No, it was meant for all Christians. Jesus knew the Gospels would be written and his words were intended for all believers who read them. Just as Paul's epistles were not just for the specific recipients of the letters.
"the Holy Spirit no longer teaches us all things? Of course not. He still does today through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to in that passage. So as it was then, it is today."
No the Holy Spirit teaches through those he indwells. There is absolutely no reason he just teaches "through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to".
"That is (and this is the point, the main question to answer): if a member was cut off from the body (the church) back then, could he just go down the street to “another church” and be a member there? Without repenting of the thing (whatever it was) that got him kicked out in the first place? Does anyone here honestly believe that was the case back then?"
Arius (father of Arianism) was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311, but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria. It looks like sometimes in the early church the heretics could just wait for a new Bishop and be readmitted without repenting of their heresy. Arius didn't have to "find a new church down the road" - it looks like he could just wait for the Holy Spirit to change his mind and communicate it to the sole interpreters of scripture you are so fond of. /s
Of course the Holy Spirit (a "he" by the way, not "it") was meant for all believers but as we know by even reading Scripture alone, he brings forth and gives different gifts (charisms)'to different people. Not all are "teachers" but that's what everyone has to be in the "invisible church"
Of course you will disagree here but I don't care. I don't care about your personal opinion of Scripture. So you already have the "last word" here, go ahead and post something more in response to the above if you want. Again, I don't care.
Arius (father of Arianism) was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311, but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria. It looks like sometimes in the early church the heretics could just wait for a new Bishop and be readmitted without repenting of their heresy. Arius didn't have to "find a new church down the road" - it looks like he could just wait for the Holy Spirit to change his mind and communicate it to the sole interpreters of scripture you are so fond of. /s
As is typical for many Protestants/anti Catholic Christians around here you only give a partial account of what happened in Church history.
"In 306, Arius sided with Meletius, an Egyptian schismatic, against the Bishop of Alexandria, Peter. But their dispute was soon reconciled, and Peter ordained Arius a deacon. Having fallen out anew with Peter, Arius gained the friendship of Peter's successor, Achillas, who ordained Arius a priest in 313, thus giving him official status in the Church. Achillas was succeeded by Alexander of Alexandria; it was under this bishop that Arius first ignited the controversy now that bears his name. This argument centered upon the precise nature of the Son of God, and His relationship to God the Father, and it struck at the very heart of the Orthodox Christian faith.
...
"According to Church historian Socrates Scholasticus, Arius entered in 318 into a dispute with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria over his teachings about God's divine Sonship and substance. "
source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arius
If you don't like that source post another.
You'll note though the following: during the time period you're describing, Arius was going about spreading another heresy, another one he apparently DID repent of, and that's why he was re-admitted to the Church. It was only after he started the whole heresy that bears his name was he kicked out again, this (that?) time for good.
It's history and fact. So you haven't shown anything at all with your example of Arius other than to show exactly what happens to a man when he disagrees with Church teaching. He's out. Unless he repents.