Lesson 17 - The Power of the Word - is the past still relevant for us today?

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

How is the word destruction in the phrase "and soon the destruction of the Church was complete" inaccurate
and unclear?  And why would the church, after all these years, finally decide to use the word dissolution
instead?

Dissolution is more accurate because it describes and implies unintentional breaking up as well as intentional where destruction tends to imply intent, someone or something is destroying the Church.  There were both intentional action as in persecution and unintentional as in loss of leadership, miscommunications and misunderstandings of teachings, etc.  There was actual destruction, but also areas where it fell apart because it lacked what was needed to hold it together (on going revelation for one).

The Church periodically updates and attempts to improve manuals.  I am going off of memory, but iirc they were working on simplifying quite a few manuals in the years before and after the GP manual got its revamp, moving to more use of scripture and less of quotes (except for the Presidents of the Church series that had been started a few years before.  The Book of Mormon institute manual was halved in size a few years before iirc.   My guess is they changed it to dissolution then because someone came up with the idea then. The latest version removed a lot of repetition and focused more on using scriptures were available instead of quotes from leaders.  It was meant to simplify as well as remove speculation.

[Calm]

 

54 minutes ago, theplains said:

Individual leaders were killed and were replaced from time to time.  But Christ's church was not
destroyed. He continued to build it.

That is accurate in your view, not ours.  Our manuals tend to be written from our POV.

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

That is accurate in your view, not ours.  Our manuals tend to be written from our POV.

Hear, hear. Certainly, there were faithful and legit remnants of the old guard for a while, and the priesthood was never officially disbanded. Though unless one were Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc, they must have apostatized eventually by Protestant times or they were wrong to separate from a legit priesthood.

If you are Roman Catholic, who'd argue that the near universal acceptance of a closed canon isn't proof that at least at some point the original authority that could make scripture went extinct? Or the loss of the office of Apostle isn't a sign of less inspired times?

In LDS view, if all the LDS Apostles died would be a problem, as the keys of the priesthood are issued from the top. So, like the Apostolic Church once it had no Apostles, lost the only office that had the keys of the kingdom and once the last Apostle, John, abandoned the church, would be the day the church lost the keys and the "power thereof". Though manifestations of the spirit and lesser doubts of inspiration may occur, its a conclusion based mostly on just looking to ourselves as the standard, then looking back on what might have gone wrong.

Edited June 15 by Pyreaux

[MiserereNobis]

15 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

If you are Roman Catholic, who'd argue that the near universal acceptance of a closed canon isn't proof that at least at some point the original authority that could make scripture went extinct?

The closed canon refers to not adding anything to the Bible. It does not mean that there is no longer any authority to teach. It also does not mean that there are no longer any truths to be "revealed" by those who have authority (in quotes because Catholics and LDS use this word differently, and I'm going with the LDS definition). For example, there have been 21 ecumenical councils over the past 2000 years that have taught and "revealed" doctrine and refuted heresy with authority and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The pope in 1950 infallibly decreed a new dogma by the authority of ex cathedra. The infallibility of an ex cathedra statement itself was not taught authoritatively until the First Vatican Council in 1870. The point here is that teachings are always been expanded, clarified, explained, "revealed."

The Catholic Church does have a closed canon, referring to the Bible, but it most certainly is not closed when it comes to teachings and "revelation," and these have to be pronounced by the proper Apostolic authority.

22 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Or the loss of the office of Apostle isn't a sign of less inspired times?

The office of Apostle was reserved for those who were physically present for Christ's teachings. The exact same authority is held by the bishops, who are their successors. That is why the Catholic Church is called "Apostolic." As far as being less inspired, please see above.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The closed canon refers to not adding anything to the Bible. It does not mean that there is no longer any authority to teach. It also does not mean that there are no longer any truths to be "revealed" by those who have authority (in quotes because Catholics and LDS use this word differently, and I'm going with the LDS definition). For example, there have been 21 ecumenical councils over the past 2000 years that have taught and "revealed" doctrine and refuted heresy with authority and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The pope in 1950 infallibly decreed a new dogma by the authority of ex cathedra. The infallibility of an ex cathedra statement itself was not taught authoritatively until the First Vatican Council in 1870. The point here is that teachings are always been expanded, clarified, explained, "revealed."

The Catholic Church does have a closed canon, referring to the Bible, but it most certainly is not closed when it comes to teachings and "revelation," and these have to be pronounced by the proper Apostolic authority.

The office of Apostle was reserved for those who were physically present for Christ's teachings. The exact same authority is held by the bishops, who are their successors. That is why the Catholic Church is called "Apostolic." As far as being less inspired, please see above.

It's seems a clear sign that some loss of original authorly (not all authority per se) occurred when the next generation and its Pope can't make new scripture. Paul wasn't present for Christ's teaching, the long dead and ascended Jesus simply returned to earth, and picks a non-Bishop to be an Apostle, and he writes a third of the New Testament. What stopped Roman Bishop Linus, who supposed to have Apostolic Succession, from making scripture of his own? I can't say I understand. How are the murders of all Apostolic scripture writing authorities not a great loss of some kind?

Edited June 15 by Pyreaux

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

It's seems a clear sign that some loss of original authorly (not all authority per se) occurred when the next generation and its Pope can't make new scripture. Paul wasn't present for Christ's teaching, the long dead and ascended Jesus simply returned to earth, and picks a non-Bishop to be an Apostle, and he writes a third of the New Testament. What stopped Roman Bishop Linus, who supposed to have Apostolic Succession, from making scripture of his own? I can't say I understand. How are the murders of all Apostolic scripture writing authorities not a great loss of some kind?

New scripture, new dogma, what's the difference in a name? It's all revealed truth. Just because the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is not directly in the Bible doesn't mean it's any less true or infallible since declared so in 1950. the Bible may be closed, but the Catholic Church also has tradition and the magisterium, which have given us 21 ecumenical council of revealed truth.

This is one of my points-of-interest (or pet peeve) when it comes to LDS claims of revelation. The Catholic Church pretty much has the same, at least as done in the LDS church since Joseph Smith. We just use different words.

When was the last time the LDS canon was added to? Isn't it like 99+% Joseph Smith?

[Pyreaux]

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

New scripture, new dogma, what's the difference in a name? It's all revealed truth. Just because the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is not directly in the Bible doesn't mean it's any less true or infallible since declared so in 1950. the Bible may be closed, but the Catholic Church also has tradition and the magisterium, which have given us 21 ecumenical council of revealed truth.

This is one of my points-of-interest (or pet peeve) when it comes to LDS claims of revelation. The Catholic Church pretty much has the same, at least as done in the LDS church since Joseph Smith. We just use different words.

When was the last time the LDS canon was added to? Isn't it like 99+% Joseph Smith?

The difference seems supposedly you can't supersede any past revelations whereas we can, it just doesn't seem to be on the same level. The rate of LDS scripture has certainly slowed (maybe the Great Condemnation is to blame, I suspect), but they still have added to it (Declaration 2), and in theory still Authoritatively can do so today if the lightning strikes.

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

Individual leaders were killed and were replaced from time to time.

What were the names of the apostles who replaced Peter and Paul after they were killed?

15 hours ago, theplains said:

They do
not need to be organized like the LDS church with 12 or 15 apostles, quorums, or collection of high priests.

Do you believe Ephesians 4:11-14 is wrong when it says the apostles and prophets are to continue until all come to a unity of the faith?

Do you believe that Ephesians 4:11-14 is wrong when it says the apostles and prophets (and other leaders) are to prevent the church from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine"?

Do you believe there have been no changes in doctrine since the apostles were killed, and all Christians teach the same original doctrines today?  Or do you believe Christian denominations are diverse enough today that they could be described as being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine"?

15 hours ago, theplains said:

We have only one high priest.

You are repeating yourself again.  So I ask again:  How do you become kings and priests unto God as it says in Revelation 1:6?

[marineland]

On 6/12/2023 at 9:13 PM, teddyaware said:

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection : on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20)

Is this a reference to those who are exalted (D&C 76:54-58)?

[theplains]

On 6/16/2023 at 1:25 AM, InCognitus said:

What were the names of the apostles who replaced Peter and Paul after they were killed?

We don't have that record.  All we know is that Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot to get them back
to 12.  Then James, the brother of Christ, is listed as another apostle (Galatians 1:19), and so is
Barnabas (Acts 14:14).  There wasn't a set of 15 with one president and two counsellors. 

In the Book of Mormon itself, none of the Nephite disciples was ever referred to as an apostle.  But
if you accept what is mentioned in the GotQuestions article below, they might be.

GotQuestions - What is an Apostle opens the premise that there are two types of apostles. Based
on one of the types mentioned, there are many more than just 12 apostles in Christ's church today.
 

On 6/16/2023 at 1:25 AM, InCognitus said:

1] Do you believe Ephesians 4:11-14 is wrong when it says the apostles and prophets are to continue until all come to a unity of the faith?

2] Do you believe that Ephesians 4:11-14 is wrong when it says the apostles and prophets (and other leaders) are to prevent the church from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine"?

3] Do you believe there have been no changes in doctrine since the apostles were killed, and all Christians teach the same original doctrines today?  Or do you believe Christian denominations are diverse enough today that they could be described as being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine"?

1] Based on the GotQuestions article, I would say apostles and prophets would continue.  

2] False apostles and false prophets have arisen to teach a false gospel and a false God/Christ. Church leaders
mention this as they teach through the scriptures.  For example, worshipping the JW version of Jesus (i.e. Michael
the Archangel) does not lead to salvation.  In the LDS case, I don't worship the God Joseph Smith espoused - a
man who became a god on some other world, peopled this earth with his wives, and was/is worshipped by his
spirit children.

3] I would say all key doctrines are contained in the Bible and those should be taught today.  The Christian
denominations (even sects found under the LDS umbrella) have their own practices/teachings that caused enough
of a rift to have them form their own branch.  I would lump JW and the SDA almost in the same fold based on 
their teachings about the nature of Christ.  I am not aware of any other group besides the LDS who believe Jesus
was the first child of heavenly parents who became a god in his pre-mortal life.

[InCognitus]

23 minutes ago, theplains said:

We don't have that record.  All we know is that Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot to get them back
to 12.

So the New Testament does describe a need to have 12 apostles, apparently.   

The apostle James was martyred in Acts 12:1-2, and in Acts 13:1-4, Paul and Barnabas were called and set apart as apostles (Acts 14:14).  So there was an ongoing effort to replace the 12.

24 minutes ago, theplains said:

GotQuestions - What is an Apostle opens the premise that there are two types of apostles. Based
on one of the types mentioned, there are many more than just 12 apostles in Christ's church today.

Yes, but that would be a very false premise.  The article says:  "In a sense, all followers of Jesus Christ are called to be apostles. We are all to be His ambassadors (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). We are all to be “ones who are sent out” (Acts 1:8). We are all to be preachers of the good news (Romans 10:15)."   

That directly contradicts what the Bible teaches about apostles:   "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor 12:28)  And he continues in the next verse by making it clear that "all" are not apostles, by asking "Are all apostles?  are all prophets?  are all teachers?..."   The answer to that is no. 

Paul makes it clear that this is a calling from God, and God has "set" them "in the church" as his leadership.  And this is the very same list that Paul uses in Ephesians 4:11-14, where he says that apostles and prophets are to continue until all "come to a unity of the faith".

21 minutes ago, theplains said:

1] Based on the GotQuestions article, I would say apostles and prophets would continue. 

Paul said the foundation of the church is built upon the apostles and prophets.  Who are the apostles and prophets today that are the foundation of the church?  (And don't say "everyone", because the Bible says that's not correct).

49 minutes ago, theplains said:

2] False apostles and false prophets have arisen to teach a false gospel and a false God/Christ. Church leaders
mention this as they teach through the scriptures. 

Wouldn't those false apostles be like those who claim that "all" are apostles?  

1 hour ago, theplains said:

3] I would say all key doctrines are contained in the Bible and those should be taught today. The Christian
denominations (even sects found under the LDS umbrella) have their own practices/teachings that caused enough
of a rift to have them form their own branch. 

But that doesn't even address the question.  Even if we assume that all key doctrines are contained in the Bible, does that mean that everyone interprets the Bible in exactly the same way?  Does that mean that everyone has the exact same interpretation of the Bible as the original Christians in the New Testament?   You seem to be implying that there are rifts in Christian teachings (without fully admitting it), so the answer to that question is a solid NO. 

Do you believe Christian denominations are diverse enough today that they could be described as being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine"?  

[telnetd]

On 6/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, InCognitus said:

but there were still some sincere believers in Christ around (they were just misguided because there was no authorized leadership around to guide them).

That is what the LDS church would like non-LDS christians to believe.

On 6/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Matthew 16:18 says that the "gates of hell [hades] shall not prevail against" the church.   What is "hades" and what is the purpose of its gates?  Are the gates of hades supposed to be used as a weapon against the church?  Or does the gate serve some other purpose to the realm of hades?  Do you know the difference between hades and gehenna in the New Testament?

I see this passage as Christ's church advancing / attacking the gates of hell in a metaphorical sense and
being victorious.

On 6/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, InCognitus said:

The bottom line?  No, the LDS church has never taught that the gates of hades have prevailed against the church

But it has taught that the church of Christ was destroyed.

On 6/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, InCognitus said:

So how do you become kings and priests unto God in Revelation 1:6?

By faith; coming forth in the first resurrection, not to suffer the second death.

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I see this passage as Christ's church advancing / attacking the gates of hell in a metaphorical sense and
being victorious.

Uh, like they're trying to get out of hades?

9 minutes ago, telnetd said:

On 6/12/2023 at 6:16 PM, InCognitus said:

The bottom line?  No, the LDS church has never taught that the gates of hades have prevailed against the church

But it has taught that the church of Christ was destroyed.

The organization of the church (the apostles and prophets) was destroyed and the keys were taken along with it, and therefore the church as it was originally organized and governed ceased to exist, yes.

9 minutes ago, telnetd said:

On 6/12/2023 at 6:16 PM, InCognitus said:

So how do you become kings and priests unto God in Revelation 1:6?

By faith; coming forth in the first resurrection, not to suffer the second death.

So there are other priests after all.  It's good to know you believe in other priests too.

Edited June 19 by InCognitus

[telnetd]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Uh, like they're trying to get out of hades?

Like the gates of hell being overcome by Christ's growing and advancing church.  That is
how I understand the imagery.

 

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

So there are other priests after all.  It's good to know you believe in other priests too.

Yes. Females in our church are part of the royal priesthood of believers. We have authority
from Christ to baptize new believers. We don't need the approval from our male elders.

Edited June 19 by telnetd

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Uh, like they're trying to get out of hades?

Like the gates of hell being overcome by Christ's growing and advancing church.  That is
how I understand the imagery.

I don't understand what you are saying.  The gates of hades are to keep people inside hades.  So are you saying the church is growing in hades and breaks open the gates because it is growing and advancing so much in hades?

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Yes. Females in our church are part of the royal priesthood of believers. We have authority
from Christ to baptize new believers. We don't need the approval from our male elders.

So essentially you (and any Christian) can do whatever you want without any leadership or authority.  Doesn't that also lead to the possibility of "every wind of doctrine"?

[telnetd]

On 6/19/2023 at 5:49 PM, InCognitus said:

I don't understand what you are saying.  The gates of hades are to keep people inside hades.  So are you saying the church is growing in hades and breaks open the gates because it is growing and advancing so much in hades?

The church of Christ was growing that not even the gates of hell would prevail against its advance.

 

On 6/19/2023 at 5:49 PM, InCognitus said:

So essentially you (and any Christian) can do whatever you want without any leadership or authority.  Doesn't that also lead to the possibility of "every wind of doctrine"?

We have leadership above us.  But women are authorized to baptized without their approval. For example, if
someone made a profession in Christ and wanted to be baptized by me, I would not need to seek an approval
from a male elder in the church. Jesus already gave me authority.

[Jaydes]

On 5/31/2023 at 9:23 AM, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 17 of the manual (Religion 275).  I did not have any queries for lessons 15 and 16.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/12557_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Page 79 - students will be reminded that as they study and abide by the words of prophets, 
they can receive power to overcome Satan, navigate their way through mortality, and
eventually obtain eternal life.

"We owe [a great] debt to those who faithfully recorded and preserved the word through the 
ages, often with painstaking labor and sacrifice—Moses, Isaiah, Abraham, John, Paul, Nephi, 
Mormon, Joseph Smith, and many others. What did they know about the importance of scriptures 
that we also need to know?" ("The Blessing of Scripture," Ensign or Liahona, May 2010, 32).

I can admire this sentiment but I see a derogatory statement of past scriptures by Joseph 
Smith and Brigham Young in one of their past talks.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16?lang=eng

"Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, 'Brother Brigham, I want you to take 
the stand and tell us your views with regard to the [living] oracles and the written word of 
God.' Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book 
of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down 
before him, and he said: 'There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God 
from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now, said he, 'when compared with the 
living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct 
to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and 
generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.' That was 
the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: 'Brother 
Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.' "

Is the Book of Mormon really nothing to present day Latter-day Saints even when they have a
living prophet?  Personally, I put great importance and faith in the ancient scriptures. They still
convey the word of God directly to me.

How about you?

I'm highly suspicious of this account. It contradicts the well documented public teachings of Joseph, it plainly isn't even true, and it sounds like just the thing the Brethren of the Secret Priesthood typically fabricated to centralize their authority.

Regardless of if he did actually say it, I disagree. The Bible (properly translated), Book of Mormon (1830), and the Book of Doctrine (Lectures on Faith) and Covenants (Revelations) are what all other revelations must be judged by, and even but one of these books alone is all that is necessary for salvation.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

The church of Christ was growing that not even the gates of hell would prevail against its advance.

Remember, the word translated as "hell" is hades, so that would be the grave or the place of the dead.  So are you saying the church is trying to get into hades and the gates of hades won't keep them out?  Or what are you saying exactly?

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Jesus already gave me authority.

How or where did Jesus give you that authority?  By reading the Bible?  Or how?

[theplains]

On 6/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, InCognitus said:

1] What exactly is a "true" believer?  A believer in "true" doctrine?  Or a sincere believer in Christ?   If the latter, I agree with you. 

2] Those who sincerely believe in Christ and try to follow him comprise the "body" of Christ.  And since it is by their actions and caring for others that their love for the Savior is manifest to others, it's not really "invisible" in that regard.  

3] But Christ's church was "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:19-22), and the offices of apostles and prophets (and evangelists, pastors, and teachers) were intended to continue in the church until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man", so that we will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:11-14).  With most of the foundation removed, it would no longer be an organized body of believers, and people could go off on their own interpretation of doctrines.  So with no authorized leadership of the church at that time, is that what you mean by an "invisible" body?

4] Matthew 16:18 says that the "gates of hell [hades] shall not prevail against" the church.   What is "hades" and what is the purpose of its gates?  Are the gates of hades supposed to be used as a weapon against the church?  Or does the gate serve some other purpose to the realm of hades?  Do you know the difference between hades and gehenna in the New Testament?  

5] So when Jesus says that the gates of the realm of the dead will not prevail against the church, he's not saying the church will never die or be destroyed, he's saying that death will not have power over the church, and the gates of the grave will not prevail against it.

6] So how do you become kings and priests unto God in Revelation 1:6?

1] 
I would not diminish the importance of believing in true doctrine, but I would say a 
sincere believer in Christ. 

A “sincere believer in Christ” means different things to different people. Jehovah’s 
Witnesses have a sincere belief in Jesus (Michael the Archangel). Muslims have a 
sincere belief in Jesus (only a prophet). Latter-day Saints, from what I have read, 
believe in a Jesus who is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. 

People may have a sincere faith and give sincere worship to a man who they believe 
became a God (as is Joseph Smith’s Heavenly Father), but they are sincerely wrong.
 

2]
I agree with you about invisibility in that regard.  But I had those in mind whose 
works (loving and caring for others in a place like Japan) are not visible to us in 
the West unless they are broadcasted.

Even though Jehovah’s Witnesses perform many good works, I do not view the
as the “body of Christ”.  If you ask a JW for an honest opinion, they will tell you that 
everyone who is not a JW is also not part of the “body of Christ”.  Roman Catholics 
would also say there is no salvation outside their church.

Comparing the LDS with other Christian groups, its obvious that a different God and 
gospel are preached. Interestingly enough, Watchtower teachings only classify 144,000 
as members of the true church.

3]
Suppose I belonged to a church in my city and it was the only one. Now suppose all 
the leadership died and only 2 members of the church survived. The church would still 
exist because the foundation is still there.  With the Holy Spirit guiding and Jesus 
building, the two will grow by evangelism.

We’re not like a Borg collective where a First Presidency and his Two Counsellors 
could die and then we have no leadership.

4]
I don’t want to get into a theological discussion on the difference between the two.  
I just see Jesus using a metaphor saying that his church is on the offence. It cannot 
be destroyed because he is building it.  It’s possible that hell has real gates like the
city of Jerusalem has real walls or maybe the gates are symbolic.

5]
I agree. Death will have no power over the church so the church cannot die; it cannot 
be destroyed. But Jesus is not talking about the realm of physical death (the grave) 
affecting the church when he said the gates of hell will not prevail.  It has to do with
the context of the first part of the verse – the fact that Jesus is building his church.
Death has no power over the church because Jesus defeated death. The symbolism 
Jesus is using here depicts the church advancing against the enemy, not the enemy 
advancing towards the church.

6]
We become so by faith in Christ, enduring to the end, and being in the first 
resurrection – on whom the second death has no power.  This group of kings and priests 
also includes women (queens and priestesses in other words). This is the royal 
priesthood of believers Peter talks about in 1 Peter 5.

[theplains]

On 6/19/2023 at 12:21 PM, InCognitus said:

1] So the New Testament does describe a need to have 12 apostles, apparently.   

The apostle James was martyred in Acts 12:1-2, and in Acts 13:1-4, Paul and Barnabas were called and set apart as apostles (Acts 14:14).  So there was an ongoing effort to replace the 12.

2] Yes, but that would be a very false premise.  The article says:  "In a sense, all followers of Jesus Christ are called to be apostles. We are all to be His ambassadors (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). We are all to be “ones who are sent out” (Acts 1:8). We are all to be preachers of the good news (Romans 10:15)."   

That directly contradicts what the Bible teaches about apostles:   "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor 12:28)  And he continues in the next verse by making it clear that "all" are not apostles, by asking "Are all apostles?  are all prophets?  are all teachers?..."   The answer to that is no. 

Paul makes it clear that this is a calling from God, and God has "set" them "in the church" as his leadership.  And this is the very same list that Paul uses in Ephesians 4:11-14, where he says that apostles and prophets are to continue until all "come to a unity of the faith".

3] Paul said the foundation of the church is built upon the apostles and prophets.  Who are the apostles and prophets today that are the foundation of the church?  (And don't say "everyone", because the Bible says that's not correct).

4] Wouldn't those false apostles be like those who claim that "all" are apostles?  

5] But that doesn't even address the question.  Even if we assume that all key doctrines are contained in the Bible, does that mean that everyone interprets the Bible in exactly the same way?  Does that mean that everyone has the exact same interpretation of the Bible as the original Christians in the New Testament?   You seem to be implying that there are rifts in Christian teachings (without fully admitting it), so the answer to that question is a solid NO. 

6] Do you believe Christian denominations are diverse enough today that they could be described as being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine"?  

1]

As the church grew, there was no need to maintain a constant number of 12 apostles (or 15 apostle
like you have in the LDS church).  

Revelation 21:14 says, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve
names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”.

What do you believe are these names?

2]

The article’s premise is that “apostle” can be interpreted in two cases. For example, no one on earth
today has the sign gifts of the Apostles in the New Testament. It depends on which you apply to make
your case.  I don't apply the term 'apostle' loosely.

3]

The foundation was never destroyed so it does not need to be rebuilt again. We don’t need to have 15
apostles like the LDS church does.

4]

The article’s premise is that an apostle can have more than one meaning.  Not all can be pastors, apostles,
evangelists, etc.  If an ‘apostle’ can mean ambassador, then all can be apostles.  But I think Paul’s statement
had more to do with ‘apostles’ who have those special and powerful sign gifts.

Would you consider the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches as false apostles?  If
yes, why?  If no, who are the false apostles that Paul was referring to?

5] Christian denominations (even LDS sects) understand passages differently. So yes, there are rifts. The
FLDS regard the main group as apostates for their stance on polygamy. If I am not mistaken, the Community
of Christ also regard the main group as apostates in regards to some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants.

6]

For sure. One such doctrine is that salvation is only found in one physically identifiable church.  Another doctrine
that causes people to be tossed to and fro is that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God.  

Another doctrine (as the one just mentioned) was present in the older version of Gospel Principles but it too was
masked/omitted from the current version.  It’s found in the chapter on exaltation (page 302).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
2. They will become gods.
3. They will have their righteous family members with them
and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit
children will have the same relationship to them as we do
to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and
Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. 

Point #3 implies male Latter-day Saints (who become Gods) will be worshipped by their spirit
children just like Heavenly Father of Earth (once a man who became a God) was in turn
worshipped by his spirit children.

[InCognitus]

On 6/22/2023 at 7:44 AM, theplains said:

1] 
I would not diminish the importance of believing in true doctrine, but I would say a 
sincere believer in Christ. 

A “sincere believer in Christ” means different things to different people.

You say that a “true believer” is a “sincere believer in Christ”, but then you make it all about doctrine in everything else that you say.  Everyone believes in different things about Jesus depending on the information they’ve been given about him.  Some of the things that people teach about Jesus may even be unbiblical, even in traditional creed-based Christianity.

While I think that sound doctrine is important, I don’t think there’s anything in scripture that says having faulty doctrine disqualifies a person from being a true believer in Christ.  We previously discussed Apollos and how he was a true believer in Christ even though he had an imperfect understanding of the doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).  God judges us based on how we respond to what truths we’ve been given and how we treat our neighbors.  Our real belief in Christ is known by our love for one another.  

A true Christian not only professes belief in the Savior, but a Christian lives and acts according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ.  Knowing true doctrine helps us to come to know God better.  But true doctrine can only be known by revelation from God and having a correct understanding of the scriptures which can only come by revelation from God.  People can come up with their own interpretation of scriptures based on philosophy and man’s wisdom and reasoning, but the end result may not be anything like what God intended.  God’s wisdom comes through the Spirit of God.

The one thing I like about the “Got Questions” website that you like, is that it is is fairly honest and open about when some teachings aren’t biblical.  For example, in this article on “Does Christ have two natures?”, it says right up front:  “The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one.”   So why do people believe it?  And if you believe that Christ has two natures, are you believing in a "different Jesus"?

And in the article on What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?  it says:  

“The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential.”

And elsewhere, in the article on "How can Jesus be God if Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one?", the website defines how Jesus and his Father are "one God", and says:  

Quote

First, it is crucial to understand what Deuteronomy 6:4 means when it says, “LORD is one.” The Hebrew word translated “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is echad. It means “unity,” not “singularity.” It is also used in Genesis 2:24 in referring to a husband and wife being “one” flesh. A husband and wife are not one as in a singular being. Rather, they are in unity with each other. There is a Hebrew word that means “absolute singularity,” yachid, but it is never used in the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to God.

With that said, it is important to affirm the biblical teaching of one God. From the very first words of Scripture, we are told there is only one God who created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). The controversy is not whether there is only one God versus two gods. The discussion is how Christians understand Jesus as this one true God. Christians believe that the Bible presents one God who exists in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict Deuteronomy 6:4. As was said above, the Hebrew word echad means “unity,” not “singularity.” Christians believe the Persons of the Trinity are united in the Godhead.

So the website clearly teaches that the Father and Son are not one in singularity, but rather they are two separate entities that are one in unity, in the same way as a husband and wife are to be in unity.  This is exactly what Latter-day Saints teach about the Godhead as well.  And apparently (according to the website), the other issues are "debatable and non-essential".

Since there are so many things in traditional Christian doctrine that don't really come from scripture at all, I don't see why these are points of contention between us.

On 6/22/2023 at 7:44 AM, theplains said:

3]
Suppose I belonged to a church in my city and it was the only one. Now suppose all 
the leadership died and only 2 members of the church survived. The church would still 
exist because the foundation is still there.  With the Holy Spirit guiding and Jesus 
building, the two will grow by evangelism.

But that's not how Paul portrayed the foundation of the church as being "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:19-22)  Clearly he was talking about living apostles and prophets, because they were still living, and there was an intentional calling of new apostles to replace those who died, as has been shown.

Regarding the difference between hades and gehenna, you said:

On 6/22/2023 at 7:44 AM, theplains said:

4]
I don’t want to get into a theological discussion on the difference between the two.  
I just see Jesus using a metaphor saying that his church is on the offence. It cannot 
be destroyed because he is building it.  It’s possible that hell has real gates like the
city of Jerusalem has real walls or maybe the gates are symbolic.

But that's not what the gates of hades are for.  

If you read the Got Questions? website article on "What are the gates of hell?", it says "The phrase the 'gates of hell' is translated in some versions as the 'gates of Hades.' 'Gates of hell' or 'gates of Hades' is found only once in the entire Scriptures, in Matthew 16:18. "   

The first part is accurate (it's what I said before), but the last part is not entirely true.  The phrase "Gates of Hades" is also found in the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 38:10:  "I shall go to the gates of Hades; I shall forsake the remainder of my years", and the "gatekeepers of Hades" are referenced in the Septuagint of Job 25:17, which is Job 38:17 in the KJV.  All of this backs up the theme of Matthew 16:18, which is that the "gates of hades" are the gates of the death and the grave.   

On 6/22/2023 at 7:44 AM, theplains said:

5]
I agree. Death will have no power over the church so the church cannot die; it cannot 
be destroyed. But Jesus is not talking about the realm of physical death (the grave) 
affecting the church when he said the gates of hell will not prevail.  It has to do with
the context of the first part of the verse – the fact that Jesus is building his church.
Death has no power over the church because Jesus defeated death. The symbolism 
Jesus is using here depicts the church advancing against the enemy, not the enemy 
advancing towards the church.

There is nothing in what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 to imply that the church cannot die or that there would be no apostasy.  And it can't be "destroyed" permanently because Jesus has power over death.

As it says in the Got Questions article:  

"Jesus refers here to His impending death. Though He would be crucified and buried, He would rise from the dead and build His church. Jesus is emphasizing the fact that the powers of death could not hold Him in. Not only would the church be established in spite of the powers of Hades or hell, but the church would thrive in spite of these powers. The church will never fail, though generation after generation succumbs to the power of physical death, yet other generations will arise to perpetuate the church."

The church 

And:

"It is clear that Jesus was declaring that death has no power to hold God’s people captive. Its gates are not strong enough to overpower and keep imprisoned the church of God. The Lord has conquered death (Romans 8:2; Acts 2:24). And because “death no longer is master over Him” (Romans 6:9), it is no longer master over those who belong to Him."

Note that it does not say that the body cannot die, and in fact it says that Jesus would die and so would the rest of the body of Christ (believers).  But "death has no power to hold God's people captive", it won't permanently hold them.  The death of the church was temporary, as there was a restoration of the gospel, a resurrection from the dead, and it will triumph in the end.

On 6/22/2023 at 7:44 AM, theplains said:

6]
We become so by faith in Christ, enduring to the end, and being in the first 
resurrection – on whom the second death has no power.  This group of kings and priests 
also includes women (queens and priestesses in other words).

Then you do believe there are other priests.  That's good to know.  That's what I was trying to determine, since you seemed to imply that there were no longer any priests but one.

On 6/22/2023 at 7:44 AM, theplains said:

This is the royal 
priesthood of believers Peter talks about in 1 Peter 5.

1 Peter 5 only mentions that some in the church are elders who watch over the flock of God:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Peter 5:1–2)

This disproves the "priesthood of believers" in general, really, since only some of them are called to be elders and to watch over the flock.

I think you might be thinking of 1 Peter 2:5-10, but even those verses are not talking about an assumed priesthood of all believers, because Peter is quoting from Exodus 19:5-6 of the Septuagint:  

"And now if ye will indeed hear my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel."  (LXX, Exodus 19:5-6)

So when Peter says in 1 Peter 2:5-10 that "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ", and "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God", he's not saying that "all believers" assume that priesthood simply by believing anymore than he was saying that of the priesthood held by Israel.  And at the time of Exodus 19, the Levitical priesthood didn't even exist yet, but there were priests of God (i.e. Exo 2:16-3:1, 18:10-12, Exo 19:22-24).  It wasn't an assume priesthood them, and it isn't now. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

You say that a “true believer” is a “sincere believer in Christ”, but then you make it all about doctrine in everything else that you say.  Everyone believes in different things about Jesus depending on the information they’ve been given about him.  Some of the things that people teach about Jesus may even be unbiblical, even in traditional creed-based Christianity.

While I think that sound doctrine is important, I don’t think there’s anything in scripture that says having faulty doctrine disqualifies a person from being a true believer in Christ.  We previously discussed Apollos and how he was a true believer in Christ even though he had an imperfect understanding of the doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).  God judges us based on how we respond to what truths we’ve been given and how we treat our neighbors.  Our real belief in Christ is known by our love for one another.  

A true Christian not only professes belief in the Savior, but a Christian lives and acts according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ.  Knowing true doctrine helps us to come to know God better.  But true doctrine can only be known by revelation from God and having a correct understanding of the scriptures which can only come by revelation from God.  People can come up with their own interpretation of scriptures based on philosophy and man’s wisdom and reasoning, but the end result may not be anything like what God intended.  God’s wisdom comes through the Spirit of God.

The one thing I like about the “Got Questions” website that you like, is that it is is fairly honest and open about when some teachings aren’t biblical.  For example, in this article on “Does Christ have two natures?”, it says right up front:  “The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one.”   So why do people believe it?  And if you believe that Christ has two natures, are you believing in a "different Jesus"?

And in the article on What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?  it says:  

“The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential.”

And elsewhere, in the article on "How can Jesus be God if Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one?", the website defines how Jesus and his Father are "one God", and says:  

So the website clearly teaches that the Father and Son are not one in singularity, but rather they are two separate entities that are one in unity, in the same way as a husband and wife are to be in unity.  This is exactly what Latter-day Saints teach about the Godhead as well.  And apparently (according to the website), the other issues are "debatable and non-essential".

Since there are so many things in traditional Christian doctrine that don't really come from scripture at all, I don't see why these are points of contention between us.

But that's not how Paul portrayed the foundation of the church as being "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:19-22)  Clearly he was talking about living apostles and prophets, because they were still living, and there was an intentional calling of new apostles to replace those who died, as has been shown.

Regarding the difference between hades and gehenna, you said:

But that's not what the gates of hades are for.  

If you read the Got Questions? website article on "What are the gates of hell?", it says "The phrase the 'gates of hell' is translated in some versions as the 'gates of Hades.' 'Gates of hell' or 'gates of Hades' is found only once in the entire Scriptures, in Matthew 16:18. "   

The first part is accurate (it's what I said before), but the last part is not entirely true.  The phrase "Gates of Hades" is also found in the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 38:10:  "I shall go to the gates of Hades; I shall forsake the remainder of my years", and the "gatekeepers of Hades" are referenced in the Septuagint of Job 25:17, which is Job 38:17 in the KJV.  All of this backs up the theme of Matthew 16:18, which is that the "gates of hades" are the gates of the death and the grave.   

There is nothing in what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 to imply that the church cannot die or that there would be no apostasy.  And it can't be "destroyed" permanently because Jesus has power over death.

As it says in the Got Questions article:  

"Jesus refers here to His impending death. Though He would be crucified and buried, He would rise from the dead and build His church. Jesus is emphasizing the fact that the powers of death could not hold Him in. Not only would the church be established in spite of the powers of Hades or hell, but the church would thrive in spite of these powers. The church will never fail, though generation after generation succumbs to the power of physical death, yet other generations will arise to perpetuate the church."

The church 

And:

"It is clear that Jesus was declaring that death has no power to hold God’s people captive. Its gates are not strong enough to overpower and keep imprisoned the church of God. The Lord has conquered death (Romans 8:2; Acts 2:24). And because “death no longer is master over Him” (Romans 6:9), it is no longer master over those who belong to Him."

Note that it does not say that the body cannot die, and in fact it says that Jesus would die and so would the rest of the body of Christ (believers).  But "death has no power to hold God's people captive", it won't permanently hold them.  The death of the church was temporary, as there was a restoration of the gospel, a resurrection from the dead, and it will triumph in the end.

Then you do believe there are other priests.  That's good to know.  That's what I was trying to determine, since you seemed to imply that there were no longer any priests but one.

1 Peter 5 only mentions that some in the church are elders who watch over the flock of God:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Peter 5:1–2)

This disproves the "priesthood of believers" in general, really, since only some of them are called to be elders and to watch over the flock.

I think you might be thinking of 1 Peter 2:5-10, but even those verses are not talking about an assumed priesthood of all believers, because Peter is quoting from Exodus 19:5-6 of the Septuagint:  

"And now if ye will indeed hear my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel."  (LXX, Exodus 19:5-6)

So when Peter says in 1 Peter 2:5-10 that "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ", and "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God", he's not saying that "all believers" assume that priesthood simply by believing anymore than he was saying that of the priesthood held by Israel.  And at the time of Exodus 19, the Levitical priesthood didn't even exist yet, but there were priests of God (i.e. Exo 2:16-3:1, 18:10-12, Exo 19:22-24).  It wasn't an assume priesthood them, and it isn't now. 

Don’t you think the expression “priesthood of all believers” is an apt description of the priesthood organization as it exists today in the Lord’s restored church? After all, all male members of the church have a right to have the priesthood of Christ conferred upon them if they are deemed worthy, and every worthy female member has the right to be endowed with powers that are integral to that holy priesthood, including the right to legally officiate in the higher gospel ordinances of the temple. This is why both Peter and John testify that under the new covenant all worthy male believers have a right to be ordained to Christ’s royal priesthood, which is God’s holy authority that empowers all the faithful to be crowned, enthroned, and reign with Christ as kings and priests throughout eternity. And the Latter-Day Saints add even more heft to the expression ‘priesthood of all believers’ by affirming that all worthy women will become queens and priestesses in eternity.

Finally, our critics can’t have it both ways by claiming there is a priesthood of all believers while simultaneously insisting that Christ is the only ordained king and priest in eternity. The scriptures clearly teach otherwise. The prefix ‘Mel’ in the name Melchizedek means ‘a king,’ and John affirms that there will be many crowned and enthroned kings in eternity, Christ being foremost among them as the King of Kings.

Edited June 24 by teddyaware

[InCognitus]

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

1]

As the church grew, there was no need to maintain a constant number of 12 apostles (or 15 apostle
like you have in the LDS church).

There was "no need" to do it because all were "in the unity of the faith"?  No need to speak out against those after Diotrephes, Philetus, Hymenaeus, the Nicolaitans, the Ebionites, the Montanists, the Arians, the Donatists, the Nestorianites, and so on and so on?

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

Revelation 21:14 says, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve
names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”.

What do you believe are these names?

Just as there are twelve gates with the names of the tribes of Israel, there are twelve foundations with the names of the original twelve apostles.  This doesn't mean other apostles were not called to replace those that were killed, however, such as when Paul and Barnabas were called after James was killed (and others not named).

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

2]

The article’s premise is that “apostle” can be interpreted in two cases. For example, no one on earth
today has the sign gifts of the Apostles in the New Testament. It depends on which you apply to make
your case.  I don't apply the term 'apostle' loosely.

The problem with that premise is that Paul used the exact same offices of "apostles" and "prophets" and "teachers" in 1 Corinthians 12:9, where he is making the case that not everyone is an apostle or prophet or teacher, as he did in Ephesians 4:11-14, where he said that "apostles" and "prophets" and "teachers" are intended be for the "perfecting of the saints" and "edifying of the body of Christ", and would need to continue until "all come to a unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God", so that we "henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine".  Not everyone is that kind of an apostle, and so the article's premise is false, and according to those verses we should still have apostles and prophets to lead the church.

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

3]

The foundation was never destroyed so it does not need to be rebuilt again. We don’t need to have 15
apostles like the LDS church does.

Why don't you need apostles to lead you?  Is it really out of need, or is it desire? 

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

4]

The article’s premise is that an apostle can have more than one meaning.  Not all can be pastors, apostles,
evangelists, etc.  If an ‘apostle’ can mean ambassador, then all can be apostles.  But I think Paul’s statement
had more to do with ‘apostles’ who have those special and powerful sign gifts.

As shown above, the list in 1 Corinthians 12:28 where it names those that "God hath set some in the church" goes hand in hand with the list in Ephesians 4:11-14.  So you can't use "everyone can be apostles" to try to get around where Paul says these offices are to continue until all come to a unity of the faith, because Paul says not everyone is that kind of apostle and God has to "set" them in the church.  And clearly the list in Eph 4:11-14 is for leadership, or otherwise why would that list apply to not being tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine?  Without the apostles and prophets it's like a ship without a rudder.

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

Would you consider the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches as false apostles?  If
yes, why?  If no, who are the false apostles that Paul was referring to?

No, the Catholics or Greek Orthodox churches have no offices of apostles.  So they would not qualify as false apostles. 

The false apostles are named in 2 Corinthians 11:12-13, and Revelation 2:2:  "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" (Revelation 2:2).

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

5] Christian denominations (even LDS sects) understand passages differently. So yes, there are rifts. The
FLDS regard the main group as apostates for their stance on polygamy. If I am not mistaken, the Community
of Christ also regard the main group as apostates in regards to some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Yes, there are many interpretations of scripture.  And even Christ's church in New Testament times had many schisms breaking off from it while the apostles were still alive (like those who would walk no more with Jesus [John 6:66], early schisms of Apollos or Cephas [1 Cor 1:11-14], those after Hymenaeus [1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17], those after Alexander [1 Tim 1:20], and Phygellus and Hermogenes [2 Tim 1:15], etc. etc.).  But the apostles were there to point out the problems and correct the false teachings (unlike what happened after the apostles were all killed or removed). 

On 6/22/2023 at 8:54 AM, theplains said:

6]

For sure.

I'm glad you recognize that there is "every wind of doctrine" in Christianity, but don't you see that it is because the apostles and prophets were killed and every man had their own way with scripture instead of being governed by the leadership set up by Christ?  

[telnetd]

On 6/21/2023 at 11:54 AM, InCognitus said:

Remember, the word translated as "hell" is hades, so that would be the grave or the place of the dead.  So are you saying the church is trying to get into hades and the gates of hades won't keep them out?  Or what are you saying exactly?

How or where did Jesus give you that authority?  By reading the Bible?  Or how?

I was summarizing by saying the church could not be destroyed.

Jesus gave men and women the authority in Matthew 28:18-20.

[InCognitus]

19 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I was summarizing by saying the church could not be destroyed.

Saying the church could not be destroyed is not the same as saying it would never fall into apostasy.  Obviously the church has not been destroyed because it has been restored.  But for a time the organization was destroyed, and the gates of hades have not prevailed against it because it has been brought back into full function.

21 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Jesus gave men and women the authority in Matthew 28:18-20.

Start at verse 16 to get the context (because you really wouldn't want to take this verse out of context):

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:16–20)

I don't see where Jesus is giving all men and women authority in these verses, do you?