The LDS members and the Kingdom of God

[_Franktalk]

I have been studying the apostate church for years now. The data I am posting is but a small part of the data I have gathered. Here is part two.

As more people joined the church there were more questions and more interpretations of men. One of the best examples of this kind of thinking comes from Tertullian in the date range of 197 to 220 AD. He came up with the term trinity. But he thought of the relationship between the Father, Christ, and Holy Ghost as a monarchy with the Father as the leader. He thought of the trinity as one but separate but his details differ in what is accepted as the trinity today. There exist a bunch of his writings covering many subjects; but it is clear that these are thought projects. Here is a sample from Against Praxeas:

From Chapter 2

"As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

This one is really a great read. Not so much because it is truth but it shows the confusion that existed at the time and the efforts to shore up doctrine. Much later other men use his term “trinity” but not his ideas of a monarchy. Here is the link:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian17.html

The idea of Tertullian of the trinity rest on the notion that they can not be divided. The Godhead exist as three persons but their condition, substance, power, are one but their degree, form, aspect are seen as three. But this whole idea falls apart when we consider the following scripture.

Mat 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Christ was wholly separate when He cried out for Father. How can we deny the suffering of Christ? If Christ was inseparable in condition, substance, and power why did He call out?

The whole idea of a Trinity was not in the early Church. It was developed by man over a span of 200 years. The exact nature of the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit became a major dispute among the Bishops around 300 AD. Constantine wrote the Bishops asking them to end their strife and accept the mystery and not make their disagreements public. This request was ignored and Constantine called a meeting in 325 AD (Council of Nicaea) where the issue was settled and those who disagreed were banished and a creed was established. Constantine decreed that all documents which disagreed with the new creed would be burned. And anyone found with them would be killed. It is no wonder we have little of the old church in written form. For more on this council read Some account of the Council of Nicea: in connexion with the life of Athanasius, here is a link to a free copy of the book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wINlAA ... ea&f=false


If you contrast this meeting in Nicaea with the one held in Jerusalem with the Apostles you can see the lack of guidance by the Holy Spirit at the council of Nicaea but you can see the hand of man. The meeting in Jerusalem between Paul and the other Apostles over the Law and how it may apply to the Gentiles is described in a few pages. The issue of the trinity has evolved over time and now many churches say that if you don’t believe in the trinity you are not saved. Even though the churches can’t say for sure what the trinity is. The bottom line is that the idea of a trinity is an idea of man. The relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a mystery that can only be known by revelation.

Next I will cover what I call the great divide. It is the misread of scripture which brought down the church. As I have mentioned before, one of the major issues with the early church was the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes. Jesus said He hates this. This doctrine places church leaders in a position between you and God. You as a follower of the Nicolaitane doctrine would look to the church leaders for your answers and not directly to God. Here is a link for more information:

http://www.bibleone.net/BF07.html

2 Cor 4
11 For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

Christ is available for all, we need not go to some church leader to obtain Christ. Christ does not have a proxy on the earth. In the Nicolaitan structure the Holy Ghost is actually suppressed because your faith is misdirected. You can not be filled with the ideas of man and have the Holy Ghost fill you as well.

1Cor 2
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So how can man place himself between us and God and appear justified in doing so? It is done through misinterpretation of scripture. Here it is restated.

Matthew 16
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

One interpretation of this passage is that the faith of Peter and his witness of Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter is also symbolic of the church and all authority given Peter is given to the church. So when Peter died the authority passed to the new Bishop of Rome. What is key in this interpretation is that Peter is told that whatsoever he shall bind on earth it will also be bound in heaven and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. So ignoring the rest of scripture one could say that the Bishop of Rome has authority to do anything. This is in direct opposition to scripture. We learn from John that the Spirit of Christ indwells with us. He lives in our flesh to the extent that we invite Him in. Scripture does not say that Christ will indwell in one person and you are to look to that person for guidance. John was very clear on this point. We may have prophets on the earth but we are to test them as well and make sure what they say does not conflict with scripture.

2John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Here the word come in the greek is present tense. So anyone who denies that Christ can indwell in our flesh is antichrist.

If anyone is interested you can look up in the Catholic Encyclopedia vol 12 around page 266 and find the rights of the Pope and the RCC. Now I don't happen to agree with this interpretation of this passage or the authority it implies. What this looks like in practice most would reject if they knew the details. In practice it means that any scripture can be changed for the good of the church. It means new scripture can be added to the canon by the Bishop of Rome. It means that innocent blood can be taken because the church can declare anyone a heretic for whatever reason they want. It means that all methods including murder and all forms of lies can be used by the church in order to grow and or save the church. It means that forgiveness of sins comes from the church. When confession to a priest who is called father is done and you are given a list of things to do to be forgiven the church has taken over the administration of forgiveness. The extreme application of this manifested as indulgences where you could buy forgiveness even of future sins. The doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is when the church leaders take authority over your salvation, the other half of this is you let them. Please don’t confuse salvation with the churches responability to administer its members. If a member does something that is not in line with the chuirch the church can and should try and correct the bad behavior of the individual. The church leaders are also responsible to remove a person from the church where it seems that person has fallen from some standards of conduct. The administration of these people is separate from the forgiveness of sins by God.

Let me restate that it is my belief that Acts 16:16-19 tells us that the foundation of the church is the spirit to spirit communication between man and God. I don't believe Peter represented the church when the keys were given him and thus not passed to the church. And just how do I know that the keys were not passed? I think there is another passage which seems strange to many but if viewed in this light it is revealing. The events of Acts 5 occur before Peter received the keys, but they show the power that was held by the Apostles.

Acts 5
3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Here it is clear that Peter has some involvement in the killing of these two people. Some say it is not Peter but the Holy Ghost. To those I would say that over the last two thousand years many people have done the same as these two and were not killed. So whatever power Peter had did not pass to the next Bishop of Rome. I am sure that if the Popes over the last two thousand years had this power they would have used it. So the authority of Peter did not pass down. This means that a church which believes it has the power and authority to change scripture is apostate. It is only through revelation that scripture is clarified or added to.

It is my belief that Peter is typical of many people in the Bible. He was not perfect and we are to find those imperfect areas and recognize them. If we do not then we are led to believe things that are not true. Let me lay this out so you can see my view.

Christ said to Peter:

John 21:18
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

I think there is way more going on here than most would admit. I think that this is a warning for us reading scripture to look for areas where Peter is doing his own thing and not following the Holy Spirit. It says “shalt” which is the future, which means that Peter was acting under his own will at the time this was said and not of the Father. It is my belief that Peter was responsible for the killing of the husband and wife who failed to give the church what they said they would. If the Holy Ghost killed everyone who ever said one thing to God and did another we would all be dead. But this passage is a lesson for us. I think we are to see Peter in a critical light. Just as we see David in a critical light when he kills a man to gain access to the man’s wife. Now David shed innocent blood whereas Peter did not. Now later in life Peter did become Spirit filled and did walk in the spirit.

Now Peter is viewed by some as representing the church. The killing of the two people by Peter is justification for the future church to kill in order to promote or protect the church. It is obvious that Christ never taught to kill but to be an example and preach the good word. It is my opinion that Peter was chosen by Christ because he was a hot head. Peter did things on his own that we should examine in light of the rest of scripture. Are we to use the killing of the husband and wife as the standard and modify the rest of scripture, or are we to look at the killings with a critical eye? In my mind the killings are not in line with the rest of scripture. So why are they there? I believe that they are there as a stumbling block. The early church saw these verses as a way to obtain power and justification to use the ways of the world to obtain wealth and power. Where in scripture does it say to obtain size in the church by using the ways of the world?

[_madeleine]

Here's the thing for you to consider. Why would you believe the fallible, imperfect humans that lead your church are any different than the fallible, imperfect humans that Jesus Christ hand picked as His Apostles, and they in turn chose fallible, imperfect humans and ordained as their successors?

I believe Jesus gave to His Church the gift of the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost. Jesus is the Head of His Church. The body of His Church is us, the imperfect humans. So His Church is as He is, fully human and fully divine. You can make all the lists you like that point out the flaws of humans. What you cannot provide evidence for, is that Jesus has ever left His Bride, the Church, to wander in darkness. That He has not, as St. Paul teaches, been the Groom that cares for His Bride. She has always been guided by the Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus when He said, He would not leave us as orphans.

So i hope you can see, for Jesus' Church to fail He would have to have failed as well. This is not something I find plausible. But I find Mormons, and others, have to believe quite pointedly that Jesus failed.

You are not understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. They are distinct persons, one being. Pope Benedict XVI describes the relationship of the Son to the Father as one of constant prayer. A life of prayer. Jesus speaks to the Father, He is not talking to Himself.

There is but One God, not three. This is very clearly stated in the Bible.

There is a lot of other misinformation you have in your post, such as killing in the name of Peter? This has never been a doctrine of any Church I know of.

John 21:18 is a prophecy, that was fulfilled when Peter was tied to a cross, upside down, and martyred. See verse 19

He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

There have been a handful of truly rotten Popes in the 2000 year history of Christ's Church. St. Peter was not one of them.

The faith handed on, once for all, has not changed, in spite of the human fraility of Christ's Body. Doctrines have not changed, or been lost. His Church continues Her pilgrim journey. Proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, as that is Her mission and always has been. Her journey is towards heaven, being perfected by the Holy Spirit along the way. None I know would claim that perfection will ever be attained in its fullest until the Groom returns.

[_Franktalk]

Here's the thing for you to consider. Why would you believe the fallible, imperfect humans that lead your church are any different than the fallible, imperfect humans that Jesus Christ hand picked as His Apostles, and they in turn chose fallible, imperfect humans and ordained as their successors?

I do not believe in humans leading a church. The church is just a meeting place for fellowship and for sacrament and ordinances. I don't get too wrapped up with all of the doctrine. But the church is the closest I have found to being guided by the Holy Spirit. The moment I find they are changing scripture I will fight against what I see as a problem. If you want I will lay out why I think the LDS church is the restored church. But as all churches of men they will have problems of men.

I believe Jesus gave to His Church the gift of the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost. Jesus is the Head of His Church. The body of His Church is us, the imperfect humans. So His Church is as He is, fully human and fully divine. You can make all the lists you like that point out the flaws of humans. What you cannot provide evidence for, is that Jesus has ever left His Bride, the Church, to wander in darkness. That He has not, as St. Paul teaches, been the Groom that cares for His Bride. She has always been guided by the Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus when He said, He would not leave us as orphans.

No, Christ gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to all men. The bride of Christ is all of the believers in Christ. I have met many of them and they are in all churches that I have personal knowledge of. I also believe that many will be considered elect who never stepped foot in a church. Christ is able to have a personal relationship with anyone who invites Him in. You don't need to be a member of a church for that.

So i hope you can see, for Jesus' Church to fail He would have to have failed as well. This is not something I find plausible. But I find Mormons, and others, have to believe quite pointedly that Jesus failed.

Your logic is flawed. Scripture is clear there will be a falling away. And the Jews proved many times that the church can go apostate.

You are not understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. They are distinct persons, one being. Pope Benedict XVI describes the relationship of the Son to the Father as one of constant prayer. A life of prayer. Jesus speaks to the Father, He is not talking to Himself.

The trinity is a mystery to even the people who invented it. I don't think anyone knows about the true nature of God. The LDS may have a slightly better idea but I could care less about something that scripture says I can't comprehend. I rather spend my time with other studies. To declare that we know the nature of God is just a total guess for any man. I will just find out later.

There is but One God, not three. This is very clearly stated in the Bible.

Let it go.

There is a lot of other misinformation you have in your post, such as killing in the name of Peter? This has never been a doctrine of any Church I know of.

You have not studied your own church if you are RCC. Read in the Catholic encyclopedia about the powers of the Pope.

John 21:18 is a prophecy, that was fulfilled when Peter was tied to a cross, upside down, and martyred. See verse 19

Peter's death is a small part of the path that the Holy Spirit guided Peter on. You short change Peter by this limited view.

There have been a handful of truly rotten Popes in the 2000 year history of Christ's Church. St. Peter was not one of them.

Really, please show me where Peter was ever the Pope of Rome. He was in fact the Bishop of Antioch.

The faith handed on, once for all, has not changed, in spite of the human fraility of Christ's Body. Doctrines have not changed, or been lost. His Church continues Her pilgrim journey. Proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, as that is Her mission and always has been. Her journey is towards heaven, being perfected by the Holy Spirit along the way. None I know would claim that perfection will ever be attained in its fullest until the Groom returns.

Really, then why are the ten commandments changed in the Catholic catechisms. That is just a start of the problems.

[_Franktalk]

This is part three of my discussion on the apostate church.

So was Christ warning us in John 21:18 that Peter would do things that were not God's will but his own? I think He was warning us. It would not be until after Peter matured in the Gospel that he would go where he would not have gone on his own. In fact, with this in mind, you will see a great deal of maturation in Peter when you read his epistles.

So after the death of Peter, the Church of Rome decides to incorporate some of the aspects of Greek philosophy into its doctrine. They decide to include some pagan holidays into the church as well. The doctrine of the Trinity officially came in as well with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. By 380 AD, the church becomes a civil State and makes laws to govern the people’s lives and their spirits. This continues until Napoleon strips their State authority. Of course, Mussolini gave them back their State authority which they still hold today. Vatican City is its own country.

Mar 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

This drifting away from scripture became so bad that the members of the church divided. The biggest was known as the Protestant Reformation. What is sad is the split did not fix the issues with doctrine or structure. The churches that split off did the same things. They changed scripture as well. We have the gap theory which tells us that the long ages of the earth are in gaps in scripture. We have replacement theology which states that the promises to the Jews are now given to the church. We have many people who feel that the theories of science are the ultimate truth and scripture must only deal with those places where man has not defined truth.

So it should not be surprising that the church had to be re-established on the earth.

There are additional scriptures which drive this point. And they are directed at Peter.

John 21:15-18
15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
18Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

Notice that Jesus did not say kill my sheep. Was Christ making a point? Of course He was. The message is to love the sheep as thyself and to love thy God. How do we show our love of God? By loving His sheep. By feeding His sheep. By visiting His sheep in prison. By forgiveness and charity.

It is not my goal to bring down Peter. My goal is to understand some history and make sure I do not make similar mistakes. If men can stumble on scripture once, we can do it again. Only by following the Holy Spirit can we know if we are on the right track. If an Apostle (Peter) can make mistakes, surely others can as well.

Now I want to change gears a little before moving on. I want to examine a meeting that went on between the Apostles. In that meeting several issues were discussed that weighed heavily on the minds of the Apostles. But the Holy Spirit came through to show the direction they should go. I am referring to Acts 15:1-28

Acts 15
1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;



Here we have Apostles and others disagreeing on the Law of Moses and whether the Law of Moses needs to be a requirement for the Gentiles who are becoming Christians. It seems that some in Jerusalem assumed that the Law was required and started to spread the word that the Gentiles would need to follow the Law of Moses. When Paul and Barnabas heard what was being told to the churches they went to Jerusalem to meet with the other Apostles. After some heated debates, both Peter and James said that since the Holy Ghost had come to the Gentiles that only a few rules need be followed. It is important to note that in verse 28 it seems that the Holy Ghost confirmed what they had agreed to. But notice that there were no new Laws being discussed, there were no new doctrines being discussed. The discussion centered around existing scripture and doctrines that had already been revealed to the Apostles. They were not extending scripture to some new interpretation. Now these are the Apostles; so they could have. But I think this meeting is showing us how a meeting can be led by the Holy Ghost. Peter had already received his vision of the unclean animals and been told to eat. The Centurion Cornelius had been told to send his people to Peter. Peter witnessed the Holy Ghost enter the Gentiles. These things in advance of the meeting with Paul. So the Holy Ghost led the way to the foregone conclusion of the meeting. It is interesting to note that after the meeting, all could see the truth of the conclusion. No one was excommunicated or banished, no documents were burned to cover a trail, no one had their life threatened to conform.

For me nothing is in scripture by accident. This meeting and all of the advance work done by the Holy Ghost is detailed for a reason. Can it be that this meeting is a template that we should use for any contention in the Church? I would suspect that if the members hold true to the Holy Ghost, that the Holy Ghost will move them if a meeting is required. The key is and always has been to follow God and not try to lead ourselves. God will do His work in us in His good time.

Next I want to compare the meeting with the Apostles with a meeting many years later; the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. If the church had fallen then we should be able to contrast this meeting with Paul and Peter with the men many years later. But first some background.

There was a time when men made an idol, it was a statue and the foot of the statue stuck out at the bottom of the idol. The big toe stuck out at just the right height. So when you went to worship the idol you bent down and kissed the toe of your idol. There are churches today that practice this same rite. People bend down and kiss the ring of a church leader. Does this seem right that some people act out what was a pagan rite? Are not the church leaders supposed to wash the feet of the members? If Christ showed us anything,we are to be servants and not masters. We have but one master and one Father.

Matthew 23:9
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

And just how many churches on the earth require the members to call the leaders father? Then what of this command?

1 Timothy 3:2
Second Amendment bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Need I point out the churches which ignore this commandment from scripture?

And of course there are more. But we must ask ourself how can it be that a church can ignore a clear commandment from scripture? This document is my attempt to explain how some churches have declared themself to be above scripture. Some churches place themselves between you and God. They will decide what is from God and what is not. They will decide to change the very World of God.

In the lead up to the council of Nicea there are no recorded visions from the attending members. I am quite sure had there been any they would be recorded. I suspect that there may have been some promptings; but I doubt if they supported the gathering. But I will admit that much of the documentation of those days were destroyed. Either by people in support of Christianity or those opposed. Both at one time or another purged what they found in the records.

Just what was to be accomplished in the meeting? Was the true nature of God going to be defined so we would all know, or was it to make people accept a man’s view of God? What does scripture say about the nature of God?

Job 9:10
Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

Rom 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

When we go beyond what is in scripture we should do so very carefully. Scripture tells us in no uncertain terms that some mysteries of God will stay that way. Should we even try and go down this path? Today we have several views of scripture that relate to the way God deals with our free will and our salvation. These views seem to coexist without much problem. Should the leaders in 325 AD just have accepted the nature of God as an unknown and allow for different views? I think the RCC ( Roman Catholic Church ) at that time was in competition with many other beliefs and gods. Not much different than today’s world. I suspect they wanted a clear division between them (being Christian) and others. To say that the church did not know how the three in one relationship works was not acceptable to the men of the church.

Now in the meeting between Paul and Peter and the others, the issue was how to apply an existing Law of Moses to the Gentiles. And following the promptings of the Holy Ghost they made the right decision. Contrast that with the council of Nicea where the very nature of God and the relationship between the Father and Son are being decided by men. You would think that the most important member at the meeting would be God. In the lead up to Paul’s meeting the Holy Ghost had laid down the ideas which would decide the outcome of the meeting. In Nicea men had been arguing with men for many years prior to the meeting. The ground work for the meeting was the work of men not of the Holy Ghost.

We must ask our self the question: Are there stumbling blocks in scripture for us to fall on if we use our mind instead of your spirit as witnessed by the Holy Ghost to interpret scripture? I say there are many; and man has indeed stumbled on many.

1 Pe 2:8
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Now the big issue. Was the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) a top down run church? Did the members have the ability to remove the leaders? We find that the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes had taken root before the meeting at Nicaea. The fall of the church leadership was complete. The members could still pray to God but many handed over the control of their salvation to the church. This is the other half of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. Just as the Jews had missed their day by not understanding and following Daniel, the new church missed their opportunity to be God’s church on earth because they misread scripture and fell to the desires of men.

When church leaders interpret scripture for the members they cast their own views of scripture as correct and all others as error. If they are guided by the Spirit of God this should not be a problem. But how are we to know if another is actually telling us the truth as God wants it told to us? The easy way is to have the witness of the Holy Spirit and just pray for the witness to truth.

I will now show a few examples of scriptural interpretation from the Roman Catholic Church. To start with I will quote some material from the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 12 pages 597 and another on page 599. This section deals with the book of Revelation known as Apocalypse to the Catholics.

"…..From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude. He encourages them with the promise of an ample and speedy reward. He assures them that Christ’s triumphant coming is at hand. Both in the beginning and at the end of the book the seer is most emphatic in telling his people that the hour of victory is nigh. He begins saying: “Blessed is he that…….keepeth those things which are written in it; for the time is at hand.” He closes his vision with the pathetic words: “He that giveth testimony of these things saith, surely I come quickly: Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” ………It would appear, and is so held by many, that the Christians of the Apostolic age expected that Christ would return during their own lifetime or generation. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of several passages both in Epistles and Gospels. The Christians of Asia Minor, and the seer with them, appear to have shared this fallacious expectation. Their mistaken hope, however, did not effect the soundness of their belief in the essential part of the dogma. Their views of a millennial period of corporal happiness were equally erroneous. The Church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurretion. St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Church from all crude Fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millennium allegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth. With the foundation of the Church the millennium began. The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin. Thus the number 1000 is to be taken indefinitely."

I want to point out a few things. First of all they say that John wrote about the coming of Christ as very near (in time) and in this they declare him “fallacious”. They also declare “The church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection.” So they have redefined the millennium as meaning something completely different than John was told in his vision. In this they completely ignore the warning at the end of the book.

Rev 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

And on page 599 of the Catholic encyclopedia we find this:

"…….To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g. of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended, it was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice."

Here they are saying that Daniel was written by someone else around 160 BC at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and it was not prophecy but a history of events that had already taken place. Daniel lived around 600 BC and wrote his book around 550 BC. But the big problem comes from scripture.
Mar 13:14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains:
These are words spoken by Jesus. Here Jesus declares that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel and that Daniel was a prophet. I don’t see how the Catholic Church can reconcile this conflict that their interpretation causes.
They also say that John followed the practice of writing after events had taken place yet John says:
Rev 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

I have a hard time believeing that John wrote a book saying it is a prophecy when in fact it was not. I am a futurist so I believe the events described in the book of Revelation have yet to take place. In my view John is telling the truth.
This a small part of the falling away of the original Church. The Reformation was a rejection of the corruption of the Church but the Reformation did little to restore the Gospel to the original form. I think that most can see why the Reformation needed to take place. But because the Roman Catholic Church had been so successful in limiting knowledge of the original Church no one knew that the doctrine should be re-examined. Again the Reformation was of man and although at its core had the best of intentions it was not led to spiritual truth. Only through the revelation of God could the Church be restored in form and in authority.
The study of the early Church is interesting. If you go back and read the earliest books on the subject you get one view but if you read modern books you get another. It does seem to me that some history has been scrubbed out and replaced. You can form your own conclusions. Here is a link to a free book that discusses the early Church. Later in this document I will quote several things from this book. The book is History of the Christian Church by James Craigie Robertson published in 1854.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zdAAAA ... ch&f=false
After the Reformation it seems that many historians tried to document the history of the Church and trace back its roots. But their task was and now is hindered by a lack of historical documents. Much of that on purpose. But with the breaking away of the secular rule from the RCC many people did document what was available. For instance the separation of Spain from The Roman Catholic Church in 1798 led to a book about the Spanish Inquisition. The Book is History of the Spanish Inquisition by Llorente written in 1826. Yet in modern times the archives were opened and historians were invited to read the records. Here is what some say:

"According to the documents from Vatican archives relating to the trials of Jews, Muslims, Cathars, witches, scientists and other non-Catholics in Europe between the 13th and the 19th centuries, the number actually killed or tortured into confession during the Inquisition was far fewer than previously thought.
Estimates of the number killed by the Spanish Inquisition, which Sixtus IV authorised in a papal bull in 1478, have ranged from 30,000 to 300,000. Some historians are convinced that millions died.
But according to Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome and curator of the 783-page volume released yesterday, only 1% of the 125,000 people tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain were executed.
Other experts told journalists at the Vatican yesterday that many of the thousands of executions conventionally attributed to the church were in fact carried out by non-church tribunals."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/ju ... cationnews

Two completely different stories are told of the inquisition. I bring this up not to get into the detail of the inquisition but to cast doubt on all historical Church records. So we should always let the Spirit be our guide in all things. We should not expect to find documents that support doctrines that oppose those of the Roman Catholic Church. The small amount of documents that are available are precious yet incomplete. We should not expect a complete picture of the original church. But our faith in God and the belief in truth should guide us on our quest.
As the Roman Catholic Church lost its grip on the rulers of the European countries and the Reformation was firmly established then the histories of the Church were made available for all to see. From my point of view this should have forced a crisis in the theological foundations of the Prodestant Churches. Yet I find that the Churches did not go back and check their doctrines and structure against the original Church or as Peter would say “present truth”. For me I see the Churches accepting the historical changes that were made by the Roman Catholic Church and accepting all of the man made doctrine that came with it. So the Churches had an opportunity to open up for a restoration but did not choose that path.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Frank,
You express you views quite well, along with your confirming data. However, they don't convince me of what I think you intend them to. . .

Please be advised: The Bible is the word-of-mankind, not of GOD. So, all that is written in that book is simply fictionalized history. (Much as a Mitchner Novel) This doesn't mean it has no value. It has, it just shouldn't be taken too seriously. . . We owe very little to theology or theism. However, we can lay a lot of blame for our anti-social ways at the feet of theistic advocates of most denominations. . .

Thanks, for advancing civility through sciences, social & otherwise, & technologies in all fields, goes to the applied intelligence of those with conscienced awareness of their environments. Be they theists or atheists.
They are serving humanity! (A Golden-Rule Thing)
Warm regards, Roger

[_Franktalk]

Please be advised: The Bible is the word-of-mankind, not of GOD. So, all that is written in that book is simply fictionalized history. (Much as a Mitchner Novel) This doesn't mean it has no value. It has, it just shouldn't be taken too seriously. . . We owe very little to theology or theism. However, we can lay a lot of blame for our anti-social ways at the feet of theistic advocates of most denominations. . .

Warm regards, Roger

You are right that the Bible can indeed be read as the word of man. I read it that way before I was guided by the Holy Spirit. It was flat and had no special meaning to me. So I read small sections but it all seemed unconnected. Only after I had cast off the world as being a subset of a much bigger reality did I see the real connections and message. It was like reading something new. In fact each time I read it it appears new as well. No other book is like it. I hope one day it appears to you that way.

[_madeleine]

Your logic is flawed. Scripture is clear there will be a falling away. And the Jews proved many times that the church can go apostate.

A falling way does not equal a complete apostasy, as Mormonism teaches. I know many who would say the falling away as prophesied is happening now. Many people being led from Christ's Church. The world is in confusion, in regards to God. Mormonism only adds to that confusion, and puts out a lot of resources on leading people away.

The trinity is a mystery to even the people who invented it. I don't think anyone knows about the true nature of God. The LDS may have a slightly better idea but I could care less about something that scripture says I can't comprehend. I rather spend my time with other studies. To declare that we know the nature of God is just a total guess for any man. I will just find out later.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not an invention. It is how God has revealed Himself. One God, revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God of course is a mystery. Any man who says otherwise is either deluded or a liar.

Let your polytheism go.

You have not studied your own church if you are RCC. Read in the Catholic encyclopedia about the powers of the Pope.

No one can change doctrine, not even a Pope.

Peter's death is a small part of the path that the Holy Spirit guided Peter on. You short change Peter by this limited view.

I never said that death was Peter's only path. That is you, putting words in my mouth. How about an honest discussion?

Really, please show me where Peter was ever the Pope of Rome. He was in fact the Bishop of Antioch.

He established the church in Antioch and moved to Rome. He was in fact the Bishop of Rome. He was martyred in Rome. The Bishop in Rome is his successor.

Really, then why are the ten commandments changed in the Catholic catechisms. That is just a start of the problems.

What problem? Different texts divide them up in different ways. The differing divisions don't in any way change the commandments.

[_gdemetz]

Yes, and that "bride" of Christ, or his church, was driven into the wilderness for 1260 years (1260 prophetic days, or years of apostasy), and needed to be restored as Peter prophesied! What was restored? All things as Peter stated! The true priesthood authority, the laying on of hands for the gift of the holy Ghost, Baptism by immersion by proper authority. baptism for the dead, true prophets, a quorum of twelve apostles, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.! Does your false church with no true prophets (only priestcraft practicers) have all these things restored as Peter prophesied?!? You are very ignorant, Madeline, to be spouting out vile things about which you know very little of!

[_madeleine]

So after the death of Peter, the Church of Rome decides to incorporate some of the aspects of Greek philosophy into its doctrine. They decide to include some pagan holidays into the church as well.

There is no requirement in the catholic churches, east or west, that a person has to forego their culture in order to follow Jesus Christ. People and cultures are turned to Christ.

Philosophy doesn't define doctrines. Never has, and never will. It is but a tool for describing what is believed, it doesn't defined what is believed.

The doctrine of the Trinity officially came in as well with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

The first council of Nicaea wasn't held to create a doctrine of deity, it was held to defend against the heresy of Arius. The church in the west had already excommunicated Arius for his heresy. He fled east, where he found a supporter, who also happened to be Emperor Constantine's personal bishop. The council did not create any new doctrines, all but 3 bishops of 300 declared Arius' teachings as a heresy. They (the bishops) then set to writing a clear explanation of already held doctrine, in order that none would be confused by Arius and his heresy

. By 380 AD, the church becomes a civil State and makes laws to govern the people’s lives and their spirits. This continues until Napoleon strips their State authority. Of course, Mussolini gave them back their State authority which they still hold today. Vatican City is its own country.

A very warped view of history. One that denies God working in and among the lives of people. I believe God is not reliant on men. Cultures became Christianized because of the Catholic Church. If God wants to use kings and emperors for his purpose, who are you to say he can't?

Mar 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

This drifting away from scripture became so bad that the members of the church divided. The biggest was known as the Protestant Reformation. What is sad is the split did not fix the issues with doctrine or structure. The churches that split off did the same things. They changed scripture as well. We have the gap theory which tells us that the long ages of the earth are in gaps in scripture. We have replacement theology which states that the promises to the Jews are now given to the church. We have many people who feel that the theories of science are the ultimate truth and scripture must only deal with those places where man has not defined truth.

People have split from Christ's Church, this does not mean His Church ceased to exist and the Holy Spirit left her. The Protestant temptation is always there. Any and many can believe, as you do, that Christ is no longer in His church. But many more turn to Christ, and understand His Church is His Body.

Mormons, and other anti-Catholics, always seem to ignore the workings of the Holy Spirit, and focus on sin. Forgetting that the Church itself, from its laity to the Pope, turn to Christ for forgiveness and redemption of their sins. The argument that you present, denies the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ.

So it should not be surprising that the church had to be re-established on the earth.

No surprise, because it never happened.

There are additional scriptures which drive this point. And they are directed at Peter.

John 21:15-18
15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
18Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

Notice that Jesus did not say kill my sheep. Was Christ making a point? Of course He was. The message is to love the sheep as thyself and to love thy God. How do we show our love of God? By loving His sheep. By feeding His sheep. By visiting His sheep in prison. By forgiveness and charity.

It is not my goal to bring down Peter.

I can't say I'm understanding your point at all. Peter denied Jesus three times, as Jesus said He would. Here, Peter is affirming His love for Jesus, three times. I see forgiveness.

You also have to understand, and it can be seen very clearly, the Apostles, including Peter, struggled. Jesus never said, "I give up on you and am going to find someone else." Never. Not once. He patiently waited for them to "see", forgiving them and loving them all the way, seeing them through their journey to Him.

When the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles and disciples at Pentecost, there is a marked changed. Confirmed in Christ, they were sealed as His, and never wavered from that point. This is why you see the letters of Peter as different than the descriptions of him before Pentecost.

My goal is to understand some history and make sure I do not make similar mistakes. If men can stumble on scripture once, we can do it again. Only by following the Holy Spirit can we know if we are on the right track. If an Apostle (Peter) can make mistakes, surely others can as well.

I understand, but you are looking for failure, and ignoring the Holy Spirit. I have never understood why it is that Mormons do this. Probably never will.

Here we have Apostles and others disagreeing on the Law of Moses and whether the Law of Moses needs to be a requirement for the Gentiles who are becoming Christians. It seems that some in Jerusalem assumed that the Law was required and started to spread the word that the Gentiles would need to follow the Law of Moses. When Paul and Barnabas heard what was being told to the churches they went to Jerusalem to meet with the other Apostles. After some heated debates, both Peter and James said that since the Holy Ghost had come to the Gentiles that only a few rules need be followed. It is important to note that in verse 28 it seems that the Holy Ghost confirmed what they had agreed to. But notice that there were no new Laws being discussed, there were no new doctrines being discussed. The discussion centered around existing scripture and doctrines that had already been revealed to the Apostles. They were not extending scripture to some new interpretation. Now these are the Apostles; so they could have. But I think this meeting is showing us how a meeting can be led by the Holy Ghost. Peter had already received his vision of the unclean animals and been told to eat. The Centurion Cornelius had been told to send his people to Peter. Peter witnessed the Holy Ghost enter the Gentiles. These things in advance of the meeting with Paul. So the Holy Ghost led the way to the foregone conclusion of the meeting. It is interesting to note that after the meeting, all could see the truth of the conclusion. No one was excommunicated or banished, no documents were burned to cover a trail, no one had their life threatened to conform.

Yes, thank you! I am in agreement with you. This is called the First Council of Jerusalem. This is the type of discussion that happens in all the councils of the Catholic Church (east and west), from Jerusalem to Vatican II, including Nicaea.

I don't see that Mormons ever think to actually look at a council and discover what actually occurs there, instead relying on conspiracy theories. You should be aware that every council begins with Mass, which includes prayers calling on the Holy Spirit for guidance. Every bishop at a council is ordained, and as such, given additional gifts of the Holy Spirit that are for the purpose of leading Christ's Church.

For me nothing is in scripture by accident. This meeting and all of the advance work done by the Holy Ghost is detailed for a reason. Can it be that this meeting is a template that we should use for any contention in the Church? I would suspect that if the members hold true to the Holy Ghost, that the Holy Ghost will move them if a meeting is required. The key is and always has been to follow God and not try to lead ourselves. God will do His work in us in His good time.

This is still the way in which the Catholic Church functions today.

Next I want to compare the meeting with the Apostles with a meeting many years later; the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. If the church had fallen then we should be able to contrast this meeting with Paul and Peter with the men many years later. But first some background.

There was a time when men made an idol, it was a statue and the foot of the statue stuck out at the bottom of the idol. The big toe stuck out at just the right height. So when you went to worship the idol you bent down and kissed the toe of your idol. There are churches today that practice this same rite. People bend down and kiss the ring of a church leader. Does this seem right that some people act out what was a pagan rite? Are not the church leaders supposed to wash the feet of the members? If Christ showed us anything,we are to be servants and not masters. We have but one master and one Father.

Good golly, this is nothing but anti-Catholic drivel. Sorry if that is too blunt, but that is what it is.

In this modern time, we don't bow to kings or queens. These customs were in the Catholic Church, to show signs of respect to our shepherds, the successors to the Apostles. This in no way means we are worshipping them. That is just nonsense.

It acknowledges the work of God in the world, who has given us His Church, and has given us shepherds to lead us. I have sat with and spoke with the bishop of my diocese and can tell you, I have great respect and love for him. He is not perfect, no, just a man. But he would be very uncomfortable if someone bent down and kissed his foot! I can't imagine it happening. The custom is gone, no longer used, though I have seen people who still show love and respect to the Pope by such gestures. But no worries, no one is being worshipped but God.

Matthew 23:9
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

And just how many churches on the earth require the members to call the leaders father? Then what of this command?

It is a term of endearment. A priest or a bishop is a father to his flock. Just as any human father is to his children. No one is calling them Father, in terms of calling them GOD. There is but one God, and he's not in the rectory wearing a cossack.

1 Timothy 3:2
Second Amendment bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Need I point out the churches which ignore this commandment from scripture?

This is not commanding that a bishop or priest has to be married. It is commanding that they have one wife. (Something which polygamous leaders of Mormonism ignored, no?)

Jesus himself taught that if a man could bear it, and give his life to the Kingdom of God and not marry, then he should. Why would you go against the teachings of Jesus, and say a man who has done so has sinned?

And of course there are more. But we must ask ourself how can it be that a church can ignore a clear commandment from scripture? This document is my attempt to explain how some churches have declared themself to be above scripture. Some churches place themselves between you and God. They will decide what is from God and what is not. They will decide to change the very World of God.

You should realize that you haven't done anything but gather up every anti-Catholic argument you can find. Most of them are Protestant arguments that have been around for 400 years. Perhaps you should spend some time reading up on the Catholic response? You don't have to accept the response, but perhaps you could obtain a more balanced view.

In the lead up to the council of Nicea there are no recorded visions from the attending members. I am quite sure had there been any they would be recorded. I suspect that there may have been some promptings; but I doubt if they supported the gathering. But I will admit that much of the documentation of those days were destroyed. Either by people in support of Christianity or those opposed. Both at one time or another purged what they found in the records.

Conspiracy theories. Documents don't last that long, whether you try and preserve them or not. Many documents were preserved and copies. Great libraries containing them were burned to the ground.

You can read about the lives of a few of the bishops at Nicaea. They are readily available.

Just what was to be accomplished in the meeting?

Defend against the heresies of Arius.

Was the true nature of God going to be defined so we would all know, or was it to make people accept a man’s view of God?

Defend the faith handed on, once and for all. Arius introduced new doctrines. The council was convened to address them.

What does scripture say about the nature of God?

Job 9:10
Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

Rom 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

When we go beyond what is in scripture we should do so very carefully. Scripture tells us in no uncertain terms that some mysteries of God will stay that way. Should we even try and go down this path? Today we have several views of scripture that relate to the way God deals with our free will and our salvation. These views seem to coexist without much problem. Should the leaders in 325 AD just have accepted the nature of God as an unknown and allow for different views?

WHO Christ IS has always been important, and defended many times before Nicaea, and many times after. The main thrust of Arius' heresy was a denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since the doctrine of Jesus' divinity is quite central to Christianity, it is in fact a doctrine that will never be "let go". Either Jesus is divine, or he's just some really nice fellow with cool ideas. The Christian message is much more powerful and important than that.

I think the RCC ( Roman Catholic Church ) at that time was in competition with many other beliefs and gods. Not much different than today’s world. I suspect they wanted a clear division between them (being Christian) and others. To say that the church did not know how the three in one relationship works was not acceptable to the men of the church.

That is one view. Another is, faith seeks understanding. At a point in the Church when an understanding was needed, the Holy Spirit provided for the needs of the Church. You have to understand, I've heard people in complete awe of the "nut that was cracked" at Nicaea. If you are looking for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is there, larger than life. But you are writing it off, only because you don't want to accept that the council was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Now in the meeting between Paul and Peter and the others, the issue was how to apply an existing Law of Moses to the Gentiles. And following the promptings of the Holy Ghost they made the right decision. Contrast that with the council of Nicea where the very nature of God and the relationship between the Father and Son are being decided by men.

Nothing was being decided, it was defended. That was the entire purpose of the council!.

You would think that the most important member at the meeting would be God. In the lead up to Paul’s meeting the Holy Ghost had laid down the ideas which would decide the outcome of the meeting.

I believe it was so.

In Nicea men had been arguing with men for many years prior to the meeting. The ground work for the meeting was the work of men not of the Holy Ghost.

Men arguing does not negate the Will of God being made known. God is not reliant on men.

We must ask our self the question: Are there stumbling blocks in scripture for us to fall on if we use our mind instead of your spirit as witnessed by the Holy Ghost to interpret scripture? I say there are many; and man has indeed stumbled on many.

1 Pe 2:8
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Now the big issue. Was the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) a top down run church? Did the members have the ability to remove the leaders? We find that the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes had taken root before the meeting at Nicaea. The fall of the church leadership was complete. The members could still pray to God but many handed over the control of their salvation to the church. This is the other half of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. Just as the Jews had missed their day by not understanding and following Daniel, the new church missed their opportunity to be God’s church on earth because they misread scripture and fell to the desires of men.

Another conspiracy theory.

Individual leaders, here and there, may fall, but Christ has never left us orphans (as He promised).

I suggest you discover a doctrine known as sense fidei.

We are one Body in Christ, all given gifts of the Holy Spirit. To be sure, some can place priests on a pedestal, and some can have contempt for the laity. But the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church are the same for all. Christ is our High Priest, we turn to Him and no other.

When church leaders interpret scripture for the members they cast their own views of scripture as correct and all others as error. If they are guided by the Spirit of God this should not be a problem. But how are we to know if another is actually telling us the truth as God wants it told to us? The easy way is to have the witness of the Holy Spirit and just pray for the witness to truth.

I don't know why you think you've just discovered a new idea.

I want to point out a few things. First of all they say that John wrote about the coming of Christ as very near (in time) and in this they declare him “fallacious”. They also declare “The church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection.” So they have redefined the millennium as meaning something completely different than John was told in his vision. In this they completely ignore the warning at the end of the book.

Mormons, and others in the 19th century, made Revelations into something else. These are the groups in error.

I have a hard time believeing that John wrote a book saying it is a prophecy when in fact it was not. I am a futurist so I believe the events described in the book of Revelation have yet to take place. In my view John is telling the truth.

Your view. Why should anyone believe it?

This a small part of the falling away of the original Church.

Your opinion.

The Reformation was a rejection of the corruption of the Church but the Reformation did little to restore the Gospel to the original form. I think that most can see why the Reformation needed to take place. But because the Roman Catholic Church had been so successful in limiting knowledge of the original Church no one knew that the doctrine should be re-examined. Again the Reformation was of man and although at its core had the best of intentions it was not led to spiritual truth. Only through the revelation of God could the Church be restored in form and in authority.
The study of the early Church is interesting.

This is just testimony bearing.

arliest books on the subject you get one view but if you read modern books you get another. It does seem to me that some history has been scrubbed out and replaced.

Or, history isn't matching to your view. It couldn't be that your view is wrong?

Two completely different stories are told of the inquisition. I bring this up not to get into the detail of the inquisition but to cast doubt on all historical Church records. So we should always let the Spirit be our guide in all things.

The Holy Spirit isn't going to go against reason. Anti-Catholic Spaniards are going to paint the Catholic Church in a bad light. Zealous followers of the Catholic Church are going to paint things rosier.

History of the inquisitions are readily available. GOOD, histories, with neither a view to scandalize the Church or whitewash. I don't know any Catholic who would call the Inquisitions good, but they were much more complex than See The Great and Abominable Church at Work.

We should not expect to find documents that support doctrines that oppose those of the Roman Catholic Church.

Certainly, you can. We call them heresies.

The small amount of documents that are available are precious yet incomplete. We should not expect a complete picture of the original church. But our faith in God and the belief in truth should guide us on our quest.

My faith in God is such that I believe He has protected and guided what is His. Your faith seems to be, He did not.

As the Roman Catholic Church lost its grip on the rulers of the European countries and the Reformation was firmly established then the histories of the Church were made available for all to see. From my point of view this should have forced a crisis in the theological foundations of the Prodestant Churches. Yet I find that the Churches did not go back and check their doctrines and structure against the original Church or as Peter would say “present truth”. For me I see the Churches accepting the historical changes that were made by the Roman Catholic Church and accepting all of the man made doctrine that came with it. So the Churches had an opportunity to open up for a restoration but did not choose that path.

GO BACK? That is a funny view. I believe that Christ's Church lives. Alive. I don't think you realize how much emphasis Catholics put on orthodoxy. Carefully teach was handed onto you. (Paraphrasing St. Paul's instructions to Timothy.) This has always been an instruction that has been taken very seriously.

You can't simultaneous criticize the RCC for being zealous in defending the doctrines regarding the Person of Jesus Christ, as given to her by the Apostles, at Nicaea. And then say she has not been zealous enough.

Perhaps spend a 1/10 of your efforts on discovering where the Holy Spirit has worked in Christ's Church. Approach it as a skeptic, but make it an honest approach.

[_gdemetz]

I heard the Catholics say on TV that Christ set up his kingdom during his mortal ministry, which is true. However, what they can't explain (not to mention all the horrors of the inquisition which they have apologized so graciously for - "by their fruits ye shall know them") is the fact that Daniel prophesied that this kingdom would be restored again in the last days! Why would that be necessary? Because the old Roman church was apostate, therefore, the kingdom and the church needed to be restored again as Daniel and Peter prophesied, as part of the great "restitution of all things"!