If the church was in hiding ...

[ParkerD]

Placido,
I will clarify about some of your comments.

1. If the “righteous Jews” joined the church, then they are not the church because you only join what was already in existence. You shall have to come up with a better excuse.

Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets. The Old Testament had prophesied of His birth and ministry and atoning sacrifice. Righteous Jews understood Who He was. They were part of the house of Israel, the covenant people. They made a new covenant–the new covenant that had been prophesied by Jeremiah. They accepted that Christ had fulfilled the law and had begun the new covenant. It was part of what they had been expecting. They were covenant people before the birth of Christ, and still covenant people as they made the new covenant taught to them by Christ. Their beliefs were confirmed and expanded by additional knowledge just as had been prophesied.

1. Heaven is “a place above earth”? Do you mean a distant planet – maybe Saturn or even Jupiter? Is heaven a distant place above the earth? Really?

1. “God was not “forced” to “withdraw the church.” People chose to do what they did with “the church.” It was not God’s doing, it was the people’s doing. They chose.”

You mean Christ did not know beforehand what people would do with His Church or why did He make unconditional promises that imply the church would remain on earth till the end of ages?

1. If you are asking where the spirit world is, it is in the sense of position, right “above the earth”–not in the sky, but above ground, invisible to our eyes.
2. Of course Christ knew, knowing all things. He didn’t make unconditional promises. I have already explained that He did not imply that the church would “remain on earth till the end of ages”. He and John did imply that He would be with anyone who sincerely seeks Him anytime, anywhere, at any point in history after His resurrection and ascension. This is not a function of a church. It is a condition of the heart of a person, and their willingness to make a personal covenant with Him.

I assume Peter could have been in Rome, and went many places during his ministry as the leading apostle. That does not make him the “bishop of Rome”.

If an apostle can be an “elder” (meaning priest), why can’t he be a “bishop”? First try to figure out what “bishop” means. It means overseer, pastor. An apostle can be an overseer/bishop of churches in a specific area.

A “bishop” was an office in the organization of the church–a different office than that of “apostle”. An apostle visited areas and taught, including visiting with the bishops who were the local leaders. The apostle was a visiting leader who had greater authority than the bishops. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

 

[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.

In heaven we will live in perfect union with the Will of God and live in his love. As such the focus of our attention will be toward God. However there is no reason why we cannot have deeper friendships with others who we knew on earth. Still, you should really learn the reason why we get married. Through marriage couples are supposed to help each other reach heaven (most primary reason) and have kids (though even if this is not possible it would still be ok to get married). As we will no longer produce children in the New Kingdom and will have already reached God there would be no real need for marriage. Of course that is my quick synopsis. Study that and you will see why the end of marriage in heaven makes sense. And thank you for posting Luke. Remember to conform your will to that of Christ and not try to deny his words.

“The end of marriage in heaven” would never and will never make sense to me. Marriage is not just to produce children, although that is a good thing. Marriage is for companionship and for “completing” each other because without each other, one is “incomplete”. Marriage was “meet” for Adam and Eve, because it was a good thing for them, a necessary thing. God would not take away a good and necessary and completing union that enobles man and woman and helps them learn an intimate (I am not talking physical) relationship with love and understanding and with Christ intertwined within that relationship. But if bishops and priests don’t know anything about that from their own lives, then of course they’re not going to teach about it and of course they’re going to say marriage goes away in heaven.

Luke was not a first-hand witness of Christ’s ministry and teachings. He wrote what he had been taught about Christ’s ministry, and wrote beautifully, but as far as I’m concerned, the differences in the passages where he is describing what Christ said versus where Matthew and Mark are describing what Christ said, mean that he got the wording a bit wrong, but that’s OK–we have other witnesses who wrote about that event.

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.

Bingo, you have it right…half way. Remember that Christ was specifically talking to the Church in Thyatira in Rev. 2:26-27 (and does not make sense in the light of the resurrection where there will no longer be nations to rule and thus must apply pre-resurrection) and to the Church in Laodicea in Rev. 3:21. Are they the only Churches to receive godhood? Also humans cannot become gods. So what does Christ mean when he says to share his throne? It means what you said, having the kind of unconditional love Christ has. To share in love and happiness with Christ in God’s Kingdom forever. That is the throne of Christ.

What you have written here is according to you. When John wrote “he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”, he was providing hidden meaning that could only be understood if the person reading has the Spirit and is spiritually attuned to understand.

Besides, even if it meant joint authority, it does not mean godhood. God is not the authority He posesses, God is what He is, God. Christ can give authority to anyone, but that does not mean they will become what Christ is, only that they will be able to share what he has. Love and Authority.

To share Christ’s love and authority is to be like Christ. To be like Christ is to be like God the Father. To be like God the Father is to be a “son of God”, an inheritor of what God wants a son or a daughter to inherit. God is full of joy and love. He wants to share those qualities. They cannot be fully experienced without experiencing the kind of life God experiences. The joy and love would not be the same. It would be less.

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)

Yes again…half way. We will tackle the issue of hell in some other thread but you have the first part right. Christ was not here merely to set a good example mind you, but to free us from the oppression of sin and give us the keys to salvation.

Remember again that “like him” means to have a glorified body “like him” as John knew. There is no indication that we will have godhood in Revelations nor in the teachings of Christ, but through many of the books in the New Testament we see the teaching that man will have a glorified body like Christ, but the glorified body is not necessarily a divine one. Christ is the only human who is divine. (Romans 8:30 for example

Christ taught the parable where faithful stewards “enter into the joy of thy Lord.” This is a simple concept. “Glorified” in Romans 8:30 means exactly what the word means–to have glory through Christ having redeemed and justified and the Holy Spirit having sanctified that person who is “gorified”.

 

[placido]

A “bishop” was an office in the organization of the church–a different office than that of “apostle”. An apostle visited areas and taught, including visiting with the bishops who were the local leaders. The apostle was a visiting leader who had greater authority than the bishops. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Yes, the office of bishop is different from that of apostle, but the office of apostle includes the duties of an overseer/pastor/bishop, that is why an apostle teaches and overseers and visits areas like a bishop.
And you failted to explain why an apostle can’t be a bishop yet he can be a priest/elder, a rather inferior office in relation to that of a bishop.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Now, just to tell you, and this is me being nice…but, if you want your arguments (and I mean all of them) to continue to hold ground on the Church going into hiding i suggest you retract the statement that “God has confronted people when it suited his purposes”. First, because you will be going against what you said earlier about God not confronting people (unless you have been convinced that you were wrong earlier) and second because if this is the case then the philosophical and theological implications of the Church going into hiding and the saints being overcome (all the while the people were doing their best to preserve the faith and did not know they strayed) despite the fact that God confronts people when it suits his purposes would be so great that it would clearly indicate that both statements together would not be compatible.

So I will give you time to retract this statement if you still believe that “the Church went into hiding”.

Questioner,
When I had written that “God does not confront people” I was writing of the general case for how God interacts with humankind. I have clarified about there being specific exceptions to that general statement. You highlighted specific exceptions. I agree that those things happened, but they are not general case everyday examples of how God interacts with humankind.

As to my comment about people doing their best, as far as I’m concerned there were a few key leaders who knew they had their own agenda and were working on that agenda (such as gaining more leadership influence than their calling had placed within their assignment, or wanting to change doctrines and practices to suit their own understanding and their own traditions and later to make it easier for more people to believe and to help get the church increased power). Those key leaders deceived the people into believing what the leaders had to say. That does not mean the people were not doing their personal best, but it means they weren’t receiving the pure and correct teachings anymore because some key leaders changed the teachings to conform to what those key leaders wanted the people to understand.

Revelation and several Old Testament prophesies including Daniel clearly indicate that the above-noted deception was prophesied to happen. God let it happen. That is precisely what is indicated by Revelation 13:7.

 

[ParkerD]

The breaking news is that you don’t quote the whole verse 23. You stop where it suits you.
Here is the whole verse:
King James Version: John 21:23 - Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?”

New International Version: John 21:23 - Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

New American Bible: John 21:23 - So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)”
I hope you can now see that Jesus did not say John won’t die.

placido

Placido,
Sorry–I suppose I should have quoted the entire verse. The NIV you quoted says “remain alive until I return…” That means John wouldn’t die at the normal age when a person dies. He would “remain alive” until Christ returns, and this was different than what was going to happen to Peter–Peter was going to die during his ministry, and as we all know, Peter did die. John’s death hasn’t yet occurred, since Christ hasn’t returned yet.

 

[placido]

Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets. The Old Testament had prophesied of His birth and ministry and atoning sacrifice. Righteous Jews understood Who He was. They were part of the house of Israel, the covenant people.

Say, “the Old Covenant people” because the New Covenant is not for the Jews, it is for all.

They made a new covenant–the new covenant that had been prophesied by Jeremiah. They accepted that Christ had fulfilled the law and had begun the new covenant.

No, the Jews as Nation or as a religious group did not accept Jesus as the Christ, they rejected Him and do reject Him up to this very day.

It was part of what they had been expecting.

No, they are still expecting the Messiah and reject Jesus as the Messiah.

They were covenant people before the birth of Christ, and still covenant people as they made the new covenant taught to them by Christ.

100 % wrong. The New Covenant is not for the Jews.

1. Of course Christ knew, knowing all things. He didn’t make unconditional promises.

But that is what you are saying as if He had promised to be with “you always IF, and only IF …”

I have already explained that He did not imply that the church would “remain on earth till the end of ages”.

No, He did not imply it; He said that plain and clear.

He and John did imply that He would be with anyone who sincerely seeks Him anytime, anywhere, at any point in history after His resurrection and ascension.

Wrong!

This is not a function of a church. It is a condition of the heart of a person, and their willingness to make a personal covenant with Him.

I know that, for you to be able to explain the alleged absence of the church for more than 1 700 years, you badly need to minimize the importance of the church and in the process relocate the church’s power to individual believers. Otherwise your arguments won’t make sense - and you know that.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, the office of bishop is different from that of apostle, but the office of apostle includes the duties of an overseer/pastor/bishop, that is why an apostle teaches and overseers and visits areas like a bishop.
And you failted to explain why an apostle can’t be a bishop yet he can be a priest/elder, a rather inferior office in relation to that of a bishop.

placido

Placido,
We simply disagree about the calling of apostle. A bishop did not “visit areas”–he was the local leader who stayed there leading the people within a specific place. He didn’t leave and go somewhere else to teach another group of people. That was not his function.

I guess your last sentence here can be explained within the context of whatever verse(s) you may be referring to, but I don’t know what verses you are referring to, so if you would like you can list them and the context will provide the basis for understanding the use of the word. “Elder” or “priest” can mean, generally, a holder of the priesthood of God. The apostles certainly held the priesthood of God.

 

[ParkerD]

Say, “the Old Covenant people” because the New Covenant is not for the Jews, it is for all.

No, the Jews as Nation or as a religious group did not accept Jesus as the Christ, they rejected Him and do reject Him up to this very day.

No, they are still expecting the Messiah and reject Jesus as the Messiah.

100 % wrong. The New Covenant is not for the Jews.

Really? Did He promise to be with “you always IF, and only IF …”?

No, He did not imply it; He said that plain and clear.

Wrong!

I know that, for you to be able to explain the alleged absence of the church for more than 1 700 years, you badly need to minimize the importance of the church and in the process relocate the church’s power to individual believers. Otherwise your arguments won’t make sense - and you know that.

placido

Placido,
If you’re saying that Mary and Joseph and Martha and the eleven faithful apostles and John the Baptist weren’t Jews who accepted Christ as fulfilling the prophecies about the mission of the Messiah, then we really do have a disconnect. Of course they were Jewish people! The New Testament makes that clear.

“The New Covenant is not for the Jews” you wrote. It was not for the apostles? It was not for the Jews who became believers? The “new covenant” is for all humankind–Jews and Gentiles. Of course the New Covenant is for the Jews.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Sorry–I suppose I should have quoted the entire verse. The NIV you quoted says “remain alive until I return…”

But that is not where everything stops - read on …
John 21:22-23, NIV - Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus DID NOT say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
Can you now see that seeing only part of a text can lead you astray?

That means John wouldn’t die at the normal age when a person dies. He would “remain alive” until Christ returns, and this was different than what was going to happen to Peter–Peter was going to die during his ministry, and as we all know, Peter did die. John’s death hasn’t yet occurred, since Christ hasn’t returned yet.

That is breaking news for most of 99,99 % of Christians. And, did you meet him yet or did he only appear to Joseph Smith some 180 years ago before going back to his secret cave somewhere in the mountains? Are you sure he is not somewhere somehow hiding together with Osama bin Laden?

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
We simply disagree about the calling of apostle. A bishop did not “visit areas”–he was the local leader who stayed there leading the people within a specific place. He didn’t leave and go somewhere else to teach another group of people. That was not his function.

My bishop overseers an area of 700 km X 250 km and he visits all the congragations within his diocese regularly. That is exactly what apostle did.

I guess your last sentence here can be explained within the context of whatever verse(s) you may be referring to, but I don’t know what verses you are referring to, so if you would like you can list them and the context will provide the basis for understanding the use of the word. “Elder” or “priest” can mean, generally, a holder of the priesthood of God.

I think John referred to himself as an elder, but we know he was an apostle.

The apostles certainly held the priesthood of God.

So you believe an apostle can perform priestly duties but he can definitely not perform bishopric duties? And you now what? A bishop is just a high rank of priesthood. What you are saying makes an apostle inferior to a bishop.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
If you’re saying that Mary and Joseph and Martha and the eleven faithful apostles and John the Baptist weren’t Jews who accepted Christ as fulfilling the prophecies about the mission of the Messiah, then we really do have a disconnect. Of course they were Jewish people! The New Testament makes that clear.

Why are you trying to be crafty? I said “Jews as a nation or as religious group” rejected Jesus - you know that is true. That has nothing to do with whether some individual Jews accepted Jesus.

“The New Covenant is not for the Jews” you wrote. It was not for the apostles? It was not for the Jews who became believers?

There you have it: for those “who became believers” regardless whether Jews or Gentiles.

The “new covenant” is for all humankind–Jews and Gentiles.

That is what you are denying brother as you continue to entertain us with your contradictions like this one:

Of course the New Covenant is for the Jews.

No, it may have started with Jewish individuals but it is not for the Jews, it is for the whole humanity - Jews and Gentiles.

placido

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdom Seeker,
The concept of “the Church went into hiding” is not really what I have been expressing. People in the church were doing their best to live by its teachings, and gained from those teachings. But if the doctrines changed and the ordinances changed and the people looked to someone other than John as the final leadership authority on earth after the death of Peter, then the church had changed from how it was originally instituted and taught, so it wasn’t the same church. The original church was no longer around after all the changes were made. That doesn’t mean all the people were now “bad” or that God was going to punish everyone. It means they didn’t have the full scope of the gospel and its blessings if the doctrines changed and the ordinances changed and the leadership changed the basis of its authority.

So, according to you the Church lasted how long? or are saying that the Church was only here until the last Apostles died? after that the people were out of luck. please tell me who changed the Church, and tell me why the Church was no longer the same Church. dont just make statements, show the facts that this occurred. do you believe in all the Books of the Bible?

Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.

 

[AdrianP]

If the Chruch was in hidding, why Luther and his followers were Catholics? Why they didn’t come from Hidden Church?

 

[wisdomseeker]

If the Chruch was in hidding, why Luther and his followers were Catholics? Why they didn’t come from Hidden Church?

Parker does not care about the CC. he doesnt believe the CC is the True Church. like he said, after the Apostles there was no Church.

 

[ParkerD]

My bishop overseers an area of 700 km X 250 km and he visits all the congragations within his diocese regularly. That is exactly what apostle did.

I think John referred to himself as an elder, but we know he was an apostle.

So you believe an apostle can perform priestly duties but he can definitely not perform bishopric duties? And you now what? A bishop is just a high rank of priesthood. What you are saying makes an apostle inferior to a bishop.

placido

Placido,
Perhaps your thinking matches the thinking of some bishop who was alive at the time of the apostles: “he is just a visitor–I have more authority because I am in charge of this group of people as their leader”–they could have thought. IF they thought that (which human logic could do) THEN they were absolutely wrong and absolutely didn’t understand the calling of an apostle or were trying to minimize the authority of an apostle. The apostles were called to preserve the pure doctrines, visit the saints and the local leaders and teach and encourage them (lead them), and to “go into all the world and teach all nations.”

 

[ParkerD]

So, according to you the Church lasted how long? or are saying that the Church was only here until the last Apostles died? after that the people were out of luck. please tell me who changed the Church, and tell me why the Church was no longer the same Church. dont just make statements, show the facts that this occurred. do you believe in all the Books of the Bible?

Never before has there been so much learning, and yet so little knowledge of the truth.

Wisdom Seeker,
I believe in all the books in the King James Translation of the Bible, except that the Song of Solomon is not necessarily inspired throughout it.

The pure original church was here until the leaders of the local areas stopped listening to the apostles and their specific teachings and started to teach the people different things, such as when a bishop taught that he personally had the keys from Peter and that his authority was the same as Peter’s, and that the Holy Spirit was guaranteed to be with him as he started to make changes in doctrines such as baptism by pouring rather than by immersion, and baptism of infants rather than of believers. I could make a long list of additional changes, but as I have said I am not here to try and upset people. I think such a list would be upsetting to the people who might read it here. I would rather they think about it themselves as they read the New Testament and the Old Testament and make their own list.

 

[placido]

Parker does not care about the CC. he doesnt believe the CC is the True Church. like he said, after the Apostles there was no Church.

And yes … apparently we have no option but to believe what Parker declares infallibly.

placido

 

[Bill_Pick]

Placido,
I will clarify about some of your comments.

Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets. The Old Testament had prophesied of His birth and ministry and atoning sacrifice. Righteous Jews understood Who He was. They were part of the house of Israel, the covenant people. They made a new covenant–the new covenant that had been prophesied by Jeremiah. They accepted that Christ had fulfilled the law and had begun the new covenant. It was part of what they had been expecting. They were covenant people before the birth of Christ, and still covenant people as they made the new covenant taught to them by Christ. Their beliefs were confirmed and expanded by additional knowledge just as had been prophesied.

1. If you are asking where the spirit world is, it is in the sense of position, right “above the earth”–not in the sky, but above ground, invisible to our eyes.
2. Of course Christ knew, knowing all things. He didn’t make unconditional promises. I have already explained that He did not imply that the church would “remain on earth till the end of ages”. He and John did imply that He would be with anyone who sincerely seeks Him anytime, anywhere, at any point in history after His resurrection and ascension. This is not a function of a church. It is a condition of the heart of a person, and their willingness to make a personal covenant with Him.

A “bishop” was an office in the organization of the church–a different office than that of “apostle”. An apostle visited areas and taught, including visiting with the bishops who were the local leaders. The apostle was a visiting leader who had greater authority than the bishops. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Placido, Well you please tell me who was the person that started with the Church has been in hiding for 1,700 years some people say it was a apostasy but I have never heard of is was in hiding

 

[placido]

Placido,
Perhaps your thinking matches the thinking of some bishop who was alive at the time of the apostles: “he is just a visitor–I have more authority because I am in charge of this group of people as their leader”–they could have thought.
IF they thought that (which human logic could do) THEN they were absolutely wrong and absolutely didn’t understand the calling of an apostle or were trying to minimize the authority of an apostle. The apostles were called to preserve the pure doctrines, visit the saints and the local leaders and teach and encourage them (lead them), and to “go into all the world and teach all nations.”

Problem is, every time you respond to what I said, you seem to forget that what I said was a response to something you said earlier. Do you still remember what prompted my response? Do you still remember what you said?
You said bishops don’t move, they stay put, while apostles were visiting areas. In response I gave you the practical example of my bishop, that proves you are wrong, but instead of addressing what I said you resort to fiction writing about what some imaginary bishop should have thought.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido, Well you please tell me who was the person that started with the Church has been in hiding for 1,700 years some people say it was a apostasy but I have never heard of is was in hiding

In my Original Post I asked a few questions to kick start the discussion. Here is what I asked:

placido:

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

1. When did it go into hiding?
2. What happened while it was in hiding?
3. How do we know?
4. When did it come out?

In post #16 ParkerD responded that the church went into hiding “about the time John wrote about it from the Isle of Patmos”.
He did not mention the number of years the church was in hiding but did say the church was withdrawn from the earth about the time John wrote Revelation and was only restored in June 1829. So, counting the years from approximately 100 AD to 1829 AD gives you … how many years? You are right: it gives you more than 1 700 years.

placido