Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: When something is never destroyed, why would it need to be

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default When something is never destroyed, why would it need to be

    'Restored'

    You cannot find ANYWHERE IN GOD'S WORD (the BIBLE) where
    ANY of Christ's Gospel is lost
    ANY of the Authority to speak and act for God is lost
    ANY COMPLETE apostasy ever occurred in CHRIST'S church
    OR
    ANY OF THE MORMON-SPECIFIC JUNK either.

    I WONDER WHY?

    Care to try to FIND any of that IN THE BIBLE for us?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    'Restored'

    You cannot find ANYWHERE IN GOD'S WORD (the BIBLE) where
    ANY of Christ's Gospel is lost
    Acts 3:21---King James Version (KJV)
    21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of res***ution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    berry posted:
    When something is never destroyed, why would it need to be

    'Restored'

    You cannot find ANYWHERE IN GOD'S WORD (the BIBLE) where
    ANY of Christ's Gospel is lost
    ANY of the Authority to speak and act for God is lost
    ANY COMPLETE apostasy ever occurred in CHRIST'S church
    OR
    ANY OF THE MORMON-SPECIFIC JUNK either.

    I WONDER WHY?

    Care to try to FIND any of that IN THE BIBLE for us?


    Acts 3:21---King James Version (KJV)
    21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of res***ution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

    STILL CAN'T QUOTE ENTIRE SENTENCES, but must post fragments to try to take them out of context to try to force-fit them into your own paradigm, huh?

    HERE'S what the p***age REALLY SAYS:

    Acts 3:19-2119 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
    NKJV

    OF COURSE THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE WORD about THE GOSPEL being lost, the church losing ANY authority to speak or act for God, OR ANY COMPLETE APOSTASY of Christ's church.

    NOT ONE WORD about joey smith ever being needed to 'restore' ANYTHING. JESUS is the One Who will restore all things at His second coming.

    Your preconceived notions don't fit the WORD OF GOD.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    berry posted:

    21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of res***ution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

    STILL CAN'T QUOTE ENTIRE SENTENCES, but must post fragments to try to take them out of context to try to force-fit them into your own paradigm, huh?

    HERE'S what the p***age REALLY SAYS:

    Acts 3:19-2119 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
    NKJV

    [B][COLOR=#0000CD]OF COURSE THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE WORD about THE GOSPEL being lost, the church losing ANY authority to speak or act for God, OR ANY COMPLETE APOSTASY of Christ's church.
    You might want to relate that to the Reformers--who started new denominations with a different theology.

  5. #5
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
    You might want to relate that to the Reformers--who started new denominations with a different theology.
    go read the very foundation of the protestant movement, the 95 things Luther listed and posted on the church door.


    Now take away the ones connected to the way the Pope was raising money and spending it. Take away the things connected to the use of "indulgence" and the development within the church of teachings that were being introduced to support the concept of paying to get out of Purgatory.....take away all the ones connected to how the money was being raised and spent.




    Whats left?.................

    Was the theology of the Trinity being changed?
    Was the theology of the divine nature of Christ being changed?
    Was the theology of Christ's death on the cross being changed?
    Was the theology of the resurrection of Christ being changed?

    Were any of these core Christian teachings being changed?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    go read the very foundation of the protestant movement, the 95 things Luther listed and posted on the church door.

    Now take away the ones connected to the way the Pope was raising money and spending it. Take away the things connected to the use of "indulgence" and the development within the church of teachings that were being introduced to support the concept of paying to get out of Purgatory.....take away all the ones connected to how the money was being raised and spent.

    Whats left?.................

    Was the theology of the Trinity being changed?
    Was the theology of the divine nature of Christ being changed?
    Was the theology of Christ's death on the cross being changed?
    Was the theology of the resurrection of Christ being changed?

    Were any of these core Christian teachings being changed?
    What was left is an entirely different theology on how one is to obtain eternal life.

    Alan--it is naive to believe the theology of the Catholics and the Protestants are the same--as to the obtaining of eternal life. They are not the same theology--nor the same religion--whatever similarities you might connect to both of them.

  7. #7
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Was the theology of the Trinity being changed?
    Was the theology of the divine nature of Christ being changed?
    Was the theology of Christ's death on the cross being changed?
    Was the theology of the resurrection of Christ being changed?

    Were any of these core Christian teachings being changed?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    729

    Default

    To this day, the important question of whether Jesus' actual flesh and blood exist in the Eucharist, is an issue where Catholics and Protestants contradict each other.

    According to the Catholics, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was never lost, so it never needed to be re-invented or "restored" by the protestants.


    "When something is never destroyed, why would it need to be REFORMED?"
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  9. #9
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    To this day, the important question of whether Jesus' actual flesh and blood exist in the Eucharist, is an issue where Catholics and Protestants contradict each other.

    According to the Catholics, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was never lost, so it never needed to be re-invented or "restored" by the protestants.


    "When something is never destroyed, why would it need to be REFORMED?"
    Was the theology of the Trinity being changed?
    Was the theology of the divine nature of Christ being changed?
    Was the theology of Christ's death on the cross being changed?
    Was the theology of the resurrection of Christ being changed?

    Were any of these core Christian teachings being changed?

  10. #10
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I saw a disagreement within the church over what form a baptism should be done in...face down?...or face up?
    Now this seemed like a very silly thing to bicker over, but it turns out some people take this question deadly serious...enough to split-off from their church and start another.

    I guess if they want to split over the matter it's their call....

    That also is how I look at the whole "Transubstantiation" issue.
    If people want to split over the matter, Im sure not going to try to stop them.

    I would only suggest that you should not dream up new ways to bicker over, then turn around and say that the fact that some other church does not hold your position on these types of side-issues that that must mean that are a 'different religion"

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    729

    Default

    The GOSPEL is the most important thing. And the parts of the gospel that Paul called the things of most importance, are as follows:

    "...the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.

    For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received:

    that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

    and that he was buried,

    and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,

    and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

    Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

    Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

    Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

    I agree that the "heart of the gospel" as it has been called in one Bible version, has not been destroyed, so it didn't need to be reformed or restored.
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  12. #12
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    so it is my view that the Christian church has many, many parts..

    There is great unity on the core teachings, the very things that make us able to call ourselves "Christian"

    Yet there is also great diversity on the side issues, and this is why we can also call ourselves "free".

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    To this day, the important question of whether Jesus' actual flesh and blood exist in the Eucharist, is an issue where Catholics and Protestants contradict each other.

    According to the Catholics, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was never lost, so it never needed to be re-invented or "restored" by the protestants.


    "When something is never destroyed, why would it need to be REFORMED?"

    When some group CALLS ITSELF 'CHRISTIAN,' but FALLS AWAY from the TRUTH (as the catholic group has) THAT GROUP does need to be 'reformed.' People COMING OUT of that fallen away group to Jesus Christ and to HIS group. . .THOSE people need to REFORM their thinking to HIS.

    That does NOT mean that CHRIST'S Church was ever reformed. It merely means that the 'reformers' desired that the CATHOLIC group be reformed.

    Like the mormons should hope their 'fundamentalists', 'Strangites' groups should be reformed.

    Does THAT mean that the ENTIRE MORMON RELIGION has 'lost its way?"

    Naaah, I don't think it has lost its way. It NEVER KNEW the REAL WAY to God.

    But of course IT NEVER SUCCESSFULLY REFORMED when ITS REFORMERS left it any more than the catholics did. NEITHER group learned much from the TRUTHS pointed out to it.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
    You might want to relate that to the Reformers--who started new denominations with a different theology.
    You mean the different theology like that theology joe smith INVENTED?
    That new denomination joe smith started?

    Joe smith never brought about ANY 'res***ution' of anything. HE INVENTED NEW STUFF.

    new gods
    new intentions
    new theology
    new 'authorities'
    new younger 'elders'
    new priesthoods
    etc
    etc
    etc

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    [COLOR=#0000cd]You mean the different theology like that theology joe smith INVENTED? That new denomination joe smith started?
    I don't believe Joseph Smith is counted among the Reformers---as his claim was a res***ution:

    Acts 3:21--King James Version (KJV)
    21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of res***ution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

    Why would the gospel need to be "Reformed"? It's already perfect. It is restored --not reformed. And if restored--then that has to be a heavenly means--with heavenly beings:

    Doctrine and Covenants---Section 110

    1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
    2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.
    3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
    4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.
    5 Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice.
    6 Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name.
    7 For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.
    8 Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house.
    9 Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house.
    10 And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen.
    11 After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.
    12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.
    13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:
    14 Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—
    15 To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—
    16 Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,165

    Default Smith only INVENTED his junk

    berry posted:

    I don't believe Joseph Smith is counted among the Reformers---as his claim was a res***ution:

    Acts 3:21--King James Version (KJV)
    21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of res***ution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

    Why would the gospel need to be "Reformed"? It's already perfect. It is restored --not reformed. And if restored--then that has to be a heavenly means--with heavenly beings:

    No CHRISTIAN anywhere EVER claimed that the GOSPEL needed to be reformed.

    No, it was never lost. NEITHER did it need to be 'restored.'

    The reformers were trying to reform the catholic church, not the gospel.

    Your ignorance of this matter is showing imho.

    Joe smith never 'restored' or 'res***uted' anything. He INVENTED JUNK though. . .

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    so it is my view that the Christian church has many, many parts..
    if you are saying that within Christianity the religion, there are many, many people, and many of them have different beliefs regarding God and Jesus, i would say you are right.

    There is great unity on the core teachings, the very things that make us able to call ourselves "Christian"
    if you are referring to the heart of the gospel as Paul defined it in 1 Cor. 15, i would say that is the rule, but there might be exceptions.

    Yet there is also great diversity on the side issues...
    that is a statement of fact so it is obviously true. But SHOULD there be great DISAGREEMENT (the non-PC way of saying "diversity") on ANY issue of the Christian faith?

    doesn't Jesus want all Christians to achieve a unity of the faith, and to become "one" on every doctrine, not just 5 or so of the most important ones?

    was Jesus happy that the "diversity" among Christians in past centuries led to them fighting, accusing, excommunicating, and sometimes killing each other?

    i say "no."

    Paul envisioned a day when all Christians would be perfectly united in their faith. I believe that someday, it will happen. But not this year.
    From the forum rules: "The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. "

    "If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here."

  18. #18
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    if you are saying that within Christianity the religion, there are many, many people, and many of them have different beliefs regarding God and Jesus, i would say you are right.
    "If"?

    Im a little disappointed to find that even after I have been posting so many words that describe as clearly as I can make it what I wanted to say, I also find that people use the word "if" about my views....

  19. #19
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    i
    that is a statement of fact so it is obviously true. But SHOULD there be great DISAGREEMENT (the non-PC way of saying "diversity") on ANY issue of the Christian faith?
    "If" you spend even a short amount of time reading the book of ACTS you will see that disagreements over matters of faith "within" the Christian church is .....well.......for lack of a better term, lets say its clearly "normal"


    It's the same within any modern true Christian church,,,or within any Christian family too.

    While you might wish that between a husband and a wife there should not be the slightest disagreements over even the smallest issues, the truth is that no two people will always think alike on every issue that they face.


    I think this is what God meant when he noted that he needed find a "helper" fit for the man....
    the fit does not mean an exact copy.
    But it can point out that where one lacks the other makes up for,,,,where one will fail the other is strong.


    I think its the same within the church too....


    There is unity on the big issues, and that is something we should strive for.
    But there is diversity of views on the side issues...and that also is something we should strive to encourage and recognize as being important too.


    I think it's very dangerous for a husband to not allow is wife to feel free to even slightly disagree, or to have her own opinions, or to feel she is a equal partner in their marriage, for that leads to a very abusive husband.

    In the same way I think it's very dangerous for the leadership of any modern religion to try to enforce rules that do not allow any of their members to disagree with their rulings, for that is one of the signs you are in a CULT...



    Even the moment someone says to me that in their religion, "There is no disagreement on any teaching", I smell the oppression of descent and I smell the stink of a CULT.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 05-19-2017 at 04:51 AM.

  20. #20
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Paul envisioned .....
    Paul had his disagreements,,,,even over his own fellow ministers....the case of John Mark comes to mind.

    Paul felt free to stand up and openly disagree with others.
    His disagreement was not seen as a sign his religion was wrong, nor was his Christian faith therefore held in doubt.
    But he did disagree...and he did not back down.



    Paul also ran into disagreement with Peter...and disagreed with him to his face.

    So while we might like to have unity over all matters so that when we discuss our Christian faith it looks so much better to others, the truth is that right from the start and right up to this very day the Christian church has been one where people have needed to able to raise their voice in disagreement with out having their faith questioned.


    Had Paul not felt free to disagree, then that would be the sign we are part of a CULT.



    Paul also had to come to terms with the fact that there are side issues that a Christian needs to always remember they are just "side issues"
    Paul knew the value of compromise when dealing with side issues that some in the church consider very important.


    It's the same today.....


    I find great value in seeing that within the Christian faith we still hang on to our freedom to disagree with each other within the body of Christ.


    Sometimes its good to re-read the parts of the Bible that teach us within the church that we are all members of one Body, but we are not all feet, not all hands,

    and that even the hand has many fingers, each very different from the next.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Paul had his disagreements,,,,even over his own fellow ministers....the case of John Mark comes to mind.

    Paul felt free to stand up and openly disagree with others.
    His disagreement was not seen as a sign his religion was wrong, nor was his Christian faith therefore held in doubt.
    But he did disagree...and he did not back down.

    Paul also ran into disagreement with Peter...and disagreed with him to his face.
    That was within the same NT denomination.

    But this thread is about nothing in the NT gospel being lost.

    So--why the need for a Reformation--where new denominations were formed--with a different theology--if nothing in the gospel was lost?

  22. #22
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
    That was within the same NT denomination.

    But this thread is about nothing in the NT gospel being lost.

    So--why the need for a Reformation--where new denominations were formed--with a different theology--if nothing in the gospel was lost?
    I have already told you the answer to that question...you keep asking the same question over and over like you think you might get a different answer?

  23. #23
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    was Jesus happy that the "diversity" among Christians in past centuries ........

    Here is the answer from Scripture-

    Luke 9:49 ""Master," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."


    Mark 9:38 "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.



    Here is thee moment where if Jesus had wanted his church to be all united under the authority of the Apostles he would have spoken up.

    This is the moment when Jesus could have made it very clear to his church that it had to always stay united, and that you had to be under the authority of the Disciples.

    This is the moment Jesus could have told his men that they did the right thing in telling the other guy to stop doing works that were not officially "approved"



    But rather than doing that, Jesus makes it clear that there is no such thing as a need to be all united.
    In fact what Jesus says kicks open the door for all members of his church to be lone voices....no one needs to be approved by anyone else.
    there is no such thing as needing to be under some type of Apostle.





    To truly understand what is being talked about, just re-read the words of John when he speaks of what the 12 had tried to do.
    For John says that "we" tried to stop the man from doing works because he was not following "us"

    The "we" and the "us' are talking about the same people, the "we" and the "us" are the Apostles.

    So what the man was doing was to be totally disregarding the supposed authority of the Apostles.
    The man was clearly rejecting the idea that anyone needed to be approved by any type of authority or be even connected to a ministry headed by the Apostles.

    But what also is clear is that the man was actually doing works in in the name of Jesus....

    And this supports the idea that a lone person or a lone church, that is all on it's own and not officially connected to any other church or under any type of authority to any form of church , can still be totally blessed by the Lord, and be used by the Lord in a mighty way....

    and what else is true, the Lord actually "forbids" anyone from interfering with this.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 05-20-2017 at 09:12 AM.

  24. #24
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Im not sure if this is the same for other message boards, but I have had to get used to here the fact that on the weekends, the time when Im free to post things here, no one else ever posts...

    I used to joke about this and say that everyone was always posting on this forum while they were at work on the company's computer...

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,258

    Default

    Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post That was within the same NT denomination.

    But this thread is about nothing in the NT gospel being lost.

    So--why the need for a Reformation--where new denominations were formed--with a different theology--if nothing in the gospel was lost?
    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I have already told you the answer to that question...you keep asking the same question over and over like you think you might get a different answer?
    IMO--taint so!!! answers are neither convincing nor compelling. The Reformation brought about a different theology--with numerous different denominations. If nothing was lost--why the need for such drastic measures? Who authorized anyone to establish the new denominations--with a different theology?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •