If the church was in hiding ...

[rinnie]

Hi Randy, Please correct me if I am wrong. But in the O.T God changed Abram to Abraham correct? Now Abraham translates to Rock correct? Now if Abraham was also the rock and was considered our Father, God is the Rock which means our Father. Why would Peter which translates to Rock also not mean Father?

Because there were 3 people God called ROCK in the bible. God our Father. Abraham our Father. Now Pope is the HOLY FATHER. Which pope translates from Peter to rock and rock translates to Father. And Father translates to Papa which translates to Pope does it not?

Thats the way I always understood it, Wher am I seeing it wrong?

 

[TheQuestioner]

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.

Ok, fair enough. In some translations the word “they” is used. Let us analyze this further

Matthew 22:30 NRSV 30For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels[*](javascript:void(0) in heaven.

So, the Sadducees, who do not believe in the Resurrection, asked Jesus who’s wife the woman who married 6 brothers would be since her husbands kept dying (sounds rather suspicious if you ask me ). In explaining he says the verse above. Now…even if the word “they” were put in place of “people” this does not change what he said. When he says “they”, who specifically will not be given in marraige? The brothers? The wife? All of them? And if they will become angels and the rest gods, why them and not us? They did not appear to be doing anything sinful. It was the custom at the time that when a man died and his wife is childless it was his brother’s duty to take her in as his wife, literally. So there was nothing what so ever wrong with what the brothers and wife did. In fact it was part of the Law. So there would be no reason to condemn them.

Now if you are saying Jesus was talking to the Sadducees then it leaves a problem. He didn’t use the word “you”. As such if when he said “they” he meant “you” the last part would make little sense, and would make Christ sound incoherent. The only way you can reconcile this is saying that he said angels because he meant the Pharisees would be angels. Since this is not true as man cannot be angels then it means he is saying it to please them and he is a liar or does not know what he is talking about.

But the entire arguement over this verse is pointless. As a Mormon who argues that Revelations says humans will become gods (am i correct in this?) it would be beneficial for you and I to follow many of the great apologists of the past and just agree that this passage does not mean that anyone will literally be transformed into an angel, but that this verse deals specifically with the example of marriage and when it says we will be like angels it means we will not get married in heaven, be married (though this may be problematic for you) nor give into marriage like the angels who do not.

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.

Luke 20:34-36
34 Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrectionIndeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 3536

Well first of all, i’m surprised. Here I am working with Matthew and you find a better verse explaining what I was trying to say all along. Instead of going “ohhhh, ok so I was wrong” you point to another part of the verse you do not understand and then scrap the whole thing because “it is unclear”. That my friend (if you did it on purpose, which i doubt from you since you seem pretty honest) is dishonest. The main point of that verse is that no one will marry nor will be given into marraige, and since marraige ends in death, no one will be married (this last point may differ between us). Once again, they are like angels in that there will be no marraige nor giving into marriage.

However, since you brought up the issue of the resurrection, we can clear it up. First, pay attention to where the word “and” is used. As "and"s and "or"s are interchangable sometimes in english today, it was not so it ancient times. And meant And and Or meant Or and where they were placed in writing or speech changed the meaning of entire sentences, and could be disasterous when declaring doctrine if put in the wrong places. Second notice the use of words. Jesus says, “those worthy of a place in that age”, then says “and in the resurrection”. If being worthy of a place in that age meant the resurrection specifically then he would have repeated himself twice for no particular reason. Unless (and more likely so) that when he said “worthy of a place in that age” he meant worthy of being with him in the New Kingdom, and when he said “and in the resurrection” he meant everyone else who is raised.

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?

First i am curious as two where this “joint throne” speech is comming from and why that would imply that we would become gods. If anything it means to me equal, which is impossible as no one can be equal with God. You would have to show me the verse so i could read it in context. Second, we will live in light and happiness with Christ forever. What this means i will not even dare to speculate at, but we will not get bored, that i know the least (or hope the least ). No matter what I say about it my explaination will pale in comparison to the gloriousness of the New Kingdom. Third, you can do all those things without being some sort of leader. In fact, we are all called to be slaves of Christ. (Ephesians 6:6). The need to have some sort of leadership role in the New Kingdom where God will be our perfect leader anyway boarders on the sin of pride to me.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

1. 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.”

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.)

Questioner,
Sorry to have been busy and not had the time to respond. 'Hope you are doing well.

1. Paul did indeed teach to rely on the Spirit, and also taught about the doctrines of Christ, the doctrine of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins and of seeking the fruits of the Spirit. He reinforced what Christ had taught the apostles and others, because he knew that reinforcement as well as the Holy Spirit’s guidance were both important.

Christ is with anyone who seeks after Him. John wrote by inspiration, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Rev. 3:20) This applies to any person on earth, since it was first written by the apostle John. Christ comes to those who open the door of their heart. This was what He was teaching the apostles, and what He was speaking to the world through John the Revelator. He will be with those who open to Him.

The Spirit will come to any person who seeks the things of the Spirit in humility and sincerity and without seeking a sign. I agree that Paul listened to the prompting of the Spirit, but he had to be familiar with that voice and he was. He obeyed because he was sure of the thing he was being prompted to do. Faith, righteousness, purity of heart and purity of purpose are all necessary for that guidance.

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner (kind Brother):

1. The two passages from Acts you referenced are about people who had lost the Spirit because of their sinfulness: Ananias and his wife, and those Israelites who persecuted and killed the prophets who had prophesied about the coming of Jesus Christ to the Jews and to the world, as well as the Jews who betrayed Christ. Sinfulness brings the loss of the Holy Spirit, always, unless the person repents. (Ananias and his wife were given the chance to tell the truth, but didn’t–they acted with knowing deception.)

You spoke of the “Church as a whole”, but that is comprised of people, and if the leaders were “prideful” and not humble, they could stray and even assume they had the Spirit as they followed their own mind, especially if they believed “the Spirit will never let me make a mistake in my understanding, because I am the leader and we have been told the leaders will always be guided correctly.”

I will comment again that for me the most telling situation (besides comparing actual Biblical doctrine) is that when John was still alive, he was seemingly pushed aside in the minds of the people and the church leaders. Why would that be, when he was the still-living apostle who was most familiar with the doctrines Christ Himself had taught?

I have cited and quoted two passages, one in Daniel and one in Revelation, that say the whole world will be in a situation of being deceived by the influence of the dragon or the beast. Christ will ultimately prevail, absolutely, but there was no guarantee that the dragon would not have pervasive influence for a period of time. The contrast is clear: Christ is victor in the midst of the dragon and the beast and Babylon having influence before they are overcome by the forces of good under Christ’s leadership.

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner,

1. It is true that the Holy Spirit knows the hearts and minds of every person, and the collective rejection of Christ by the Jewish leaders (including His crucifixion) fulfilled prophecy and was ultimately necessary for the atonement to be fulfilled for all humankind. But isn’t it logical that those same Jewish leaders were saying to themselves (even though they had studied the very scriptures that made the prophecies about Christ) that they had the “truth” (which was in the Law) and that the promised David was to be a king Who would deliver Israel physically with power, which is one of the reasons they were so sure Christ was not their Messiah and rejected Him? They trusted their traditions and logic more than they followed their heart which surely was telling them that the love and example Jesus offered them was a spiritual leadership they should be listening to.

The experience of Nicodemus provides an example of the Jewish leader mindset–although he at least was aware that Christ had an important message. Nicodemus wasn’t spiritually attuned to understand that there could be such a thing as a second birth by water and by the Spirit. Christ taught him the doctrine, then let him decide whether he would follow and receive “heavenly things” (John 3:12). Christ didn’t force the doctrine on him, or give some kind of sign to prove it to Nicodemus.

1. It’s ironic that John’s leadership and pure testimony were being side-lined at the very time that he was receiving the visions that became the writings of the book of Revelation. I can understand him wondering, “Lord, how can this be happening–this loss of understanding by the people I have loved and taught?” It would have been on his mind constantly. Can you imagine how overjoyed he was as he realized that his vision was showing how Christ would ultimately triumph and the very saints who had been persecuted during his lifetime as an apostle, would ultimately not be part of a “lost cause” but instead be the beginnings of a grand triumph of righteousness and goodness? His visions did not place Peter in the primary leadership role. His visions continued to place Christ Himself in the primary leadership role, always.

 

[ParkerD]

(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).

Questioner,
Perhaps you have read the King James Version of the translation of John 17. Verse 26 has a significant difference. The KJV says “And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

The difference is that the “declaring” of the Father’s name is done by Christ, since He knows the Father perfectly. I don’t think that passage places a guarantee on the church and all of its leaders after the apostles were going to be killed. During the entire Intercessory prayer, Jesus’ pleadings to the Father are always conditional, using the word “may” and not the word “shall” or “will” when talking about the followers of the apostles. (except the translation you quoted for verse 26)

Matthew 25:31-46 shows that Christ was fully aware and prophesied of a condition on earth before His Second Coming where the actions of the people would reflect either ministering to the hungred, the stranger, or the sick, or not doing those things because of not really getting the message in their heart. What counts is what people do, not what they say outwardly. This theme is repeated many times in the New Testament. The gospel message is primarily a message about what happens in the heart of each person, and that theme is in the Intercessory prayer as well: becoming unified with the Son and the Father, and inheriting the glory of the Son because of what the Son has done for His followers because of His love for them. He would keep them “from the evil one” as they continued to follow Him and love Him.

 

[ParkerD]

(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.

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?”

Questioner,
If one is realistic about the conditions of the Old World at the time of the apostles, one would not make the comparison you have made because the conditions were entirely different. Transportation was slow, communication methods were only person-to-person, and the philosophical world into which Christianity was “thrust” was a philosophical world of strong traditions (including the Jewish traditions), belief that Rome would someday rule the world, and belief that Greek and Roman thought were the ideals for great minds.

Contrast those conditions with the conditions of the 1500’s, 1600’s, 1700’s and 1800’s, and you see significant changes–Renasissance, Enlightenment, rugged individualism rather than collective acceptance of “status quo” norms. The world was a different place, and conditions were more favorable for the gospel message of “second birth” and “changes of the heart” and “no new wine in old bottles” to retain a solid footing, with Christ at the center of that gospel message, still as before but now with conditions for the flourishing of that message and the flourishing of freedom of choice for people to freely choose to listen and hear and feel with their hearts, without fear of being dominated by a prevailing culture.

Cultural domination is a stigma to the flourishing of the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner,
I am going to set the “marriage” question aside, even though at some point I would like to understand how happily married couples can think heaven will be complete if their beloved is at that point only a friend. (I just don’t get that.) I brought up the Luke verses because I was aware they lean toward the meaning you have accepted, and I was willing to be honest about that.

As to the joint throne, the verse is as follows: (Rev. 3:21)

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

There is another verse that clearly talks about ruling “nations”: (Rev. 2:26-27)

“And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron;”

I want you to understand that in and of myself, the idea of a “throne” or “rulership” does not appeal to me at all, but the idea of having the kind of unconditional love Jesus has, and being able to be involved in creation of an earth with all its beauty, sounds like a joyful situation to me. It is the antithesis of pride, which is self-centered. Giving spirits complete free agency while also rejoicing as they grow by experiencing their physical lives on an earth with all of life’s challenges, sounds like being other-centered to me. How does God receive joy? Not by the fact that He is adored by His creations, but by His unconditional love and by watching His creations progress through making freely available choices and His children being able to change those choices and not suffer the eternal consequences of wrong choices (but being able to learn from many wrong choices). The mission of Christ was essential to the joy of the Father, because through Christ’s infinite grace, perfect example, and His faith in us, we can become like Him. (1 John 3:2)

 

[ParkerD]

Rinnie and Wisdom Seeker and Randy Carson,
I have seen your posts, but time constraints are an issue for me. I will try and respond in the next few days. Thanks for your forthright questions and comments. At the heart of all of these issues is the concept of personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. For me, gospel truths are known by personal revelation, which centers in a testimony of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, Redeemer, and Prince of Peace. I hope each of you has wonderful love and abiding peace in your life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy, Please correct me if I am wrong. But in the O.T God changed Abram to Abraham correct? Now Abraham translates to Rock correct? Now if Abraham was also the rock and was considered our Father, God is the Rock which means our Father. Why would Peter which translates to Rock also not mean Father?

Because there were 3 people God called ROCK in the bible. God our Father. Abraham our Father. Now Pope is the HOLY FATHER. Which pope translates from Peter to rock and rock translates to Father. And Father translates to Papa which translates to Pope does it not?

Thats the way I always understood it, Wher am I seeing it wrong?

I’d have to double-check on the meaning of Abraham’s name, but my post was much simpler than your question suggests!

I simply meant to say that Kepha is the Aramaic word for rock, and I did not want ParkerD to get too hung up on trying to make any connection to the papacy on that basis. Baby steps, you see.

Kepha means “rock”…not “father”, and that is an important concept with significant implications. I want ParkerD to acknowledge that before moving to the next step.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Rinnie and Wisdom Seeker and Randy Carson,
I have seen your posts, but time constraints are an issue for me. I will try and respond in the next few days. Thanks for your forthright questions and comments. At the heart of all of these issues is the concept of personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. For me, gospel truths are known by personal revelation, which centers in a testimony of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, Redeemer, and Prince of Peace. I hope each of you has wonderful love and abiding peace in your life.

Parker,

may i ask you why the Church went into hiding?

:byzsoc:

 

[Bill_Pick]

Parker,

may i ask you why the Church went into hiding?

:byzsoc:

Let me just say this in 64a.d Nero started the first persecution or pogram of the Christians in the Roman Empire, Over the next 150 years,9 persecution followed and the Church went into the catacombs

 

[placido]

Let me just say this in 64a.d Nero started the first persecution or pogram of the Christians in the Roman Empire, Over the next 150 years,9 persecution followed and the Church went into the catacombs

That is according to you and me. Acoording to Parker, the church was withdrawn from the earth immediately after (or maybe just before) the death of the last apostle.
The fact that the prosecution continued up to Constantine in the fourth century means (for you and me) that the church was still around. But no, Parker won’t have none of it. For him it makes more sense for the church - which Jesus bought with His precious blood (Acts 20:28) for the salvation of humanity - to go into hiding immediately thereafter, only to be restored 1 700 years later.
Parker provided us with valuable insight into his very interesting interpretation of Daniel and John’s Revelation.
However, he made so many contradictory claims that trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint what he really believes would be like trying to figure out the natural color of a chameleon(I mean no offense).

placido

 

[Bill_Pick]

But what church does Parker belong to is it not Mormon or JW I think its one of them I am I right. either one and it is self explain to you

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let me just say this in 64a.d Nero started the first persecution or pogram of the Christians in the Roman Empire, Over the next 150 years,9 persecution followed and the Church went into the catacombs

is it what he is talking about here?

 

[wisdomseeker]

That is according to you and me. Acoording to Parker, the church was withdrawn from the earth immediately after (or maybe just before) the death of the last apostle.
The fact that the prosecution continued up to Constantine in the fourth century means (for you and me) that the church was still around. But no, Parker won’t have none of it. For him it makes more sense for the church - which Jesus bought with His precious blood (Acts 20:28) for the salvation of humanity - to go into hiding immediately thereafter, only to be restored 1 700 years later.
Parker provided us with valuable insight into his very interesting interpretation of Daniel and John’s Revelation.
However, he made so many contradictory claims that trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint what he really believes would be like trying to figure out the natural color of a chameleon(I mean no offense).

placido

if the Church went into hiding for 1700 years, then how does he explaing the appearance of the Bible while the Church was in hiding?

 

[TheQuestioner]

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)

…and?

Revelation 20:4 is clearly talking about the thousand year Millennium, 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.

The thousand year millennium came after the beast was defeated. Not only that but it was a millennium of peace and joy in Christ. Now unless you believe that millennium started when Joseph Smith began the Mormon Church, it would make no sense to attribute that millennium to the years the Church was “hiding”.

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.

And through him the Holy Spirit corrects them. Like I said, the Spirit chooses man, not man the Spirit.

Plus, only 5 out of seven were in some sort of trouble. Two of them were completely fine and pleasing to the Lord (Church in Philedelphia and the Church in Smyrna). Of the ones that were in some sort of trouble, only two was completely condemned (Sardis and Laodicea). The other three were praised, but there were a few things wrong with them that Christ wanted to point out. That is how the Holy Spirit guides.

So, this is why I say using Revelations to point out that the Church went into hiding hurts you, because when we read all of Revelations it actually hurts your arguement because it in no way points to the Church going into hiding.

 

[placido]

if the Church went into hiding for 1700 years, then how does he explaing the appearance of the Bible while the Church was in hiding?

Parker can give an interesting explanation for every thing - even if it borders on the comical.
He told me that any one can come up with a list of inspired books. He also told me “the final list” of the books of the Bible was not perfect because it was compiled while the church (and the Holy Spirit) was already withdrawn from the earth.

placido

 

[placido]

But what church does Parker belong to is it not Mormon or JW I think its one of them I am I right. either one and it is self explain to you

Yes, he is LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Later day Saints).

placido

 

[TheQuestioner]

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.

And in warning against false teachers God was doing what through him? Keeping the sheep from following false shepherds. I have the feeling that when Paul mentions false teachers you are thinking of teachers who were taught by the apostles and close to them but suddenly went astray. False teachers can be anyone who teaches wrong, they don’t necessarily have to have learned from the apostles.

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.

…so God confronts people, the willing and unwilling right?

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)

and?

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”.

You have to ask yourself why he would wish this. So that they would have superpowers or so that they, like him, would hear from the Lord and be faithful? What is a Prophet but one who hears from the Lord and does what he says?

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.

I don’t get it. So do you agree that God confronts people?
Thank you for continuing to respond by the way. I really appreciate it.