Jesus CANNOT be Jehovah/YHVH God

[genuineoriginal]

Hehehe. You can dish it out, but then, being the sniveling hypocrite you are, you cry about it when it is dished right back to you.
See, here's what I wrote:
And, here is your mangling of what I wrote:

Since God in Mark 1:1 is referring to the being called YHVH and God the Father in the Bible, then you did agree with the part that I quoted, and there was no mangling of your post.
:e4e:

 

[DAN P]

Deut 18:17-18 And Jehovah said unto me, They have well said that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.


John 12:49-50 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, He hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.


John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.





It is impossible for Jesus to be "Jehovah" because Jesus is NOT the source of the words he spoke, his God is. His FATHER is Jehovah!

Hi and in Gen 19:24 Then LORD / JEHOVAH , made it rain sulphur and fire from LORD / JEHOVAH from the heavens upon Sodom and Gomorrah !!

ONE + ONE = 2 !!

dan p

 

[way 2 go]

If it was not wrong for King David to accept worship as king, then it is not wrong for Jesus to accept worship as king.

1 Chronicles 29:20 20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.​

Jesus said it was wrong but you say "oh no Jesus you're wrong"

1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the congregation blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and worshiped Jehovah, and bowed to the king.



if Jesus was just sent by God & not God then he was wrong to accept worship
Jesus accepted worship because Jesus is God

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

 

[7djengo7]

​

state express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.

​

You just denied that, in the writing called "Scripture", it is definitely, clearly expressed that Noah is not Moses.

​

show be, allow, or cause to be visible. display or allow to be perceived demonstrate or prove

​

​

show be, allow, or cause to be visible. synonyms: be visible, be seen, be in view, manifest; appear, be revealed, be obvious display or allow to be perceived synonyms: manifest, make manifest, exhibit, reveal, convey, communicate, make known; indicate, express, proclaim, intimate, make plain, make obvious, signify, evince, evidence, disclose, betray, divulge, give away

​

​

demonstrate clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. "their shameful silence demonstrates their ineptitude" synonyms: reveal, bespeak, indicate, signify, signal, denote, show, display, exhibit, express, manifest, evince, evidence, be evidence of, be an indication of, bear witness to, testify to; imply, intimate, give away;

​

For Scripture to state that Noah is not Moses is for Scripture to show that Noah is not Moses.

In denying that Scripture states that Noah is not Moses, you deny that Scripture shows that Noah is not Moses. Only an idiot could deny that Scripture shows that Noah is not Moses. Why do you deny that Scripture shows that Noah is not Moses?

Only an abject idiot could claim that the writing known as "Scripture" DEMONSTRATES, without STATING, that Noah is not Moses. For Scripture to DEMONSTRATE that Noah is not Moses IS for Scripture to STATE that Noah is not Moses.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Jesus said it was wrong but you say "oh no Jesus you are wrong"

You seem to be imagining things if you think I ever said Jesus was wrong.

1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the congregation blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and worshiped Jehovah, and bowed to the king.

The translationyou are using is messed up.
Here is a literal translation:

1 Chronicles 29:20 YLT 20 And David saith to all the assembly, `Bless, I pray you, Jehovah your God;' and all the assembly bless Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bow and do obeisance to Jehovah, and to the king.​

if Jesus was just sent by God & not God then he was wrong to accept worship

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Isn't it amazing that the verse you are relying on to say that you can only worship God never says what you think it says.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You just denied that, in the writing called "Scripture", it is definitely, clearly expressed that Noah is not Moses.

state express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.

​

No, scripture does not state that Noah is not Moses.

For Scripture to state that Noah is not Moses is for Scripture to show that Noah is not Moses.

Not quite.
Scripture does not state that Noah is not Moses, since that would require an explicit non-ambiguous statement of that fact.
Scripture does state the lineage of both Noah and Moses, allowing us to infer that Noah could not be Moses because Noah was Moses' ancestor, which is one of the ways that scripture shows that Noah and Moses are two different beings.

The Bible provides us with the genealogy of Noah and of Moses, which shows us that Noah is not Moses.

Only an idiot could deny that Scripture shows that Noah is not Moses. Why do you deny that Scripture shows that Noah is not Moses?

You seem to be very confused.

 

[way 2 go]

You seem to be imagining things if you think I ever said Jesus was wrong.

we all understood what you are trying to prove that Mat 4:10 is not true. (going to blame the translators now, they got it wrong shtick)

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The translationyou are using is messed up.
Here is a literal translation:

1 Chronicles 29:20 YLT 20 And David saith to all the assembly, `Bless, I pray you, Jehovah your God;' and all the assembly bless Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bow and do obeisance to Jehovah, and to the king. ​

David is not asking to be worshiped agreeing with Jesus where you do not.

1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Jehovah your God! And all the congregation blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed and worshiped Jehovah, and bowed to the king.
1Ch 29:21 And they sacrificed sacrifices to Jehovah, and offered burnt offerings to Jehovah on the next day after that day a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel.

Isn't it amazing that the verse you are relying on to say that you can only worship God never says what you think it says.

the translators got it wrong shtick and you have the right translation \ interpretation .

no thanks

 

[Apple7]

Greetings again Apple7, Yes, Acts 2 quotes and expounds Psalm 110:1 and the exposition is contrary to your imposition of the Trinity upon Psalm 110:1 as it states that the One God, God the Father has exalted His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God to sit down at the right hand of God, in God the Father’s throne.
Acts 2:34-36 (KJV): 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


Kind regards
Trevor

Psalm 110 is quoted numerous times in the NT.

You, however, continue to avoid the original Psalm 110, ever since you were hamstrung by it last year.

Regardless, your Acts 2 example still declares the Trinity.

 

[7djengo7]

state express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.

​

No, scripture does not state that Noah is not Moses.

Oh, so you agree that Scripture EXPRESSES, in WRITING, that Noah is not Moses. You just deny that Scripture expresses DEFINITELY that Noah is not Moses, and that Scripture expresses CLEARLY that Noah is not Moses. YOUR claim is that Scripture expresses INDEFINITELY and NOT CLEARLY that Noah is not Moses. Only an abject idiot could claim that Scripture does not DEFINITELY and CLEARLY EXPRESS that Noah is not Moses. By CLEARLY and DEFINITELY EXPRESSING that "Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died", and that "all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died", Scripture is CLEARLY and DEFINITELY EXPRESSING that Noah is NOT Moses.

Scripture does not state that Noah is not Moses

Again, yes it does. Scripture CLEARLY and DEFINITELY EXPRESSES that Noah is not Moses. But, you claim that it is UNCLEAR and INDEFINITE that Noah is not Moses.

, since that would require an explicit non-ambiguous statement of that fact.

Here, you are saying that Scripture states INEXPLICITLY and AMBIGUOUSLY that Noah is not Moses.

 

[Apple7]

Revelation 3:21 (KJV): To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
You can run from these verses but not hide.

Kind regards
Trevor

Why does Jesus declare 'My Throne'...?

 

[7djengo7]

God's divinity comes from being God Himself, the God above all gods.
Jesus' divinity comes from being the fully divine Son of God.

divinity the state or quality of being divine. a divine being; a god or goddess.

​

Here, you are saying that one thing's being a god "comes from" its being a god, and that another thing's being a god does NOT "come from" its being a god. So, what (if anything) would you say it is for a thing to be a god? What does everything that is a god have, which makes that thing a god? What does everything that is not a god lack, the lack of which keeps it from being a god?

What, exactly, would you say makes whatever you call "divine", divine? What is the sine qua non of what you call "being divine"? What is the sine qua non of being a god?

I always laugh at people that try to use the argument about whether God could do something that the Bible never says that God has done or ever will do.

I always laugh when Christ-haters, like yourself, know that they have to stonewall against the questions I ask them, as you have, thus far stonewalled against the question I asked you:

If God the Father has whatever it is you call "divinity", would you say that God the Father could (if He so willed) "strip Himself of His divinity", like you say that Jesus "stripped Himself of His divinity"? YES or NO?

Only a God-hater could refuse to answer NO to that question; YOU, thus far, have refused to answer NO to that question. Only an abject idiot could, out of one side of his mouth, say that God the Father is eternal, and then, out of the other side of his mouth, claim that "the Bible never says that God" could not cease being God. But, that is what you're claiming: that "the Bible never says that God" could not cease being God. Obviously, since the Bible says that God the Father is eternal, the Bible says that God the Father CANNOT CEASE BEING GOD. But, since you hate God the Father, and you hate His Bible, you (unsurprisingly) refuse to answer NO to the question I asked you:

Could God the Father, WHO IS ETERNAL, "strip Himself of His divinity", like you say that Jesus "stripped Himself of His divinity"? Yes or No?

Only the most mentally-debased, Christ-hating fool could refuse to answer NO to this question.

And, since you claim that God the Father is one god, and that Jesus WAS another god, you have to explain how it is that Jesus (according to you) was more mighty than God the Father. If your one god, Jesus, had the might to (as you say) "strip Himself of His divinity", whereas your other god, God the Father, has never had the might to "strip Himself of His divinity", you've made Jesus to be MIGHTIER than you've made God the Father to be.

The Bible never says that God Almighty made himself of no reputation and was made in the likeness of men.

Yeah, it does. The Bible never says that God the Father made himself of no reputation and was made in the likeness of men.

Jesus was a divine being in heaven before His incarnation and out of obedience to His Father he emptied Himself of all of His divinity and became a human.

One of your self-damning problems, here, is that you don't actually mean something by your phrase, "a divine being".

No, a man is not able to become a divine being using his own power.

Again, same problem: You don't actually mean something by your phrase, "a divine being".

God Almighty would need to transform Jesus back into a divine being after the ascension.

Yet again, same problem: You don't actually mean something by your phrase, "a divine being".

 

[7djengo7]

Come back when you learn to read what is written.

What's that, Polly? Wanna cracker?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

Psalm 110 is quoted numerous times in the NT. You, however, continue to avoid the original Psalm 110, ever since you were hamstrung by it last year. Regardless, your Acts 2 example still declares the Trinity.

Not only in Psalm 110:1 but also here you whitewash the detail and add the Trinity. In Psalm 110:1 you attempt to equate the Name of God Yahweh with “Lord”. This is also part of your agenda here in Acts 2:34-36 as you have highlighted LORD and Lord, trying to blur the difference between these two words as they originally appear in Psalm 110:1. Even the KJV translators have attempted to help by rendering this as LORD and Lord in the NT quotation here in Acts 2:34. You are trying to insert God the Holy Spirit for the fact that Jesus was invited to SIT DOWN at the RIGHT HAND of Yahweh, the One God, God the Father.

Why does Jesus declare 'My Throne'...?

Because it is the Throne of David that God the Father has given to His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus will sit upon this throne when he returns from heaven and rules over the earth from Jerusalem for the 1000 years.
Luke 1:30–33 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Matthew 19:28 (KJV): And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Isaiah 2:1–4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

With an argument like that, you are rejecting the entire Bible.
Good luck with that.

7djengo7 seems to lack the ability to comprehend what he reads, as shown in his strangely phrased "arguments" (note the strange use of all caps as if that proves something it doesn't prove).
How quick you are to celebrate 7djengo7's disabilities.

With a post like that, you are admitting that you have nothing rational to say against the rational objections I have raised against your irrationality. Good luck with that.

Why can you not tell the difference between these two things?

1. God the Father is the only true God.
2. ONLY God the Father is the only true God.

In John 17:3, which of the following two things did Christ say to God the Father, and which did He not say to God the Father?

1. "thee the only true God"
2. "thee ONLY ARE the only true God"

That's right! He said #1, and He did NOT say #2. So, where, in the Bible, did Christ say #2? Right again! Nowhere.

Even a child could tell the difference between #1 and #2; why can't you?

I accept the Bible. I accept what Jesus plainly said, in John 17:3, and everywhere else. I reject your eisegesis of John 17:3, and all the rest of your eisegesis upon Scripture. I reject your anti-Christ, anti-Scriptural doctrine. As a Christ-hater, you reject the entire Bible by means of your eisegesis.

Why do you say that merely reading John 17:3, rather than imposing your unitarianism upon John 17:3, is "rejecting the entire Bible"?


Why do heretics, such as yourself, consider it a virtue to despise and oppose logic, as you do?

 

[7djengo7]

The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God

It sure does! So, why don't you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
And, NOWHERE does the Bible teach that the Son of God is not God, so why do YOU claim that the Son of God is not God?

and the Bible says that YHWH is God.

It sure does!

And, NOWHERE does the Bible teach that Jesus is NOT YHWH, so why do YOU claim that Jesus is NOT YHWH?

No, that doctrine comes from the clearly stated teachings of the Bible.

The doctrine that Jesus is NOT YHWH doesn't come from the Bible, at all, so why do you believe that Jesus is NOT YHWH?

 

[7djengo7]

None of those verses say that the Holy Spirit is God.

On the contrary, every one of those verses says that the Holy Spirit is God, you Christ-hating liar.

Romans 8:11: "...the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead..."

In denying Romans 8:11, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Since "Him that raised up Jesus from the dead" is YHWH, you are denying that the Spirit of YHWH is HOLY.

John 4:24: "God is a Spirit"

In denying John 4:24, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Since YHWH is a Spirit, you are denying that YHWH is HOLY.

Seriously, only the most despicably stupid fool can deny, as you just denied, that Acts 5:3-4 says that the Holy Spirit is God. To lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to YHWH. Once again, in denying Scripture, you have blasphemed YHWH.

You are a liar.

False. But, YOU are, indeed, a liar, and an antichrist. You despise God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[7djengo7]

Come back after you have seen the wizard.

Hehehehehe!

That cracks me up. (No sarcasm.)

 

[Idolater]

I believe your honesty isn't shared by many trinitarian/oneness posters on this forum, or any other I've experienced.
I agree with the points you have made up to now.

I would agree with MOST of what you say here. The points on which I disagree are that "all Christians" accept the "apostolic succession". This is only true if you limit "Christian" to people that agree with you.

I was saying that all Christians who receive the New Testament in its entirety as Scripture in one critical way also receive Apostolic succession, because it was the Apostles' teaching authority that had been handed down from bishop to bishop, which approved of the New Testament canon. And as I mentioned, if we were to instead limit what can be rightly called Christian Scripture to the Apostles only themselves, then we'd discard Mark and Luke and Acts and James and possibly Jude and Revelation, at minimum. If we were to believe certain scripture scholars we might even abandon 2nd Timothy and 2nd Peter.

But the vast majority of Christians, including Unitarians, do receive the whole New Testament, as it has been passed down to us from bishops of old, who used their Apostolic teaching authority to authorize its contents.

And I consider everyone who believes Christ's Resurrection as nonfiction historical fact to be my authentic sibling in, and fellow subject of the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the universe.

The battle over "Sola Scriptura" is marvelous evidence that not ALL claiming "Christianity" accept your theory.

Again, all I'm saying is that those Christians who receive the New Testament entirely, also in one critical way, receive Apostolic succession. 'Sola scriptura' is supposed to be an insurrectionist rallying cry against submission to our bishops, but it is self defeating because 'sola scripture' leads to the instruction that we ought to submit to our bishops.

But, the bigger issue is, your theory of an unbroken, RELIABLE tradition among the "Bishops" of the Church, is counter to the dire warnings Christ, and his apostles gave.

Matt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Acts 20:16-17 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Acts 20:26-31 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2 Thess 2:1-12 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The "falling away" Paul describes was ALREADY at work, in his day .... and would not be eradicated until Christ returns!!

But the problem with this view is that it necessitates that the pastorate that the Apostles themselves created, and they did it presumably (and I think fairly 'presumably,' given Matthew 28:20 KJV) in obedience to Christ Himself, became utterly spoiled and corrupted, and this speaks to the type of tree that the Apostles planted---it was a poison tree, a rotten plant, that would inevitable produce poison and rotten fruit, if it produced any fruit at all.

This is what your view requires to be the case, and I cannot accept that, not just the prospect itself, but in examining what this pastorate authoritatively teaches, I have not found any compelling reason through study of the Scripture myself, to necessarily conclude that their teachings that are not clearly explicated in Scripture, must contradict Scripture. The Trinity is merely a case in point in this regard. You're free to disagree with the bishops, as a human being, but I don't think that your own 'sola scriptura' interpretation of the Bible is without some major difficulties, and that is just within the context of context free biblical interpretation, disregarding known history from the eras immediately following the Apostolic era, after they had all died.

1 John 2:18-19 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

The antichrists CAME OUT OF THE CHURCH~!

Yes, but is the Antichrist a bishop? And has the whole episcopate become Antichrist? Due to your view, you say yes, but let's examine history a bit. The Nicaean council pitted one group of bishops against another. Bishops from the east claimed no knowledge of the Father and the Son being 'consubstantial' while the bishops of the west, including the pope, said that 'consubstantial' was Apostolic, according to their own Apostolic oral tradition.

So from one angle, what the council revealed, was that there was a deficit in the eastern Apostolic tradition, and that all the bishops of the west knew a more complete Apostolic oral tradition than the eastern bishops knew. From this angle, what the eastern bishops should have done, was not stubbornly resist 'consubstantial,' but do what we the non ordained faithful are called to do, and submit to our bishops. The eastern insurrectionists instead received their excommunication from the Church over their refusal to do what we the non ordained faithful are called to do; submit to our bishops.

But your take on this is of course different. You believe that the eastern bishops were more faithful to Scripture, rather than to traditions of men, which is what you have to believe about 'consubstantial;' that it was just made up, and is not Apostolic. You believe that the excommunications were unjust. And also you must believe that the institution of the office of Bishop at that time had corrupted completely, and this leads us to what I said earlier, that you must believe that the tree planted by the Apostles, on the instruction of Christ, was a rotten, poison tree.

Rev 17:1-6 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


Biblical prophecy discribes women, both OT and NT, as spiritual groups of people. The Great Whore is a woman (a spiritual group), that "committed fornication" with the kings of the earth, AND was located in "that great city" which was reigning over the kings of the earth in John's day.

So your view is that even while the Apostle John still lived, that the authentic pastorate of the Church, that the Apostles themselves instituted, including John, on the instruction (presumably) of Christ Himself, had already corrupted inexorably? The trouble with this view is that how can you trust the New Testament, since it is what it is because bishops authorized its contents, and this much later than the Apostle John's lifespan?

 

[Dartman]

I was saying that all Christians who receive the New Testament in its entirety as Scripture in one critical way also receive Apostolic succession, because it was the Apostles' teaching authority that had been handed down from bishop to bishop, which approved of the New Testament canon.

Irrelevant.

The books existed roughly 3 centuries before the canon. The canon merely gave a "stamp of approval" on books already being studied, and used for;
2 Tim 3:16-17 .... doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Do I believe God probably influenced the apostate church's decision? Sure. God also influenced Pharaoh, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans etc.

So, I am rejecting your citation of the canon as evidence of the infallibility of ANY Bishop;
Titus 1:4-9 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.



1 Tim 5:19-20 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Jesus held the churches accountable for tolerating false doctrine;

Rev 2:14-15 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.


Rev 2:20-21 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.


Do I believe the TRUE body of Christ, the TRUE Church survived the "gates of hell"?

YES! ...... BARELY!
Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly.
Matt 24:22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.


So, the identity of the TRUE Church is to be found in those martyred by the apostate church.

 

[Idolater]

Irrelevant.

The books existed roughly 3 centuries before the canon. The canon merely gave a "stamp of approval" on books already being studied, and used for;
2 Tim 3:16-17 .... doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Do I believe God probably influenced the apostate church's decision? Sure. God also influenced Pharaoh, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans etc.

So, I am rejecting your citation of the canon as evidence of the infallibility of ANY Bishop;
Titus 1:4-9 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.



1 Tim 5:19-20 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Jesus held the churches accountable for tolerating false doctrine;

Rev 2:14-15 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.


Rev 2:20-21 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.


Do I believe the TRUE body of Christ, the TRUE Church survived the "gates of hell"?

YES! ...... BARELY!
Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly.
Matt 24:22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.


So, the identity of the TRUE Church is to be found in those martyred by the apostate church.

OK. There were uncounted martyrs before Constantine. Since you believe that victims of the Church are the true Christians, what is your belief concerning all those martyrs who were victims of pagans, during the first three centuries of the Church, when the Church, to our knowledge, didn't kill anybody? That's a long time, even though it seems short, looking back now 2000 years after the Church's birth. For a long time, it was deadly to be a Christian, and to be a bishop especially, was like having a target on your back. What are your views of all those bishops who were martyred by pagans before Constantine? Were they not the 'TRUE' Church?