None means None

[Vance]

15 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

New apostles and prophets were not appointed after the older ones died or were killed.

That statement is obviously false.

We know that, at least,

Mathias,

Paul,

Barnabas,

James, the Lords brother,

were all called to the apostleship.

And it is clear from Eph, that the apostleship was to continue in the Church "til we all come in the unity of the faith" etc.

So, the fact that office of apostleship died off, is prima facie evidence that the original church fell into APOSTASY!

Quote

The New Testament church did not fail and was not taken from the earth.

Contrary to the evidence found within the scriptures.

Quote

So much for the New Testament church failing in its mission before the second advent.

So much for the New Testament church continuing.  The fact that the New Testament ended is also prima facie evidence that the original church fell into APOSTASY.  The spirit of revelation ended because of apostasy, thus the New Testament has an end.

[Anakin7]

3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

If you could be bothered to read any of those versions, you would know that they do not differ much in the important things.  Even Bart Ehrman was forced to concede that the changes that have been made in the basic text of scripture do not seriously affect the basic dogma of Christianity.

       Perhaps you could visit chick publications in So. Calif they will be more than happy to show some material. I am not KJV by the way.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

            Anakin7

3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Ain't the internet great!

 

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

John I know, Peter I know, Joseph I know. Who the hell is Clement?

The author of 1 Clement was the following fellow.  The Roman Catholic Church considers him to be a pope, but the papacy was not really an institution in those days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

[Jim Stiles]

30 minutes ago, Vance said:

So, then God is a God of "demons".  THAT is your position?

Yes, the Devil and his demons cannot do anything that God does not want them to do.

Quote

1 Kings 22:20-23 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

 

[Jim Stiles]

28 minutes ago, Vance said:

That statement is obviously false.

We know that, at least,

Mathias,

Paul,

Barnabas,

James, the Lords brother,

were all called to the apostleship.

And it is clear from Eph, that the apostleship was to continue in the Church "til we all come in the unity of the faith" etc.

So, the fact that office of apostleship died off, is prima facie evidence that the original church fell into APOSTASY!

Contrary to the evidence found within the scriptures.

So much for the New Testament church continuing.  The fact that the New Testament ended is also prima facie evidence that the original church fell into APOSTASY.  The spirit of revelation ended because of apostasy, thus the New Testament has an end.

God gave us all of the information that we needed.  We do not need information from Salt Lake that contradicts what God has already revealed to us.

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The author of 1 Clement was the following fellow.  The Roman Catholic Church considers him to be a pope, but the papacy was not really an institution in those days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

I knew that. I'm wondering who you think provided for the gap in Apostles. I don't recognize the RCC as the church Christ established, but obviously Catholic do.

[Jim Stiles]

27 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

       Perhaps you could visit chick publications in So. Calif they will be more than happy to show some material. I am not KJV by the way.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

            Anakin7

 

My favorite Chick Tract is the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri.

I prefer the New King James Bible, but I use the KJV here to avoid one more disagreement.

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Can you provide a scripture that supports this?

Didn't Christ also go there?  Acts 2:31.

The holding cell for the wicked is described in Luke 16:19-31.

Quote

Luke 16:19-31 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The final destination for the wicked is described in Revelation 20:11-15.

Quote

Revelation 20:11-15 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

My favorite Chick Tract is the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri.

I prefer the New King James Bible, but I use the KJV here to avoid one more disagreement.

Chick Tract.

[Anakin7]

18 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

My favorite Chick Tract is the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri.

I prefer the New King James Bible, but I use the KJV here to avoid one more disagreement.

       I have visited there Headquarters some years ago. You use the NKJV ?, the chick staff would spank you.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

            Anakin7

[Jim Stiles]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I knew that. I'm wondering who you think provided for the gap in Apostles. I don't recognize the RCC as the church Christ established, but obviously Catholic do.

I am catholic, just not Roman Catholic.  I am also Reformed.  The reformers took the what was good and laudable from the Roman church and corrected those parts that contradicted scripture.

Christ Jesus appointed the Apostles.  The Apostles appointed the first bishops and deacons.  No gap in authority was present.

Quote

1 Clement 42:1-5
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.

And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Jim Stiles
layout

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

So, then God is a God of "demons".  THAT is your position?

Quite the uneducated and misinformed assertion wasn't it? 

[Damien the Leper]

17 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I am catholic, just not Roman Catholic.  I am also Reformed.  The reformers took the what was good and laudable from the Roman church and corrected those parts that contradicted scripture.

Christ Jesus appointed the Apostles.  The Apostles appointed the first bishops and deacons.  No gap in authority was present.

 

Protestants are not part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as confessed in the Nicene Creed. They give lip service to believing the creeds but they have no real connection to the 1st century church or the 7 Ecumenical Councils. They are not orthodox in any sense of the word. 

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Protestants are not part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as confessed in the Nicene Creed. They give lip service to believing the creeds but they have no real connection to the 1st century church or the 7 Ecumenical Councils. They are not orthodox in any sense of the word. 

The Church of Rome is neither one, nor holy, nor catholic, nor apostolic.  The Eastern Orthodox Church is neither one, nor holy, nor catholic, nor apostolic.

[Damien the Leper]

18 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The Church of Rome is neither one, nor holy, nor catholic, nor apostolic.  The Eastern Orthodox Church is neither one, nor holy, nor catholic, nor apostolic.

Doubtful. Both Rome and Constantinople were there when that communion was established.

Acts 29ers and Westminster are not associated with the communion set forth by both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

[Jim Stiles]

28 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Doubtful. Both Rome and Constantinople were there when that communion was established.

Acts 29ers and Westminster are not associated with the communion set forth by both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

The modern Church of Rome is not the same church that created the ecumenical creeds.  The same is true of the Eastern church.  The Anglican church was not really around (not even as a part of the Western Catholic Church) when the ecumenical creeds were written, yet no one claims that they do not accept the ecumenical creeds.

I am not that familiar with the Acts 29 group of churches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_29_Network

Mark Driscoll appears to be a shady fellow.

Read the Westminster Standards for yourself.  Tell me what parts do not agree with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.  Maybe I have missed something.

[halconero]

I don't even agree with the transfer of authority from the Apostles to the Epískopos or the Presbuteros and I can't see the disconnect between the ecumenical church from that of Rome or the Eastern Churches...

Edited February 1, 2016 by halconero

[Jim Stiles]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

I don't even agree with the transfer of authority from the Apostles to the Epískopos or the Presbuteros and I can't see the disconnect between the ecumenical church from that of Rome of the Eastern Churches...

First of all the early Bishops were not Episcopal in the modern sense of the word.

Second, the modern meaning of the pope (as in infallible) started about 1870, but there were antecedents.

Thirdly, the popes of antiquity had zero temporal power.

This may be of use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Early_Christianity_.28c._30.E2.80.93325.29

Quote

It seems that at first the terms "episcopos" and "presbyter" were used interchangeably.^[44] The consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.^[45] Some say that there was probably "no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century...and likely later."^[46] Other scholars and historians disagree, citing the historical records of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d 107) and St. Irenaeus who recorded the linear succession of Bishops of Rome (the popes) up until their own times. They also cite the importance accorded to the Bishops of Rome in the ecumenical councils, including the early ones.^[47]

In the early Christian era, Rome and a few other cities had claims on the leadership of worldwide Church. James the Just, known as "the brother of the Lord", served as head of the Jerusalem church, which is still honored as the "Mother Church" in Orthodox tradition. Alexandria had been a center of Jewish learning and became a center of Christian learning. Rome had a large congregation early in the apostolic period whom Paul the Apostle addressed in his Epistle to the Romans, and according to tradition Paul was martyred there.^{[citation needed]}

During the 1st century of the Church (ca. 30–130), the Roman capital became recognized as a Christian center of exceptional importance. Clement I, at the end of the 1st century, wrote an epistle to the Church in Corinthintervening in a major dispute, and apologizing for not having taken action earlier.^[48] However, there are only a few other references of that time to recognition of the authoritative primacy of the Roman See outside of Rome. In the Ravenna Document of 13 October 2007, theologians chosen by the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches stated: "41. Both sides agree...that Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love' according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch,^[49] occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium."^{[citation needed]}

In the late 2nd century AD, there were more manifestations of Roman authority over other churches. In 189, assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in Irenaeus's Against Heresies (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree...and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." In AD 195, Pope Victor I, in what is seen as an exercise of Roman authority over other churches, excommunicated the Quartodecimans for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, the date of the Jewish Passover, a tradition handed down by John the Evangelist (seeEaster controversy). Celebration of Easter on a Sunday, as insisted on by the pope, is the system that has prevailed (see computus).^{[citation needed]}

 

[Jim Stiles]

3 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Doubtful. Both Rome and Constantinople were there when that communion was established.

Acts 29ers and Westminster are not associated with the communion set forth by both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

Luther was apparently of the opinion that the evangelical churches of his day were the heirs to the churches of the ecumenical creeds:

Quote

That word above all earthly powers, 
no thanks to them, abideth; 
the Spirit and the gifts are ours, 
thru him who with us sideth. 
Let goods and kindred go, 
this mortal life also; 
the body they may kill; 
God's truth abideth still; 
his kingdom is forever. 

 

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Paul and Barnabas were eyewitnesses, with their natural eyes, to the resurrected Christ.  They were also martyred before John died.  Joseph Smith Jr. was not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.  Thomas S. Monson is not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.

I beg to differ:

Quote

 

After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

 16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink intodespair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself deliveredfrom the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. (Joseph Smith - History 1:15-18).

 

 

And with Oliver Cowdery:

 

Quote

 

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of ourunderstanding were opened.

 2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

 3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

 4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

 5 Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice.

 6 Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, builtthis house to my name. (D&C 110:1-6)

 

 

And with Sidney Rigdon:

 

Quote

 

 19 And while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about.

 20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;

 21 And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctifiedbefore his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, whoworship him forever and ever.

 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

 23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begottenof the Father—

 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worldsare and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:19-24)

 

 

By the mouth of two or three witnesses shallnall things be established. That's the miracle of Joseph Smith's experiences. He doesn't just testify of visions he saw. He invited others to join in.

These aren't the only accounts of the Saviors appearance to the prophet and aside from the first vision there are none I am aware of during which he was alone. For example the Lord appeared at the school of the prophets before those who were soon to be called to be apostles.

The apostles continue to bear record of the risen Lord. And the testimony of Joseph and Sidney is their testimony.

[Avatar4321]

10 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

God gave us all of the information that we needed.  We do not need information from Salt Lake that contradicts what God has already revealed to us.

And you've just provided more evidence for the Book of Mormon by saying that. The Lord prophecies that there would be many whon said that:

 

Quote

 

Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

 30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. (2 Nephi 28:29-30)

 

 

[busybee]

13 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Using your definition of compassionate, chemotherapy is not compassionate either.

CNBC's program American Greed had an episode about a pharmacist who was widely considered to be compassionate.  His patients simply did not get sick when they were on chemotherapy.  Turns out the diabolical pharmacist was replacing the chemotherapy chemicals with tap water and selling the chemicals for cash.  His patients died of cancer.  He was given a long prison sentence as a reward for his compassionate efforts.

Do you want to be told that everyone goes to heaven?  Do you want the chemicals removed from your chemotherapy?  You do not want to get sick do you?

Like I told you before. When I find myself drowning or sick, you'll be the first I call. In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question to as to what you think I should have done with the drunk patient with the fractured ankle. I wait with baited breath to hear your pearls of wisdom.

[busybee]

13 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Using your definition of compassionate, chemotherapy is not compassionate either.

CNBC's program American Greed had an episode about a pharmacist who was widely considered to be compassionate.  His patients simply did not get sick when they were on chemotherapy.  Turns out the diabolical pharmacist was replacing the chemotherapy chemicals with tap water and selling the chemicals for cash.  His patients died of cancer.  He was given a long prison sentence as a reward for his compassionate efforts.

Do you want to be told that everyone goes to heaven?  Do you want the chemicals removed from your chemotherapy?  You do not want to get sick do you?

The drugs involved in chemotherapy are inanimate objects and, as such, are incapable of feeling or showing anything. This is a poor analogy, and quite offensive to those involved in the care of people receiving chemotherapy. They are some of the most compassionate people on the planet. Your analogy would suggest that they have no compassion.

Your aim here is to administer your version of 'spiritual chemotherapy' to us poor damned souls, right?

People have the choice whether they wish to receive chemotherapy or not, (Unless you think that they are tied down and force fed an intravenous cocktail of cytotoxic drugs).

You come in here all guns blazing and immediately cause people to want to reject what you are saying. It's the delivery that's the problem with you and others like you, not the treatment.

[thesometimesaint]

Jim Stiles is not RCC or  Orthodox. He is some variation of Protestant. Which didn't exist prior to 1517.

[Anakin7]

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 6:03 PM, Jim Stiles said:

"After all we can do" means what a reasonably educated 19th century man would have thought it meant.  It did not mean what FAIR or FARMS says it meant.  If Joseph Smith Jr. was thinking of another meaning, then he would have used different words.

    Just saw this after going back to begginings of this thread, missed it. Joseph Smith reasonably 19th century educated man ?, - 19th century frontier American with a 3rd grade education of which his wife Emma testified Joseph Smith could hardly write a coherent sentance during that time period. And why could it not mean what FARMS or FAIR say it does ?. He was translating an anchient text with anchient scriptural text meaning. And as with most critics who miss the context they get it wrong. What was "The all they could do" in context ?. He did not have to use different words  because its content was true and scriptural with Holy writ - Bible. Thank you for your polemic. May True Grace Be With You and those you Love.

In His Eternal Debt Grace

    Washing My Robes

             Anakin7