s blatant disservice to humanity.
Secondly, I may have introduced the word “church” but not the concept “church”. You see, Jesus was praying specifically for “them”, that is His disciples and those that the disciples would convert to Christianity (v 20) – that is the Church, the assembly of those called out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). That is why Jesus said they are in the world (v 18) but are not of the world (v 16). He said “I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one (v 15).

When you started this thread, you basically were alluding to the book of Revelation.

Not at all. The problem is you seeing “Revelation” between the lines. I said “If the church Jesus founded was in hiding for over a thousand years (as alleged by some here)”.
I made no allusion to the book of Revelation at all.
And when I said “as alleged by some” I meant this:

1. Some say the true church was hiding in the mountains and caves;
2. Some (like you) say the true church was hiding in heaven;
3. Some say the true church was hibernating in the existent institutional church (the Catholic Church).

If you already didn’t believe John and the book of Revelation, then you were doing yourself a disservice by bringing it up.

I do believe in the whole Bible as one unity, and, no, I did not bring up “the book of Revelation”.

My responses used other books in the Bible. They are all important.

In practice, you use other books on condition they corroborate your interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. So, like the JW’s and the SDA, your faith has its epicenter in your private interpretation of Daniel and Revelation.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
No, the assignment was to “go back to the earth and restore the authority that was lost” when the people chose to abandon the fullness of the new covenant gospel and made changes.

That gives us a third covenant – just think about that.

Peter, James and John were not restoring “another gospel”. They were restoring the authority to practice the ordinances in their purity and teach the gospel to “all the world” just as the apostles had received the commission to do.

That, in itself, means this: Jesus’ church lasted only less than 100 years; the restored church is 180 years and still counting; conclusion: Peter, James and John did a better job than Jesus.

But some people have enough, and like what they have. If you like what you have, and you keep studying the Bible and living by its principles, then you are just fine and will be just fine and can keep learning and growing.
Others may want more of the full blessings of the pure gospel in their lives. That doesn’t take anything away from what you have chosen for yourself.

That is relativism my brother, a false religion where every one does or believes what he “likes” or “wants”.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
My response to your question in post #52 was to agree with your choice of language when you chose the words “hiding in heaven.” If that was what “made sense to you,” then it seemed to me that you could think of it that way. Christ was in heaven. Peter and James were in heaven. Christ is the head of the church. Peter and James and the other apostles had keys and authority to direct the church, so if you wanted to think of the word “wilderness” as being equivalent to the word “heaven” then that was OK by me.

Thank you for admitting you told me a lie in post #53 just to accommodate my “choice of language”. That was a very important confession.
For you truth doesn’t exist. It is just a question of choosing words. For you it doesn’t make a difference saying the church was hiding in heaven or that it was in the “wilderness” because it is just a question of “choice of language”.
Brother, being wrong is not a sin, but telling a lie is. Either you told me a lie when you said the church was hiding in heaven, or you told me a lie when you told me the church was in the wilderness. The untenable alternative is having heaven as the wilderness.
Remember, you said clearly the church was withdrawn from the earth, it was not on the earth for a long time. It is now apparent that every solution you propose is pregnant with another problem. Now you are saying the “wilderness” is neither on earth nor in heaven. But where is the “wilderness” exactly?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you for admitting you told me a lie in post #53 just to accommodate my “choice of language”. That was a very important confession.
For you truth doesn’t exist. It is just a question of choosing words. For you it doesn’t make a difference saying the church was hiding in heaven or that it was in the “wilderness” because it is just a question of “choice of language”.
Brother, being wrong is not a sin, but telling a lie is. Either you told me a lie when you said the church was hiding in heaven, or you told me a lie when you told me the church was in the wilderness. The untenable alternative is having heaven as the wilderness.
Remember, you said clearly the church was withdrawn from the earth, it was not on the earth for a long time. It is now apparent that every solution you propose is pregnant with another problem. Now you are saying the “wilderness” is neither on earth nor in heaven. But where is the “wilderness” exactly?

placido

Placido,
My response earlier was not “a lie.” As I have explained, both Peter and James were in heaven, as were the other apostles except John and Judas Iscariot. The many original believers were in heaven also. They had the church with them. It was certainly not a lie to say they had the church, and that it was in heaven.

John was still on the earth. So also were three other disciples of Christ, and perhaps others from the house of Israel who were so righteous and desirous of helping bring the gospel to people on earth that they asked Christ to be given the power to stay on the earth and not die. So the “church” was where they were, but was not among the people generally and was not where civilizations were, so it was “in the wilderness,” and only had four or five or six people in it on earth, and those people were no longer mortal.

 

[ParkerD]

That gives us a third covenant – just think about that.

That, in itself, means this: Jesus’ church lasted only less than 100 years; the restored church is 180 years and still counting; conclusion: Peter, James and John did a better job than Jesus.

That is relativism my brother, a false religion where every one does or believes what he “likes” or “wants”.

placido

Placido,
Jesus was “in charge” both times. Always, He is “in charge” of His church. Just because He allows people to take as much of the gospel into their lives as they are willing to do, and use it, does not mean He wishes they should do that for their best good. For their best good, they should keep seeking until they have the full, pure gospel, and then they should still keep growing–but it is always their choice, the choice of each individual person. Christ gives every person the right to choose, the right to “open the door”, or not.

 

[ParkerD]

Firstly, the existence of “my” interpretation and “your” interpretation makes the existence of a guide (the church) crucial. The alternative is chaos, with billions of different interpretations of the same Bible text. So, hiding the church for more than 1 700 years, while keeping the Bible on earth (if true), was God’s blatant disservice to humanity.
Secondly, I may have introduced the word “church” but not the concept “church”. You see, Jesus was praying specifically for “them”, that is His disciples and those that the disciples would convert to Christianity (v 20) – that is the Church, the assembly of those called out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). That is why Jesus said they are in the world (v 18) but are not of the world (v 16). He said “I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one (v 15).

Not at all. The problem is you seeing “Revelation” between the lines. I said “If the church Jesus founded was in hiding for over a thousand years (as alleged by some here)”.
I made no allusion to the book of Revelation at all.
And when I said “as alleged by some” I meant this:

1. Some say the true church was hiding in the mountains and caves;
2. Some (like you) say the true church was hiding in heaven;
3. Some say the true church was hibernating in the existent institutional church (the Catholic Church).

I do believe in the whole Bible as one unity, and, no, I did not bring up “the book of Revelation”.

In practice, you use other books on condition they corroborate your interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. So, like the JW’s and the SDA, your faith has its epicenter in your private interpretation of Daniel and Revelation.

placido

Placido,
Your use of the words “the whole Bible as one unity” matches my belief about the Bible. Sorry to have misunderstood your original question on this thread. I went with the question as posed, and answered from the Bible. I thought it was a good original question.

 

[placido]

Placido,
My response earlier was not “a lie.” As I have explained, both Peter and James were in heaven, as were the other apostles except John and Judas Iscariot. The many original believers were in heaven also. They had the church with them. It was certainly not a lie to say they had the church, and that it was in heaven.

But a few posts ago you said it was not so; you were only attempting to accommodate my “choice of language”.
So, are you now saying the church was in heaven, not in the wilderness or is wilderness and heaven one and the same place? Remember, you said the church was withdrawn from the earth for a long time. Therefore, the possibility of the church being on earth as well as in heaven, is excluded.

John was still on the earth. So also were three other disciples of Christ, and perhaps others from the house of Israel who were so righteous and desirous of helping bring the gospel to people on earth that they asked Christ to be given the power to stay on the earth and not die. So the “church” was where they were, but was not among the people generally and was not where civilizations were, so it was “in the wilderness,” and only had four or five or six people in it on earth, and those people were no longer mortal.

Oh, you have changed your story again. Seems you are a very unreliable witness. Did you not tell me the church was withdrawn from the earth for a long time? Must I go and look for the post where you said this?
BTW, you are slowly but surely moving closer to a Catholic position - having the ecclesia triumphans (in heaven), the ecclesia militans (on earth) and the ecclesia expectans (in purgatory).
Expect that what you never expected!

placido

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sorry if you think so. I’m even sorrier if they actually were. Please point out my contradictions so that I might clarify.

I’m not responsible for that nor have I claimed to be. There is no question that Jesus is involved with your life as He is with all of His creation, but there is also no question that the Jesus of the Bible, the real Jesus, is not the Jesus of Mormonism.

I agree that Peter had the primacy, but it is not clear from scripture that he was called first nor is there any evidence that he was the oldest. The point of all of this is that you claim that John the Apostle would have been the head of the Church before Clement since John as an Apostle outranked Clement.

Aside from the fact that there is no historical evidence that the early church thought as you do, I have to ask: are you unaware of the fact that the second pope, Linus, is also mentioned in scripture?

[2 Timothy 4:21](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+4:21&version=NIV)
Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.

Where was Paul when he wrote this letter? In Rome. Where was Linus? In Rome? Where was Peter when He ordained Linus? In Rome.

Oh, and was Clement completely unknown to the Apostles? Hardly.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Parker, you have been refuted on all points.

Silence from ParkerD regarding this post - though he remains active in this thread.

:coffeeread:

 

[rinnie]

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.

Okay Parker I will bite. You got my attention. Now you say that Peter was not the Bishop Of Rome? Okay Parker you tell me then who was?