Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[Avatar4321]

No one has addressed Galatians 1?

How can we have any serious discussion when you make claims like that when multiple people have addressed it and you ignore rev 14?

[Avatar4321]

Have you read the Book of Mormon? It testifies of Christ. By your verse wouldn't you be obligated to accept that it's from God?

[Freedom]

If it's so clear, could you give some examples of doctrine taught by OT prophets that were lost by the time Christ was born?

 

Yes, there is clearly a pattern in the Bible of God allowing bad things to happen. But none of that bad behavior in the Bible includes examples of doctrines being lost. The Pharisees certainly didn't understand many prophesies in the OT, but that's not the same as those prophesies being lost. The pattern of bad behavior continued during and after after the apostles lives, so why wouldn't the pattern of doctrines not being lost also continue?

 

Who said Moses restored anything? What verse says anything about him restoring anything? Their culture heavily relied on oral history. Parents and grandparents would pass doctrine and stories to younger generations. But oral history had obvious limitations, so Moses wrote the history down.

 

Paul never met Jesus? Then who did he meet on the road to Damascus? Did that meeting with Jesus not count?

 

Jesus didn't fully explain the Gospel, so He had the NT authors do so. Plus, the NT wouldn't have as much credibility it was all written by one person. The multiple authors give us perspective of the Gospel from multiple walks of life. If God is a God of ongoing revelation and if the Gospel wasn't complete when Paul taught it, then why would he tell people to reject any Gospel different than the one he taught? Why didn't he leave a door open for further Gospel revelation?

 

The Gospel I believe only mentions one kingdom of heaven. Paul's Gospel didn't say anything about multiple kingdoms of heaven. But multiple kingdoms of heaven is a very important part of the LDS Gospel. It sounds like I'm closer to Paul's Gospel.

You seem to be missing something. The teachings were lost AFTER Christ so it is not realy possible to show you what was lost IF IT HAS BEEN LOST. I hope you are getting the problem with your argument. But of course I gave you an example of teachings that were lost. Moses. 

 

What evidence do you have that Jesus did not explain the entire gospel? You are just making this up to justify your belief. So, according to your argument, the gospel was not complete until Paul finished writing, that for some reason Jesus was not able in all this time, being a perfect teacher, to convey the entire message. Where in the teachings of Jesus does he say he would need Paul to finish up what he started? 

 

The gospel you believe in is limited by the books that a bunch of uninspired men decided you could have. You are just assuming that the bible contains all that Jesus wanted you to receive but you have consistently failed to provide any evidence to support this argument. 

 

You have a bundle of circular arguments that are difficult to sort out. You just argued that there was no need for Paul because Jesus said not to preach anything other than His gospel. therefore, Paul is not his gospel and should be rejected. do you not see the contradictions in your arguments?

 

The point is that the bible is not the entire gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus demonstrated that, even after he died, he continued to give new revelation to his disciples.  There were dozens of books written that were not included in the current bible, a book that God never told anybody to compile. Some men put it together and rejected other books that disagreed with their opinion on what Gods doctrine should be. And this leads us to your religion. 

[Freedom]

There is a clear pattern in the Bible of God letting people behave badly. Is there also a pattern of God letting important doctrines get lost? Could you give some examples? Why should we assume such a significant event, or series of events, happened when there's no pattern of that event in scripture?

 

I responded to this argument earlier. You are arguing that nothing would ever happen unless it first is recorded in the bible. This is preposterous. There is no evidence of nuclear power in the bible so that would mean nuclear power does not exist? I have brought up Moses a few times. Why did we need a constant supply of new books over thousands of years for the old testament if nothing was ever lost? Why could the new testament end after 70 years, but the old testament had to continually have new books added for generation after generation? We have provided a list of dozens of books that used to be part of ancient scripture but is now lost and you just dismiss it out of hand with a circular argument. 

[Bobbieaware]

There is a clear pattern in the Bible of God letting people behave badly. Is there also a pattern of God letting important doctrines get lost? Could you give some examples? Why should we assume such a significant event, or series of events, happened when there's no pattern of that event in scripture?

Yes, I saw it, but felt my other posts addressed the issues he brought up.

Without living apostles and prophets there could have been no New Testament church. The Christians of the Apostolic Era who were loyal to the living prophets of their day couldn't have even imagined a Church of Christ without living apostles and prophets to lead and guide them by the inspiration and revelation of God. After all, it was the apostle Paul himself who warned the saints of his day that within the body of Christ (the church) no member of that body could say he had no need for all the other members of the body, most especially the apostles and prophets whom God placed at the head of the church.

Without living apostles and prophets there is no Church of Christ. The power and authority of the New Testament church was not found in the written historical narratives and letters that would over two hundred years later be gathered to form a canon of scripture. Rather, the power authority of the New Testament church was found in its living apostles and prophets. Again, the New Testament era Christians would not have been able to fathom how a putative church of Christ could the true and living without living prophets -- such a notion was totally foreign to their experience.The fact that so many non-LDS Christians can't acknowledge this very obvious fact has always mystified me. But I suppose there is no choice but to deny the obvious, otherwise such an acknowledgement would amount to an admission of the abandonment of the New Testament church model.

You see, the apostles and prophets of the New Testament church were living receptors of the living word of a God. How much better it is for the Church of Christ to have living breathing men who write scripture at the helm, rather than just having their writings alone. Fortunately for the apostolic era saints, the had both the scriptures and the living oracles of God to lead and guide them. And today it is only the LDS church that can claim to have both the living prophets and written scripture to guide it, just did the members of the New Testament church.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Vance]

If it's so clear, could you give some examples of doctrine taught by OT prophets that were lost by the time Christ was born?

 

Yes, there is clearly a pattern in the Bible of God allowing bad things to happen. But none of that bad behavior in the Bible includes examples of doctrines being lost. The Pharisees certainly didn't understand many prophesies in the OT, but that's not the same as those prophesies being lost. The pattern of bad behavior continued during and after after the apostles lives, so why wouldn't the pattern of doctrines not being lost also continue?

 

 

There is a clear pattern in the Bible of God letting people behave badly. Is there also a pattern of God letting important doctrines get lost? Could you give some examples?

Well, we have this,

 

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

 

The key of knowledge was lost and we can presume that Jesus restored it.  AND, apparently is was lost again, because the Bible doesn't tell us what it was.

 

PLUS, we have this.

Heb 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

  17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

  18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

  19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

  2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

 

Moses taught the Children of Israel the gospel, but, obviously it was lost.

 

And before that we have this,

 

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

Abraham was taught the gospel, but obviously it was lost until Moses restored it.

 

(This brings up a lot of questions, for example, 1) Who taught Abraham the gospel and why is it not found in the Bible?  2) Why is the loss of the gospel after Abraham not mentioned in the Bible?  3) Why doesn't the Old Testament mention that the gospel was taught to Abraham?  4) Why doesn't the Old Testament mention that Moses taught the gospel to the Children of Israel?)

 

The knowledge that the Gospel was taught to Abraham and to the Children of Israel HAD TO BE RESTORED as well as the Gospel itself.

[carbon dioxide]

There is a clear pattern in the Bible of God letting people behave badly. Is there also a pattern of God letting important doctrines get lost? Could you give some examples? Why should we assume such a significant event, or series of events, happened when there's no pattern of that event in scripture?

So your position is that since God has the capacity to preserve the scriptures, therefore God did preserve the scriptures.  No need to look any further.  People either accidentally or purpose corrupting, changing, losing doctrines and scriptures would be an example of people behaving badly.  So therefore God would allow it to happen.  Why would John even give a warning in Rev 22:18-19 about people adding or removing things from the Book of Revelation if God would not allow it.  The fact that he warns against it means that God would allow it.

[carbon dioxide]

 

Naturally, Hebrew scripture will be different if it's translated to Greek first than if it's translated directly to English. What differences are you talking about? Do they teach different doctrines?

 

You tell me which one is the correct version. 

 

Example 1

 

Genesis 47:31 (Septuagint): "And he said, Swear to me; and he swore to him. And Israel did reverence, leaning on the top of his staff."

 

Genesis 47:31 (KJV): "And he said, Swear unto me: and he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head."

Hebrews quotes from Septuagint   Hebrews 11:21: "By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

 

Example 2

 

Deuteronomy 32:43 (KJV): "Rejoice O ye nations with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people."

 

Deuteronomy 32:43 (Septuagint): "Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, And let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; For he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people."

 

Hebrews and Romans ignores the KJV version and uses the Septuagint instead

 

Hebrews 1:6: "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."

 

Romans 15:10: "And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people."

 

And there are many books and chapters in the Greek that are different than the Hebrew.  Job, Jeremiah, Samuel for example are different in many places.  It is fair more than just differences in translating in different languages.  Entire verses are missing or changed in their order. 

Edited March 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[NotaMormon]

No one has addressed Galatians 1?

How can we have any serious discussion when you make claims like that when multiple people have addressed it and you ignore rev 14?

Freedom offered a vague interpretation, but didn't explain how it should be used in discerning truth from falsehood.

 

I did not ignore Rev 14. Check post #15. Yes, John predicted an angel would preach the gospel. Why should we interpret preach as restore? There's nothing in that passage that suggests the gospel was lost and needs to be restored.

 

If Rev. 14:6 was a prophecy about something that happened in the 1800's, what does the rest of the chapter mean? How do the 144,000, the four beasts and the elder play into that interpretation? Where is Babylon? When did it fall?

 

Have you read the Book of Mormon? It testifies of Christ. By your verse wouldn't you be obligated to accept that it's from God?

I've read most of 1 Nephi, 3 Nephi, Moroni and a few chapters of Alma.

 

Protestants testify of Christ. Why don't you join them? Catholic testify of Christ. Why don't you join them?

 

You seem to be missing something. The teachings were lost AFTER Christ so it is not realy possible to show you what was lost IF IT HAS BEEN LOST. I hope you are getting the problem with your argument. But of course I gave you an example of teachings that were lost. Moses.

You claimed the teachings of Moses were lost, but didn't offer any support for that claim. Why should we believe teachings of Moses were lost when the Bible doesn't say anything about them being lost?

 

Yes, the Bible mentions various other book available during the same time that we don't have anymore. That's it. Why do you believe they were scripture? If that much scripture was lost, why wouldn't any NT author try to restore any of it. There's no indication those books were considered scripture at all.

 

I responded to this argument earlier. You are arguing that nothing would ever happen unless it first is recorded in the bible. This is preposterous. There is no evidence of nuclear power in the bible so that would mean nuclear power does not exist? I have brought up Moses a few times. Why did we need a constant supply of new books over thousands of years for the old testament if nothing was ever lost? Why could the new testament end after 70 years, but the old testament had to continually have new books added for generation after generation? We have provided a list of dozens of books that used to be part of ancient scripture but is now lost and you just dismiss it out of hand with a circular argument. 

What??? No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying God is consistent in how he works in the world. There's no evidence that Christ or the apostles had anything less than complete faith in the OT scriptures. Why can't we have the same faith in the NT scriptures?

Edited March 9, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

There is a clear pattern in the Bible of God letting people behave badly. Is there also a pattern of God letting important doctrines get lost? Could you give some examples? Why should we assume such a significant event, or series of events, happened when there's no pattern of that event in scripture?

 

Naturally, Hebrew scripture will be different if it's translated to Greek first than if it's translated directly to English. What differences are you talking about? Do they teach different doctrines?

 

Yes, I saw it, but felt my other posts addressed the issues he brought up.

 

Earlier on, I linked Margaret Barker's essay on "The Secret Tradition."  Those who make the effort to read learn things like this:

Much of Clement’s secret tradition was widely known among the earliest Christian writers. Or, to put

it another way, there appeared very early in Christian writings, references to beliefs that are nowhere

recorded in the New Testament and yet clearly originated in the tradition we call apocalyptic. As more

is discovered about this tradition, so more and more points of contact can be found between the beliefs

of the ancient temple theology and what became Christianity21. The secret tradition of the priests

probably became the secret tradition of early Christianity; the visions and angel lore suggest this, as

does the prohibition in Deuteronomy 29.29. What had the secret things been that were contrasted with

the Law? What had been meant by saying that the Law was neither too hard nor too distant? The

comparison suggests that there had been something both hard and distant which had been brought

from heaven by one who had ascended (Deut.30.11-12 c.f.John 3.11-12). This suggests that a secret

tradition had been banned by the Deuteronomists who were the temple reformers at the end of the

seventh century BCE, and we do not have to look far to discover what this tradition must have been.

They offered their Law as a substitute for Wisdom (Deut .4.6 c.f.Gen.3.5, the Wisdom that made

humans like gods). They also said that the LORD was not visible in human form (Deut 4.12), even

though a contemporary priest Ezekiel had had a vision of a human figure on the throne (Ezek.1.26-28),

and Isaiah had seen the LORD (Isa.6.5) and someone, of sufficient repute to have his words included in

Scripture, had described the vision of God on Sinai (Exod.24.10). 

[carbon dioxide]

I did not ignore Rev 14. Check post #15. Yes, John predicted an angel would preach the gospel. Why should we interpret preach as restore? There's nothing in that passage that suggests the gospel was lost and needs to be restored.

 

Revelation deals with many things and is not necessarily in sequential order or things happen right after the next. 

 

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

 

It does not say the angel will preach it.  But has the gospel to preach it to those on the earth.  Are you suggesting the angel is going to preach it to everyone on the earth.  Why would an angel be necessary to come to preach the gospel to the earth if the gospel was already here.  What would be kind of dumb and redundant.

[Kevin Christensen]

Why do you believe they were scripture? If that much scripture was lost, why wouldn't any NT author try to restore any of it. There's no indication those books were considered scripture at all.

 

What??? No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying God is consistent in how he works in the world. There's no evidence that Christ or the apostles had anything less than complete faith in the OT scriptures. Why can't we have the same faith in the NT scriptures?

From Margaret Barker's "Text and Context":

Once a community has defined itself by means of a canon of Scripture, there is a new beginning. All the texts in the chosen canon would have had an original

context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared beliefs within which the text was set.

The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon

acquire a new meaning. This, together with the complex history of how the familiar Old Testament

was formed, has important implications for any reconstruction of Christian origins. We have to ask:

Which Scriptures did the first Christians know and use, and how did they understand what they were reading?

The evidence suggests that the texts which became the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by th

e earliest Church, and that removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins. Jerome, (around 400 CE) made a new translation of the Bible to replace the many older Latin versions. Where there was a Hebrew original to use, he made this

the basis of his translation, but the books found only in the Greek Old Testament, which had been the Church

’s Scripture from the beginning, he considered to be of less importance. Thus there arose a division with

in the Christian Old Testament, not on the basis of Church custom but on the basis of the Jewish canon of

Scripture. Augustine warned that this procedure would divide the Church by implying that the Greek tradition was defective, and would create difficulties for

Christians in the West who would not have access to a Hebrew text in cases of dispute.

Jerome argued that a translation from the Hebrew text (and the Hebrew canon) was imperative,

if the Jews were to accept it as the basis for discussion and cease their declaration that the Church had false Scriptures. Jerome used the Hebrew text of his day, even though there had been accusations in the second century that the Jews had

altered the text of Scripture after the advent of Christianity.3 Jerome’s was a mismatch of both text and canon, even though he believed that he was promoting. Hebraica veritas, Hebrew truth.

Barker shows that the Old Testament as we have it was selected and edited in response to the rise of Christianity, and was not identical to the scriptures the earliest church knew.

And this:

An unacknowledged problem at the heart of Western Christian biblical study is that the Church, and

especially the Western Church, has as its Scriptures the Jewish canon and text of the Old Testament, when

the evidence shows clearly that the earliest Church used very different Scriptures. Let us examine that

evidence. This is a complex field and what follows can be no more than a sketch of what is there. There are

many unexamined assumptions, and many facts which must be set alongside each other.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Amd speaking of the test in Galatians 1, Paul's admonition to the Galatians to stick close to the teachings of the

original apostles is a test to make, not a position to uncritically assume. And the 28 Biblical tests for discerning

true and false prophets are part of that test, as are the scriptures describing what a person ought to do in order to see truth.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Spammer]

Earlier on, I linked Margaret Barker's essay on "The Secret Tradition."  Those who make the effort to read learn things like this:

 

Yes, those who advocate a Bible-alone view of scriptural interpretation don't understand that the earliest Christians had an oral 'secret tradition' in addition to the written words of scripture. Barker's outstanding work linking the content of this tradition with the ancient temple in Jerusalem shows us that the early Christians were those who used the written word and who worshiped according to beliefs and practices derived from the secret, apostolic tradition  (e.g., signing with the cross, facing East to pray, and using the words of epiklesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit at the Eucharistic celebration).  As Barker makes clear, those who used scripture AND worshiped in this way are the ancient Church of Christ.  For instance, she cites St. Basil, a 4th century Greek bishop in the Nicene tradition, to make her case about the just mentioned content of the secret tradition.  About the relationship between the written word and these practices derived from the secret tradition, Basil says "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us 'in a mystery' by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.  And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church.  For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals." On the Holy Spirit, 66

 

Based on this evidence, Bible-only Christians don't have a leg to stand on.  By rejecting these traditions and sticking to the Bible alone they ironically reject the institution that compiled, preserved, and gave them their Bible.  

Edited March 9, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

From Margaret Barker's "Text and Context":

Barker shows that the Old Testament as we have it was selected and edited in response to the rise of Christianity, and was not identical to the scriptures the earliest church knew.

 

 

That's right.  The Dead Sea scrolls and the Septuagint are evidence that the Hebrew scriptures were changed by the time the Masoretic canon was compiled.  Not coincidentally (IMO), the most notable textual differences are precisely for those passages that Christians were using as proof texts pointing to Christ (in Isaiah and the Psalms).  Justin Martyr made this case in approx 160ad in his Dialogue with Trypho.  He charged Jewish redactors with editing their own scriptures in response to the Christian 'threat'.  

 

It's indisputable that the earliest Christians used a different OT than that found in western Bibles that follow the revised Jewish canon (e.g. the Latin Vulgate and all of the Protestant bibles, including the KJV). They also used the Book of Enoch (hardly surprising, given the temple-centric roots of the early Christian liturgies, as Barker points out).  Ironically, this evidence suggests that Christians in these traditions are using a version of the OT that was intentionally revised to undermine Christianity.  Put another way, they're using the wrong Old Testament.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Spammer

[danielwoods]

Revelation deals with many things and is not necessarily in sequential order or things happen right after the next. 

 

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

 

It does not say the angel will preach it.  But has the gospel to preach it to those on the earth.  Are you suggesting the angel is going to preach it to everyone on the earth.  Why would an angel be necessary to come to preach the gospel to the earth if the gospel was already here.  What would be kind of dumb and redundant.

 

Indeed it does say, "having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth."

 

As for your interpretation that everything in Revelation is not in sequential order. I disagree. After Chapter 4 there is no more mention of the church on earth at all. So, by chapter 14, it isn't dumb or redundant to for an angel to preach to those on Earth because they haven't heard it before, because the Church hasn't been on the Earth since chapter 4. 

[Freedom]

My point about Moses is that he restored scripture that was lost. The bible begins with the books of Moses. Clearly Abraham and other prophets that preceded Moses had the gospel but all these books were lost and had to be restored through Moses. The question for you is, why do you assume those books that were mentioned that no longer exist were not scripture? You have no idea but you need them to not be scripture to support your dogma. You are basing your argument on the assumption that the bible contains the entire word of God but you are unable to provide any references in the bible to support this claim. We have demonstrated that numerous books are mentioned that no longer exist, that when the bible was complied, other books were available that were excluded, and that the old testament isralites had access to a host of books that no longer exist. 

 

You argue that we have doctrines that are 'another gospel' than that of Jesus based on the argument that many of our teachings are not found in the bible, but of course, this argument is based on the faulty assumption, again, that the bible contains all of Gods word. The facts prove otherwise. 

[mfbukowski]

Pretty silly

 

There was no apostasy, therefore no need for a Reformation. 

 

Protestant theology tends to be precarious journey along the ridge of compromises with slippery slopes on both sides.   It really does not hang together very well.

 

An example would be substance theology.  Protestants would find it "valid" for purposes of explaining the Trinity, but not Transubstantiation. But of course Protestants would also disagree among themselves on those points, while affirming "one faith one Baptism" and the unity of Christianity as long as you are not Catholic or Mormon.

Edited March 10, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Avatar4321]

Rev 14s promise that Moroni would come with the gospel to be preached, we must remember that this comes after rev 12 where the Church flees into the wilderness and rev 13 where the saints were overcome.

We must either conclude that the angel has come or that we are awaiting an angel to come for the gospel to be preached.

Either the gospel has been restored as promise or we are in apostasy and should be praying for the gospel to be restored.

[danielwoods]

Rev 14s promise that Moroni would come with the gospel to be preached, we must remember that this comes after rev 12 where the Church flees into the wilderness and rev 13 where the saints were overcome.

We must either conclude that the angel has come or that we are awaiting an angel to come for the gospel to be preached.

Either the gospel has been restored as promise or we are in apostasy and should be praying for the gospel to be restored.

 

Just a point of fact that disputes what you have stated, that the word "church" isn't used in Revelation Chapter 12 or 13, and the angel isn't identified as Moroni. 

 

As for apostasy, that will happen after the church is taken out of the world. Revelation chapter 4 and 1 Thess. 4:17

Edited March 10, 2015 by danielwoods

[JLHPROF]

Just a point of fact that disputes what you have stated, that the word "church" isn't used in Revelation Chapter 12 or 13, and the angel isn't identified as Moroni.

 

The angel isn't identified at all.  Why does that preclude him being Moroni?  Some have also said that this refers to Peter, not Moroni, restoring the Melchezidek priesthood to Joseph Smith, the priesthood being the more key necessary aspect of the everlasting gospel than the Book of Mormon.

 

 

 

As for apostasy, that will happen after the church is taken out of the world. Revelation chapter 4 and 1 Thess. 4:17

 

The Church was taken out of the world a couple of hundred years after Christ.  Not future.  Past.

[danielwoods]

The angel isn't identified at all.  Why does that preclude him being Moroni?  Some have also said that this refers to Peter, not Moroni, restoring the Melchezidek priesthood to Joseph Smith, the priesthood being the more key necessary aspect of the everlasting gospel than the Book of Mormon.

I agree, the angel isn't identified at all. Does this preclude him as Moroni? There really is no way to answer that, we don't know. There is no mention of Moroni in the whole biblical text, so it seems unlikely, does this preclude him? Well not really if he actually exists. I don't know that he does though.

 

 

The Church was taken out of the world a couple of hundred years after Christ.  Not future.  Past.

Really? Where can I find out this? So, you are claiming that there's no church on the earth now? It was caught up in the clouds to meet with Christ? 

[JLHPROF]

 

Really? Where can I find out this? So, you are claiming that there's no church on the earth now? It was caught up in the clouds to meet with Christ? 

 

Sure there is.  It was restored by God's prophet Joseph Smith.  The one established in Christ's day altered his teachings to the point of no return.

And you can find it out by reading the Bible!

[danielwoods]

The Church was taken out of the world a couple of hundred years after Christ.  Not future.  Past.

 

 

Really? Where can I find out this? So, you are claiming that there's no church on the earth now? It was caught up in the clouds to meet with Christ?

 

 

Sure there is.  It was restored by God's prophet Joseph Smith.  The one established in Christ's day altered his teachings to the point of no return.

And you can find it out by reading the Bible!

 

We must have a communication problem. I am asking when 1 Thess. 4:17 was fulfilled. You stated that it already happened.

Here is the quote for your reference: "17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

 

According to you, when did the church meet with Jesus in the clouds and then were with the Lord forever? 

[JLHPROF]

 

 

 

 

 

We must have a communication problem. I am asking when 1 Thess. 4:17 was fulfilled. You stated that it already happened.

Here is the quote for your reference: "17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

 

According to you, when did the church meet with Jesus in the clouds and then were with the Lord forever? 

 

You claimed the apostasy won't happen until after the Church is caught up.  I claim it has already happened.

[bluebell]

 

 

 

 

 

We must have a communication problem. I am asking when 1 Thess. 4:17 was fulfilled. You stated that it already happened.

Here is the quote for your reference: "17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

 

According to you, when did the church meet with Jesus in the clouds and then were with the Lord forever? 

 

Maybe JLHPROF meant 2 Thess. 2:3?