If the church was in hiding ...

[ParkerD]

Questioner,
I appreciate your having asked me to clarify more of my comments. The following is what I had commented earlier, followed by your reply:

One of your comments said the Holy Spirit would “stop a person from formalizing a false doctrine.” To me, that implies some kind of force–call it overriding a choice, or whatever one chooses to call it. I simply disagree that the Holy Spirit would override someone’s ability to make their own choice. It is a convenient way to assure that no doctrine of the church is ever a changed doctrine or an impure doctrine, and I guess that belief seems to work for a great number of people. It doesn’t work for me.

You are misunderstanding the Holy Spirit stopping a Pope from formally declaring heresy with the Holy Spirit somehow changing someone’s will. The Holy Spirit does not just zap a Pope with fuzzy feelings and thus he will not declare a false doctrine. The Holy Spirit, whether a doctrine is true or false, must compel a Pope to make a doctrine formal. Thus even if the doctrine was say “Jesus loves us” unless the Pope is compelled by the Spirit he will not declare it. Thus the Spirit will not compel any of the bishops or cardinals or Popes to declare any false doctrine. A Pope may try, but the Spirit may compel the bishops to oppose him. The Bishops may ask, but the Spirit may not compel the Pope to agree. If God will have to rain down fire from heaven to stop the declaration of a false doctrine I have no doubt in my mind he will do it. But he will not touch the free will of its members. Remember “will” does not mean “do”. Just becuase a child has free will to steal does not mean he has the right to do it and as a parent if you must use force to stop him you have the right to. You are not hindering his free will because he can still have the will to steal. In the same way just because God hinders someone from doing wrong does not mean he is taking away their free will. You are making the classic mistake of equating “willing” to “doing”.

Questioner,
We have a significant difference in beliefs about the communication of the Holy Spirit to leaders. When Paul and John wrote their epistles, they were writing to local leaders and to the members of the church, and were attempting to teach correct doctrine, and to dissuade the members from following other “teachers” or “leaders” who were evidently using words of persuasion to follow other beliefs or doctrines or leaders besides the twelve apostles. This is clear over and over in their epistles, and John has a similar theme at the beginning of the book of Revelation.

Paul and John didn’t leave the function of guiding the church in keeping the doctrines pure to the Holy Spirit. They didn’t make the assumption that the Holy Spirit would do the correcting and the persuading. They wanted the people to have the Holy Spirit on their own, so that the people would know the difference between when they were hearing “false doctrine” or when they were hearing “true doctrine.”

I can see why one could make the assumption that God might “rain down fire from heaven to stop the declaration of a false doctrine” but He didn’t do that when the majority of the scribes declared Jesus to be a false prophet.

The major changes in doctrine occurred between 60 AD and 200 AD. After Peter and Paul had died, the major apostle was John, the apostle of love who taught about love, and taught with love and gentleness. He gave no indication in his writings that he thought the Holy Spirit was going to protect the church from leaders who might bring impure doctrines into the church teachings. He taught about “he that overcometh” as being on an individual basis, through personal and individual testimonies of Jesus Christ. There was no guarantee–the teaching was to every person, individually.

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner,
Here was another of my comments, followed by your reply as a quote:

My belief is that the Sadducees do not qualify (unless some were completely repentant during life) to inherit a “joint throne” because they had knowledge and sinned against that knowledge, thus the most they can inherit is to become angels. Christ was talking to Sadducees when he told them that the brothers in their example become angels. He was not being contradictory–he was specifically answering their specific example with the specific doctrine about those particular brothers and about the Sadducees, who were obviously not accepting Christ as their Redeemer.

See here is the problem. You are assuming here that the Sadducees would be raised as angels and the rest of the body of believers or those who are true believers would be raised as gods. This may be (I assume) a Mormon belief to reconcile this verse with the one in Revelations but it stems from a lack of understanding of what angels are.

Angels are purely spiritual beings (as opposed to physical beings which are both spiritual and material). So when we die we do essentially become like angels in our form since our spirit does not die. When we are resurrected we will once again be spiritual and material. To say someone will be raised from the dead as an angel is wrong because angels are spiritual and do not die and thus need not be raised. God too is a spiritual being and as such we cannot be like him.

So, in light of true interpretation both passages can be reconciled as this:

Taking into consideration Matthew 22
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you,

1. Jesus does not say that “you (Sadducees) will neither marry nor be given into marriage”, he says “people (thus all of us) will neither marry nor be given into marriage”, so he speaks about everyone, not just the Sadducees.
2. Jesus was clearly talking in the context of marraige. We will not become actual angels. No one will what so ever. Humans are now and always will be humans, but we will be like the angels in that we will not marry or have children, because angels themselves do not marry nor have children.

Now regarding the verses in Revelations:

Christ said we will be like him. How? In what way? Christ is God, will we be gods? No, of course not. Like stated before humans will be humans always. But, let us look at the God-man Christ. Christ, though divine, is a glorified human. So when Revelations says we will be like Christ, it does not mean that we will be gods. The bible over and over again says that there is one God (1 Cor 8:4, we can deal with the issue of the trinity later, but in light of it the bible makes much more sense). We will be like Jesus in that like him we will have glorified bodies, pure and inclined to the will of God. Immortal.

In light of these views (Jesus is God and humans will always be human) both these passages are non-contradictary. But if humans can become not human and Jesus and God are seperate both these passages become highly problematic.

Questioner,
The translation you have used for Matthew 22:30 uses the word “people” in lieu of the word “they”, but the translator would have had to be at the scene where Jesus spoke the words, and would have had to ask for clarification as to what Jesus meant, because when He used an indefinite pronoun the logical assumption would be that He was referring to the brothers, since the brothers were the subject of the question. The passage in Luke is more generalized (Luke 20:34-36), but the passage is unclear since all humankind will be resurrected as taught by Paul, and verse 35 implies only the “worthy” will be resurrected.

I don’t find “problematic” implications as you have said. What does a “joint throne” mean to you? What will a human who is like Jesus do in heaven (I’m honestly curious what you believe they will be doing forever)? How will he or she do those things from a joint throne, if that does not imply some kind of leadership role in heaven?

 

[ParkerD]

John wrote the book of Revelation addressing a larger audience than the members of the seven churches. He knew we would have the writings, and he wanted to convey a message to us.

Yes, he was addressing the whole Church. If he was the last of the Church then essentially he would be addressing himself. The Church going into hiding makes the very beginning of Revelations problematic.

Questioner,
Isn’t it clear that John is addressing “he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein:”? (1:3) Revelation 20:4 is clearly talking about the thousand year Millenium, which John saw in vision and included in the writings because it was going to be pertinent to the majority of the people he was writing to. Yet he described most of the members of the “seven churches” (chapters 1-3) as being in some condition of unworthiness and having strayed from the truths of the gospel.

 

[placido]

Brother Parker, why are you unnecessarily denying something while admitting it at the same time?
You said “the church was not on the earth”, it was “in hiding” (post #22).
You also said that I used the language that said “the church was taken up to heaven” and that the language I used … was different than your own perspective (post #175) – meaning you don’t agree that the church was hiding in heaven, yet you didn’t think it was important to refute my use of the words “hiding in heaven” (post #175).
But now you admit the church was in heaven where Jesus is (post #178).
In short, you are saying the church was “hiding” (post #22) in “heaven” (post #178).
That one problem is solved. The new problem is having heaven as a hiding place.

“Wilderness” means “wilderness.”

I agree that “wilderness” and “desert” would be synonymous.

And where is this “wilderness” or “desert”? It can’t be on earth, right?

The authority of the church was lost from the known, civilized world, for a long time.

That is a poor excuse for those who wnat to claim the Church authority for themselves by claiming that the church authority was only re-established and given to “mortal men” in the 19th century when the church was restored on earth.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner,
Another of my comments was: Saul (Paul) was acting out of the complete sincerity of his heart when he joined those Jews who did not believe in Christ. His immediate “about face” in his life after he was “confronted” was because of his sincerity and willingness to follow the Holy Spirit. He also accepted Peter’s leadership, which shows he had humility.

Your reply:

You stated that God does not confront anyone and now that Paul is brought up you have provided an excuse that lacks consistency and understanding of the word “will”. Instead of admitting that the Holy Spirit could indeed lead the Church you have made the valid rebuttal that the Holy Spirty won’t unless called on but falsely assumed no one did this. You also made the false assumption that the HS only calls those who are willing and thus had to say that God does not confront anyone and put yourself in an undefendable position. You would have been better off by saying that the Holy Spirit could have led the Church but chose not to till Joseph Smith. I think that may be more in line with Mormon thought. Let me show you why you made a huge mistake.

Yes, like I stated above, God did not touch Paul’s will. If Paul wanted to go against Christ even after he was confronted by him he could have done so. But he chose not to. It was an active choice which was brought on by his vision, but still a choice. If you want to talk about sincerity as an excuse to say that God was not really confronting Paul then I will throw you another example. What about Jonah? Jonah had no sincerity at all to be a prophet, but God confronted him with a storm and a whale. After that he had sincerity. Still, if he wanted to he could have tried to run again. Or Moses, who was continually afraid. Moses lived in a time where mankind was henotheistic (all gods were real) and was afraid of Pharoah and his gods. Still he went when God yelled at him.

Exodus 4

13 But Moses said, “O Lord, please send someone else to do it.”
14 Then the LORD’s anger burned against Moses and he said, “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it.”

Again God did not touch Moses’ will. And what about Pharoah, who did not want to let the Israelites go? Did he suddenly go “you know what…fine” so that God did not have to confront him. No. It took 10 plagues in order to convince him to make the free choice of letting the Hebrews go (If God wanted he could have even wiped Pharoah off the face of the Earth). What about the Hebrews when they betrayed God with the Golden Calf? Did God go “hey, they don’t want me, I wont force them”? No. He told Moses to collect some people and kill those who had rebelled. This served as an example to those who would even dare think of it again. Once again, no one’s will was touched. Or what about the Canaanites? Did God say “well they were not willing to give up the land so we should find a new place”? No. He told the Israelites to drive every last one from their land, even their livestock. There are so many more examples I could use but won’t bother doing. I think I made my point.

Questioner,
You did indeed make some valid points.

It seems to me that Paul’s case and Jonah’s case were special, out-of-the-ordinary cases. Paul was acting in total sincerity as a scholarly Jew and a Roman citizen, but the Lord knew Paul’s heart and needed his zeal and his tirelessness for the work that the Lord needed him to do, which was to be a missionary and an apostle to the Gentiles. That became his major calling. His epistles tell the members to seek the Holy Spirit and seek revelation, not to seek to be visited by angels or have visions of Jesus Christ. His case did not set a precedent for him to say, “see how God will keep leaders from doing something wrong.” Rather, he repeatedly warned against false teachers and others who would lead the members astray.

Jonah didn’t want to preach to the people of Ninevah because he thought they might repent and then he would look foolish. The Lord used his example as a wonderful example of why prophets are part of how God works among His children–to teach them to repent so that the kinds of calamities that otherwise would happen to them, don’t happen.

Moses was reluctant because he was very humble and was not a gifted speaker, so he thought he wouldn’t be listened to or be believed or heeded. Aaron was to be his spokesman, and Moses was to provide the prophetic leadership. But note that Moses said a significant thing when he said, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29)

The Lord used Moses to show Pharoah the power of the Lord and let the Israelites go, but that does not show His dealings with a righteous group of people, since the Egyptians weren’t righteous.(Nor were the Canaanites.) The Israelites weren’t a righteous group either, though they were the covenant people. They needed to be dealt with like children, not like a group of seasoned believers. God began to teach them through Moses, and they began to learn important lessons, one by one, and start to catch on. But it was a slow and long process. Yet Moses had wished they all had the spirit, and were “prophets”.

God wants His covenant people to have enough prophetic insight and enough of the spirit that they can lead themselves through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is what sanctification leads to–being guided in individual growth and needed individual repentance toward becoming what Christ will lead a person to become–a new creature, a changed person with love and forgiveness in their heart toward others and a deep love for God.

 

[geometer]

Why did the elephant paint her toenails red?

So she could hide in the strawberry patch…:tanning:

 

[ParkerD]

Brother Parker, why are you unnecessarily denying something while admitting it at the same time?
You said “the church was not on the earth”, it was “in hiding” (post #22).
You also said that I used the language that said “the church was taken up to heaven” and that the language I used … was different than your own perspective (post #175) – meaning you don’t agree that the church was hiding in heaven, yet you didn’t think it was important to refute my use of the words “hiding in heaven” (post #175).
But now you admit the church was in heaven where Jesus is (post #178).
In short, you are saying the church was “hiding” (post #22) in “heaven” (post #178).
That one problem is solved. The new problem is having heaven as a hiding place.

And where is this “wilderness” or “desert”? It can’t be on earth, right?

That is a poor excuse for those who wnat to claim the Church authority for themselves by claiming that the church authority was only re-established and given to “mortal men” in the 19th century when the church was restored on earth.

placido

Placido,
Hi and hope you are well.

“Place of refuge” is a better connotation than a “hiding place” from the context of 12:14, so I misspoke when I wrote “hiding place”. The “wilderness” or “desert” could be on earth within the context of v. 14, except that the “wings of a great eagle” imply an escape that goes somewhere far away. It seems to me that the reader is allowed to have their own impression as to where the “far away” place of refuge might be. The saints who died during the persecution of the early Christian church certainly went to “heaven” and certainly had the church with them, including the apostles as they joined those early saints after their deaths. Maybe that is what John was seeing in vision.

The words “time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent” implies that the serpent can’t get at the “woman” while she is in the “place of refuge” for a long time, even though the serpent tries using a flood of water (v. 15) which would mean a flood of deceptive communication. “Times, and times, and half a time” is also used in the book of Daniel as I had mentioned previously.

God doesn’t use expected and usual methods to do things on earth throughout earth’s history. His ways are different than man’s ways, always. (We need to be prepared for the unexpected.)

 

[placido]

Placido,
Hi and hope you are well.
“Place of refuge” is a better connotation than a “hiding place” from the context of 12:14, so I misspoke when I wrote “hiding place”.

Agreed.

The “wilderness” or “desert” could be on earth within the context of v. 14, except that the “wings of a great eagle” imply an escape that goes somewhere far away. It seems to me that the reader is allowed to have their own impression as to where the “far away” place of refuge might be. The saints who died during the persecution of the early Christian church certainly went to “heaven” and certainly had the church with them, including the apostles as they joined those early saints after their deaths. Maybe that is what John was seeing in vision.

If so, although “wilderness” could be on earth you are of the opinion that it is in heaven or heaven itself, but definitely not on earth?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Agreed.

If so, although “wilderness” could be on earth you are of the opinion that it is in heaven or heaven itself, but definitely not on earth?

placido

Placido,

I think that to understand the word “wilderness” in that context, one needs to keep reading.

Verse 17 seems to be saying that the “dragon” (or serpent) was angry that it couldn’t have an impact on the “woman”, so the dragon “went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” That leads into reading chapter 13 to understand who that “remnant” is and what happens to them. Meanwhile, the “woman” seems to recede out of the picture and John turns his attention to what is happening with the dragon making war “with the remnant…”

The “beast” in Revelation 13:1-2 seems to be another source of power that is given power and “great authority” by the “dragon”, and that “beast” is allowed to “make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (v. 7) Verse 14 says a second beast is able to deceive “them that dwell on the earth…”

Moving into Revelation 14, it is apparent that during the war made by the beast, an important angel has an important work to do on the earth, “having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,…saying… worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (v. 6-7) The beast is overcome because of this angelic messenger and because of the “patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” During the time period covered by Revelation 14, the earth is finally ready for the harvest–for the reaping and the gathering in of the righteous from among those who were overcome by the beast who had made war with the saints and had had such great influence through deception.

Because of the need for the angelic messenger in Revelation 14:6-7, it appears to me that after a long time, even if the “woman” had been on earth in the “wilderness” as opposed to in “heaven” away from the influence of the dragon, the earth no longer had the “everlasting gospel” among the people on earth and that is why the angel is needed to preach it so that the “beast” can finally be overcome by the righteousness and faith and patience of those who are called “saints” by John.

 

[placido]

Placido,
I think that to understand the word “wilderness” in that context, one needs to keep reading.
Verse 17 seems to be saying that the “dragon” (or serpent) was angry that it couldn’t have an impact on the “woman”, so the dragon “went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” That leads into reading chapter 13 to understand who that “remnant” is and what happens to them. Meanwhile, the “woman” seems to recede out of the picture and John turns his attention to what is happening with the dragon making war “with the remnant…”
The “beast” in Revelation 13:1-2 seems to be another source of power that is given power and “great authority” by the “dragon”, and that “beast” is allowed to “make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (v. 7) Verse 14 says a second beast is able to deceive “them that dwell on the earth…”
Moving into Revelation 14, it is apparent that during the war made by the beast, an important angel has an important work to do on the earth, “having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,…saying… worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (v. 6-7) The beast is overcome because of this angelic messenger and because of the “patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” During the time period covered by Revelation 14, the earth is finally ready for the harvest–for the reaping and the gathering in of the righteous from among those who were overcome by the beast who had made war with the saints and had had such great influence through deception.
Because of the need for the angelic messenger in Revelation 14:6-7, it appears to me that after a long time, even if the “woman” had been on earth in the “wilderness” as opposed to in “heaven” away from the influence of the dragon, the earth no longer had the “everlasting gospel” among the people on earth and that is why the angel is needed to preach it so that the “beast” can finally be overcome by the righteousness and faith and patience of those who are called “saints” by John.

I have already stopped counting how many times you had to contradict yourself in a failed attempt to cover up the discrepancies in your arguments.
In post #22 you clearly stated that “the church was not on the earth when it was ‘in hiding’," and in post # 53 you said “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.”
Contrary to that, you are now saying (post #189) that the “woman” (whom you in an earlier post identified as the church) “had been on earth in the “wilderness” as opposed to in “heaven”.
Well, you believe “the church was not on earth” and you believe “the church had been on earth” … and you know that both can’t be true.
It is time to make up your mind.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

I have already stopped counting how many times you had to contradict yourself in a failed attempt to cover up the discrepancies in your arguments.
In post #22 you clearly stated that “the church was not on the earth when it was ‘in hiding’," and in post # 53 you said “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.”
Contrary to that, you are now saying (post #189) that the “woman” (whom you in an earlier post identified as the church) “had been on earth in the “wilderness” as opposed to in “heaven”.
Well, you believe “the church was not on earth” and you believe “the church had been on earth” … and you know that both can’t be true.
It is time to make up your mind.

placido

Placido,
I have been trying not to bring my own interpretation into telling you what the word “wilderness” means. That is why my comment was “even if the “woman” had been on earth in the “wilderness” as opposed to in “heaven” away from the influence of the dragon” (please note the words even if). If you are asking me to give a personal opinion, then my personal opinion is that the “woman” in the context of Revelation 12:17 was the righteous saints (including the apostles) who had died and thus were out of the sphere of influence of the dragon or serpent. The “remnant of her seed” relates back to the whole house of Israel and the Old Testament where there are numerous prophecies about the remnants who will finally receive the fullness of the gospel and no longer feel like they have been orphans. Remember that the house of Israel was to be scattered among all nations.

This all fits together, if one is familiar with the prophecies of the Old Testament (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Daniel, Joel, etc.) and all of the promises of God to those who seek Him with all of their heart.

 

[placido]

Placido,
I have been trying not to bring my own interpretation into telling you what the word “wilderness” means. That is why my comment was *“even if *the “woman” had been on earth in the “wilderness” as opposed to in “heaven” away from the influence of the dragon” (please note the words even if). If you are asking me to give a personal opinion, then my personal opinion is that the “woman” in the context of Revelation 12:17 was the righteous saints (including the apostles) who had died and thus were out of the sphere of influence of the dragon or serpent.

Wow! The “woman” gave birth to the a child (whom you rightly regnize as being Christ), but in your personal opnion you believe that that woman is the “righteous saints, including the apostles”. If the “woman” is the “righteous saints including the apostles” then that means “the righteous saints including the apostles” gave birth to Christ.
Oh no. I give up, really.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Wow! The “woman” gave birth to a child (whom you rightly recognize as being Christ), but in your personal opinion you believe that that woman is the “righteous saints, including the apostles”. If the “woman” is the “righteous saints including the apostles” then that means “the righteous saints including the apostles” gave birth to Christ.
Oh no. I give up, really.

placido

Placido,
Mary, the mother of Christ, was a righteous saint. She was part of the group of righteous saints. Her lineage was the Davidic heritage of Christ, through Judah and the house of Israel. (You know all this.) As I had said previously, the term “woman” is used several times in the Old Testament to mean the house of Israel, the chosen people. Christ was born through that lineage.

 

[ParkerD]

Placido (if you should happen back here to this thread),

Thank you again for asking the questions you asked, and especially thank you for questioning about the word “wilderness.” I happened to be in the mountains today, and an insight came to me about that word and what it means within the context. An eagle would fly to a place of refuge “in the mountains”, so the word “wilderness” is more likely to represent “a place of refuge in the mountains.” As one thinks of mountain settings in the Bible, those are sacred settings (such as Mt. Sinai), and can even represent where God is. So the place of refuge being the spirit world or the paradise where the righteous saints go after death and are with God, fits the connotation. I had struggled to figure out the right connotation for the word “wilderness,” but now I am settled that the meaning is quite clear after thinking about the eagle and the mountain refuge.

So, Placido, thanks for asking. I an grateful when a “light goes on” and a new insight develops for me from the Bible, so that insight was worth the time I have spent on this thread.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Mary, the mother of Christ, was a righteous saint. She was part of the group of righteous saints.

That is how things work in the real world. When I refer to you as an American child, that simply means your parents (father & mother) are American.
Now for the happy conclusion: The woman of Revelation 12 is the righteous Mary who gave birth to Christ. And yes, she was part of the of the righteous saints.
Thank you very much.

placido

 

[TheQuestioner]

Brother Parker,

Questioner,
We have a significant difference in beliefs about the communication of the Holy Spirit to leaders. When Paul and John wrote their epistles, they were writing to local leaders and to the members of the church, and were attempting to teach correct doctrine, and to dissuade the members from following other “teachers” or “leaders” who were evidently using words of persuasion to follow other beliefs or doctrines or leaders besides the twelve apostles. This is clear over and over in their epistles, and John has a similar theme at the beginning of the book of Revelation.

Paul and John didn’t leave the function of guiding the church in keeping the doctrines pure to the Holy Spirit.

Says who? Does not Paul tell people to rely upon the Spirit? Did not Christ say continually that he will be with them, even till the end of the age? (Matthew 28:19-20) Would that make more sense if he was talking to the apostles only or to the whole Church, knowing that the apostles would not be alive till the end of the age?

They didn’t make the assumption that the Holy Spirit would do the correcting and the persuading.

They did but didn’t. They did in that they knew the Spirit guides and Paul continually tells people to follow it, and they didn’t in that they knew that the Spirit works through man. It seems brother Parker, when Christians say the Holy Spirit guides, you have misunderstood what we actually meant. Man does not tap into the Spirit. It is not a force or a supernatural power implanted in us. The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. It is not man that chooses the Spirit, but the Spirit that chooses man. (for example in Acts 16:6-10 the Spirit tells Paul where to go and he merely listens and obeys)

But they did indeed say that the Holy Spirit would belong to the Church forever. (Acts 2:38-39)

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

They wanted the people to have the Holy Spirit on their own, so that the people would know the difference between when they were hearing “false doctrine” or when they were hearing “true doctrine.”

But that’s the thing, first you can’t have the Spirit on your own per say since the Spirit is a Person and not a mere possession. But you can have the Spirit as in He is with you and lives in you and uses you. Remember also that even though the Spirit exists in a person they can still struggle with sin, and there are those who have the Spirit and can still stray (Acts 5:3-4, 7:50-52). You seem to be putting the Spirit in the category of directing people in the “true doctrine” but man can deny the Spirit, we have free will. We can close our ears to the truth or choose not to see it the way God presents it to us. As such the Spirit will guard a person against false doctrine, but they can still deny it and be prideful and teach false doctrines (a heretic). Yet, the Church as a whole and its teachings will not be false because the Spirit works there in a special way, guarding the true Church against false teaching.
Matthew 16: 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will **not overcome it.

There will always be heretics and always were, but the Spirit guides the Church in truth.

I can see why one could make the assumption that God might “rain down fire from heaven to stop the declaration of a false doctrine” but He didn’t do that when the majority of the scribes declared Jesus to be a false prophet.

Two reasons

1. At the point Jesus came and passed on authority to his apostles what point would there be in making sure the scribes believed he was the Christ. It was no longer up to the Pharisees to keep the doctrine but the apostles.
2. The scribes and pharisees were essentially supposed to call Jesus a false prophet. It was part of prophecy. Its the reason why Jesus let it be so that he died on the cross. If God had sent his angels to tell the scribes that Jesus was the Christ he would not have died for our sins and we would not have been redeemed. Not that he didn’t provide signs, he provided many, but they still didn’t believe. Is that a reason to rain fire on them? No, they were not “supposed” to believe in him.

The major changes in doctrine occurred between 60 AD and 200 AD.

Well, thats where there is a point of disagreement that honestly wont be solved because we are from different denominations. Because the early Church Fathers do not agree with the Mormon position, you will have to say that the true Church went into hiding. As such on this part we come at an impass.

(Contd.)

 

[TheQuestioner]

(Contd.)
After Peter and Paul had died, the major apostle was John, the apostle of love who taught about love, and taught with love and gentleness. He gave no indication in his writings that he thought the Holy Spirit was going to protect the church from leaders who might bring impure doctrines into the church teachings. He taught about “he that overcometh” as being on an individual basis, through personal and individual testimonies of Jesus Christ.

Well first of all, he did.
In John 17 Jesus prays that his disciples will be guarded from teaching false doctrine.

10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. (This really hurts your case that the Church went into hiding btw, because here he says that he does not want them to, the world being the civilized world and not the wilderness) 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 17&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26766b”)] them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

In 20-26 He then says:
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and through their message, **will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
**Now how could he have meant the last part and prayed for those who will know him in the future if the Church was going to go in hiding? He must have known it would right?
Second, maybe the Spirit didn’t drive him to write it down extensively **in his epistles **because Paul already did, and the other apostles (written by Luke, Acts 1:7-8) , and Christ himself (again John 17, all of it). The Spirit does not work the same way in everybody. Also the Apostles could pass on the Spirit. (Acts 8:14-18) Sometimes the Spirit came upon those young in the faith (Acts 10:44-45).

There was no guarantee–the teaching was to every person, individually.

This is a protestant way of thinking. It seems like a good idea at first but then suddenly the teaching every person received was slightly different until splits occurred, and how. Teaching should never ever be a private affair. Teaching should be handled by those that are experienced in the faith. Its amazing that you would say that teaching was individual but at the same time blame the early Church for losing its way because they chose their individual wills over God.

At the end of the day, I would like you to ask yourself, really. “What sense would it make that Christ would establish his Church on earth only for it to disappear not even 70 years after his ascension and then have it suddenly re-appear to Josph Smith nearly 1700 years later? Was God’s Church that his very Son established so weak it could not last long? Was Joseph Smith so strong that the Church under him lasted longer than it did when established by Christ?”

 

[rinnie]

Parker also please re-read what questioner has written. Think about this another way also. The other reason we know that Jesus is the Church is Saul was persecuting the CHurch and Jesus said why are you persecuting ME. Paul even asked who are YOU and Jesus said it is me Jesus.

Now put that with what questioner has told you. Then think back to Adam he was the first man who did sin. He put his sin on us. The only way it could be taken away was someone without Sin Jesus. Now the only 2 people who did not give into sin was Jesus and Mary, THe new Adam and New Eve. Both were the opposite of the first 2. They never gave into sin.

Now you have to look at it this way. Jesus was the Church, The church is not a building its the fullness of the truth. Now Jesus led us when he was on earth, no bible, no scripture, and the scripture that was here the OT he never changed he explained.

Now God revealed himself the Father through Abraham. the Son through Jesus and now the Holy SPirit through the Church. God never left Parker. He is still here teaching the Pope and Bishops through the CC. He promised that.

He is teaching today exactly the same as yesterday through the Apostles. They are still here. If you really believe in God you must accept the Trinity. ITs like saying you telling me I believe you are a woman but not a girl. You can’t. God revealed himself as the Son. now he is revealing himself as the Church. Now he is doing it thru the Holy Spirit. The other of the 3 persons in the same God. The only difference between Jesus teaching us from the Apostles day and today is the way he is doing it. But its still the same thing.

Just like in the OT through Abraham he used the scripture. Then the NT he used Jesus. Today is is using the Church. So do you see that while in the Catholic faith scripture is wonderful, usefull and great to study we don;t need them. Thats why Catholics say you can take all of the scripture out of this world. We still have the Church, is because the Church is the whole Package. It is still guided by God through the Holy Spirit and will be until Jesus comes back. He told us that.

The RCC will never be hidden because God would never hide from his Children. Jesus told us I will never leave you. He never did. Just like the Apostles may have made mistakes even when Jesus we with them. and after he left they still never told a lie when they spoke what he told them. Thats where the Pope and Bishops are today. They can never speak a lie because when Jesus uses them to speak for him, it is not them speaking but Jesus. Do you see this now.

That is why the CC has the sacraments. All it is, Is Jesus using their Physical Bodys doing his work. Thats why we go to a Priest to confess our sins. God is forgiving us not him. Baptism, Communion, Marriage, etc. All the same thing. Priests letting God work through them.

Did God hide from Abraham, NO. Did Jesus hide from his Apostles NO. Is the Holy Spirit hiding from us today NO. The Holy Spirit (GOD) is alive and well in the RCC.

 

[wisdomseeker]

we must admit that J Smith had some imagination. a fantasy. his excuse why the mormons were not on earth since the times of the Apostles was because the Church became invisible. the Church was taken away until it appeared again some 1800 years later. big imagination indeed.

Jesus said, no slave is greater than His Master. meaning if the Master suffered we will also suffer in this world. and how is this possible if the Church was out of sight.

why not believe in the Church that has been here since the Apostles? all those who died for the Faith? where were JSmith when the Catholics were being killed to take the Gospel to all the world just like Jesus commanded?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Rinnie,
I think that when Christ said “thou art Peter,” He was not changing Simon’s name but was adding a descriptive word about the kind of person Simon was. (He still called him Simon many times, including after His resurrection.)

Jesus did not change Simon’s name?

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

Jesus called Simon “Cephas” in John 1; Paul referred to Simon as “Cephas” in 1 Corinthians.

[1 Corinthians 1:12](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+1:12&version=NIV)
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Cephas is clearly used as a name and not merely as a descriptive term.

I do indeed “disagree with Rock meaning Father” as a term talking about Peter, or Simon.

So do I. “Rock” does not mean “father”. However, Jesus gave Simon the new name, Kepha (or Cephas) which, when translated in Greek, was Petros. We call him, Peter, in English.

I don’t agree that rock means father or that Peter was being described as father or papa or pope. I simply disagree. There is no scriptural basis for that belief. Tradition adds that belief, but tradition could do anything, because people make up tradition as they go along.

Forget tradition. Let’s establish the principle that one person can be a spiritual father to another from scripture, okay?

Jesus uses this principle:

Luke 16:24
24So he called to him, “Father (Gr. pater) Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”

Paul uses this principle:

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

James uses this principle:

James 2:21
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

So, would you agree that the Bible illustrates that one person may be considered the “father” of another person in a spiritual sense?