The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[Illuminator]

The early church Fathers were not apostles like the twelve, nor were their writings ever considered scripture.

That's a lame excuse to reject their importance as history, which is a bad word around here.

We need God's word to learn the truth....not what came later from the ideas of those who deviated from what scripture taught.

Then prove the Early Church Fathers deviated from Scripture, instead of making empty assertions. It was some the ECF that proved the inspiration of the NT Scriptures and without them we would have no Bible. Your irrational disdain for the ECF collapses on itself. This forces you to invent Bible origin fantasies and re-write early church history so it fits your false presuppositions.

Humble beginnings for the Christians, meant no ornate buildings, no fancy attire or religious titles....and the first Christians were taught to share what they had with one another. (2 Corinthians 8:13-15)

There were no ornate buildings because Christianity was illegal for the first 3 centuries. This is a classic example of your abysmal ignorance of early church history, so you have to make it up. Furthermore, you have no name of any "true believer" in the first 3 centuries, (post-biblical era) and until you can come up with ONE name, you have no business citing the early church as your spiritual origins.
Paul wrote a lot about the end times and corruption, but never once did he say evil would prevail over the Church. Jesus said the opposite of what you have dogmatized.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection. (that you deny). What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.​

Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a “Lone Ranger”? | Dave Armstrong

 

[Titus]

Do you really believe that this is what this ongoing debate is all about?
The "deity of Jesus Christ" was never mentioned by him or his Father in any passage of scripture....so what was added centuries ago, has been removed by non-trinitarians because it was never there in the first place.

Those who deny the trinity have ample scriptural proof that it was not taught to the children of Israel who would never have accepted that their Messiah was God incarnate as that would have been blasphemous....a clear breach of the first Commandment. No one was to put other "gods" in the place of Yahweh.

Christendom claims to worship one God in three persons, but the Catholic church who instituted it into their doctrines over 300 years after Christ's death, named three "gods"...."God the Father", "God the Son", and "God the Holy Spirit"....this is the foundation of the trinity....it is not scriptural even as the Catholic church itself admits....

The New Catholic Encyclopedia stated: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.


You didn't have to "buy" the trinity in the first place.....my guess is that most people were indoctrinated with it from birth and have no idea where it came from. It was taught as the very foundational doctrine of the church, and yet it cannot be found expressly stated in any scripture...OT or NT.
This was my situation as well.....I was raised with Christendom's teachings about the nature of God, but it never made sense to me and no one could explain it scripturally or logically, so I started to do my own research...and guess what? I discovered that the ancient Jews and the first Christians had never heard of it. It had to be skillfully woven into ambiguous verses and suggested as part of mistranslation hundreds of years after the death of Christ....along with a range of other adopted pagan ideas that came along as time went on. ...too many to enumerate, but the big three are the 'trinity, immortality of the soul and hellfire'.....none of which are taught in the Bible but are merely suggested by misinterpretation or mistranslation.


I believe that your "glorious Lord" is about to disappoint those who have altered the very nature of the one true God, and put two other 'gods' in his place.....(Exodus 20:3) but that is not my call.....Jesus will let us all know soon enough if we are on the right road.....(Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23)
Don't forget...it is not the "many" who will be saved.....only the "few" whom the father has drawn to his truth. (John 6:44; 65)

How can I or anyone else put any trust in what you say? Your Jehovah Witness doctrine teaches you to lie to those outside your church. The JW's call it Theocratic warfare. Your church teaches it is right with God to deceive those not in your church. I encourage anyone Aunty Jane is giving advice to, please research the JW's practise of lying to protect their church.

 

[tigger 2]

Hmmmm....you don't like the ECF's. How about the Apostolic Fathers? Men who were students of the Apostles. Did they deviate from what Scripture taught?

The writings of Clement of Rome, an Apostolic Father, were considered Scripture at one time. Would you accept what he wrote OR do you feel he deviated from what Scripture taught?

Curious Mary

What did he write concerning the identity of God and Jesus? If there is real evidence in the Bible of a trinity, or even a binity, surely Clement would reflect that.

 

[kcnalp]

Who isn't God? The Father? The Son? The Holy Spirit? Sounds like JW blasphemy!

 

[Aunty Jane]

That's a lame excuse to reject their importance as history, which is a bad word around here.

History certainly has a part to play, but history is also recorded in the Bible which should be our primary source of information. Did Jesus ever say that we needed more than what God’s word says? Are we to add things to it and alter our worship because men said we should? If we follow the traditions of men, instead of following God’s word, we invalidate our worship. (Matthew 15:7-9)

Then prove the Early Church Fathers deviated from Scripture, instead of making empty assertions. It was some the ECF that proved the inspiration of the NT Scriptures and without them we would have no Bible. Your irrational disdain for the ECF collapses on itself. This forces you to invent Bible origin fantasies and re-write early church history so it fits your false presuppositions.

The early church fathers were used to compile the canon of inspired scripture, but by no means were these men themselves inspired, or were their writings to be considered equal to scripture. God’s word is HIS...it is not a product of any church...it is the product of God’s spirit regardless of who produced the finished product. God can use even his enemies to accomplish his will if he so chooses.....he did so in the past.

Not a single word of scripture was penned by any of those men.

Paul wrote a lot about the end times and corruption, but never once did he say evil would prevail over the Church. Jesus said the opposite of what you have dogmatized.

It was Jesus who pointed to that situation. His illustration of the “wheat and the weeds” indicated that the devil would sow seeds of a counterfeit form of Christianity that would entangle the “wheat” who were always a despised minority in satan’s world....the ones that “the church” accused of “heresy” because they refused to support its false doctrines.
“The church” had them tortured to force a confession and then executed them because they confessed. Such good Christians! Where do we find Jesus advocating such conduct? “The church” was far from Christian in its teachings or conduct.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection. (that you deny). What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

Ah, but who were “the church”? History reveals that the “wheat” were in the world all through it’s ugly history, growing valiantly alongside the “weeds”.....a tiny voice in a thoroughly corrupted empire, drunk with its own power. How can you possibly equate the conduct and teachings of the RCC with the conduct and teachings of Jesus Christ? There is no resemblance.

The Reformation thankfully broke the power of the Roman church, and placed the Bible back into the hands of the people.....but it did not return to true worship.

It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

I believe that you faith is horribly misplaced. “The true church” has survived because they are servants of God and of Jesus Christ, and have taught his truth and carried out his instructions even when it was nigh on to impossible, and the masses were going in the other direction...some paid with their lives......but IMO, obeying Christ is something the RCC has never done.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

Are you serious? Is that what you think the Bible writers were? The Bible is “the word of God”, not a product of men...... “the sinners and hypocrites” are all members of the human race.
The RCC continued to add to their adopted doctrines for hundreds of years.

The adoration of Mary e.g. was not based on scripture, nor was she ever called “mother of God” in any passage of the Bible. Nor was she viewed or called a mediatrix for intercession. The only Mediator is Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:5) It was a continuation of mother goddess worship which was adopted from paganism. Do some research and see that all the titles given to Mary were already the same titles given to these pagan mother goddesses.

Where will we find a place called “Purgatory” in the Bible. Or where will I find the words “immortal soul” in a single passage of scripture? How is infant baptism valid when it has to be one’s own decision made when a person was moved from the heart to become a follower of Christ. That is not something that can be done by proxy. It’s not the act of baptism that is important, but the motivation behind it that is important.
Where does it say that priests had to be unmarried and celibate? The early Popes were married and had children.....

I am not a Protestant and do not subscribe to any of Christendom’s teachings for the simple reason that all the Protestants did was fracture Christianity into more and more disunited factions all bickering over the “gnats”, while the “camels” were being swallowed wholesale.

They simply built another house, but made of the same corrupt materials. All have their foundations in the sand according to my studies. And the “storm” is coming.

The “rock” is Jesus Christ, not Peter, and there was no “Pope” in original Christianity, living in a gold inlaid palace whilst the beggars were starving outside. Jesus instructed his disciples to take care of their own......those who had, were to give to those who did not have.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Delusion is unfortunately rife in the world of religion as Paul said....God allows those who love their delusion, to keep it. He will not force anyone to accept the truth. Ignorance will be bliss until Christ himself tells us whom he recognizes as his own. They will not know until the judgment comes that Christ has never set foot in a single one of their buildings...of those he “never knew”. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; Matthew 7:21-23)

I believe that the devil’s empire of false worship is about to be taken down.....but who will go down with it?
We will have to wait and see.....

 

[kcnalp]

History certainly has a part to play, but history is also recorded in the Bible which should be our primary source of information. Did Jesus ever say that we needed more than what God’s word says? Are we to add things to it and alter our worship because men said we should? If we follow the traditions of men, instead of following God’s word, we invalidate our worship. (Matthew 15:7-9)


The early church fathers were used to compile the canon of inspired scripture, but by no means were these men themselves inspired, or were their writings to be considered equal to scripture. God’s word is HIS...it is not a product of any church...it is the product of God’s spirit regardless of who produced the finished product. God can use even his enemies to accomplish his will if he so chooses.....he did so in the past.

Not a single word of scripture was penned by any of those men.


It was Jesus who pointed to that situation. His illustration of the “wheat and the weeds” indicated that the devil would sow seeds of a counterfeit form of Christianity that would entangle the “wheat” who were always a despised minority in satan’s world....the ones that “the church” accused of “heresy” because they refused to support its false doctrines.
“The church” had them tortured to force a confession and then executed them because they confessed. Such good Christians! Where do we find Jesus advocating such conduct? “The church” was far from Christian in its teachings or conduct.


Ah, but who were “the church”? History reveals that the “wheat” were in the world all through it’s ugly history, growing valiantly alongside the “weeds”.....a tiny voice in a thoroughly corrupted empire, drunk with its own power. How can you possibly equate the conduct and teachings of the RCC with the conduct teachings of Jesus Christ? There is no resemblance.

The Reformation thankfully broke the power of the Roman church, and placed the Bible back into the hands of the people.....but it did not return to true worship.


I believe that you faith is horribly misplaced. “The true church” has survived because they are servants of God and of Jesus Christ, and have taught his truth and carried out his instructions even when it was nigh on to impossible, and the masses were going in the other direction...some paid with their lives......but IMO, obeying Christ is something the RCC has never done.


Are you serious? Is that what you think the Bible were? The Bible is “the word of God”, not a product of men...... “the sinners and hypocrites” are all members of the human race.
The RCC continued to add to their adopted doctrines for hundreds of years.

The adoration of Mary e.g. was not based on scripture, nor was she ever called “mother of God” in any passage of scripture. Nor was she viewer called a mediatrix for intercession. The only Mediator is Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:5) It was a continuation of mother goddess worship which was adopted from paganism. Do some research and see that all the titles given to Mary were already the same titles given to these pagan mother goddesses.

Where will we find a place called “Purgatory” in the Bible. Or where will I find the words “immortal soul” in a single passage of scripture? How is infant baptism valid when it has to be one’s own decision made when a person was moved from the heart to become a follower of Christ. That is not something that can be done by proxy. It’s not the act of baptism that is important, but the motivation behind it that is important.
Where does it say that priests had to be unmarried and celibate? The early Popes were married and had children.....?

I am not a Protestant and do not subscribe to any of Christendom’s teachings for the simple reason that all the Protestants did was fracture Christianity into more and more disunited factions all bickering over the “gnats”, while the “camels” were being swallowed wholesale.

They simply built another house, but made of the same corrupt materials. All have their foundations in the sand according to my studies. And the “storm” is coming.

The “rock” is Jesus Christ, not Peter, and there was no “Pope” in original Christianity living in a gold inlaid palace whilst the beggars were starving outside. Jesus instructed his disciples to take care of their own......those who had, were to give to those who did not have.


Delusion is unfortunately rife in the world of religion as Paul said....God allows those who love their delusion to keep it. He will not force anyone to accept the truth. Ignorance will be bliss until Christ himself tells us whom he recognises as his own. They will not know until the judgment comes that Christ has never set foot in a single one of their buildings...those he “never knew”. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; Matthew 7:21-23)

I believe that the devil’s empire of false worship is about to be taken down.....but who will go down with it?
We will have to wait and see.....

Let's see, lots of JW's, SDA's, Mormons, Muslims, pro abortionists and an OCEAN of unbelievers.

 

[David in NJ]

2 Peter 1:1 is often used to support the trinity.
“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

Here is the problem.

Granville Sharp made a rule in 1798. Sharp's Rule says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek NT text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" comes before the first noun and not before the other nouns.

Many respected NT experts and translators have rejected Sharp's Rule. For example: G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

Notice these translations of 2 Peter 1:1.
KJV - “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
ASV - "in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ"
RSV footnote - “of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”
Weymouth - “through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
NWT “through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”

The most frequently used “Sharp’s Rule” verse is Titus 2:13. These translations also reject the made up rule and do not support the trinity.
KJV - “of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Moffatt - "of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus,"
NABRE - "of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,"
NLV - "of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus."
RSV footnote - “of the great God and our Savior”
CJB - "of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah."
GNV - "of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ."
Phillips - "of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour.
Coverdale - “of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ.”
Wycliffe - “of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist;”
Tyndale - “ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ.”
Mace- “of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ,”
Noyes - “of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
Riverside - “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,”
NWT - "of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ,"

The Trinity is the Foundation of Scripture that Elohim communicated from the Beginning.
Elohim firmly established this for us in Genesis and confirmed it in His Gospel.
Hidden from those without the Spirit and revealed to those who Love Him, who are not bound by unbelief.

 

[Titus]

The adoration of Mary e.g. was not based on scripture, nor was she ever called “mother of God” in any passage of scripture. Nor was she viewer called a mediatrix for intercession.

Correct, equally true is Jesus was never called a god as the JW's teach.

 

[Aunty Jane]

How can I or anyone else put any trust in what you say? Your Jehovah Witness doctrine teaches you to lie to those outside your church. The JW's call it Theocratic warfare. Your church teaches it is right with God to deceive those not in your church. I encourage anyone Aunty Jane is giving advice to, please research the JW's practise of lying to protect their church.

Oh please....who on earth has told you this? It’s the greatest load of garbage I have ever heard.
The only research you have ever done on Jehovah’s Witnesses is from those who despise us....disgruntled ex’s in particular, out for revenge because they were disciplined for their unrepentant errors. You are misinformed by gross exaggerations and lies told about us. (Matthew 5:11-12) You want to believe them.

No one will ever convince those who are deluded....
Our choices determine our future and since you cannot answer even a simple question about the kingdom from your own faith, how reliable are your accusations when your knowledge about the important things that Jesus taught is so sadly lacking. You simply join the ignorant chorus who all react like trained seals.

Correct, equally true is Jesus was never called a god as the JW's teach.

How does one encourage study of the Greek NT when English is all they see....do some research on the word “theos” and see that both Jehovah and his son can be identified by this term. The Holy Spirit however is not once called “theos”.....
Satan is identified by this word. For goodness sake....get yourself some decent Bible education.

Believe whatever you wish......you appear to be on some kind of a vendetta but it is solely based on wilful ignorance.

“Ignore” might now be in order.

 

[Titus]

Oh please....who on earth has told you this? It’s the greatest load of garbage I have ever heard.
The only research you have ever done on Jehovah’s Witnesses is from those who despise us....disgruntled ex’s in particular, out for revenge because they were disciplined for their unrepentant errors. You are misinformed by gross exaggerations and lies told about us. (Matthew 5:11-12) You want to believe them.

No one will ever convince those who are deluded....
Our choices determine our future and since you cannot answer even a simple question about the kingdom from your own faith, how reliable are your accusations when your knowledge about the important things that Jesus taught is so sadly lacking. You simply join the ignorant chorus who all react like trained seals.


How does one encourage study of the Greek NT when English is all they see....do some research on the word “theos” and see that both Jehovah and his son can be identified by this term. The Holy Spirit however is not once called “theos”.....
Satan is identified by this word. For goodness sake....get yourself some decent Bible education.

Believe whatever you wish......you appear to be on some kind of a vendetta but it is solely based on wilful ignorance.

“Ignore” might now be in order.

Former JW's told me this

 

[Titus]

Oh please....who on earth has told you this? It’s the greatest load of garbage I have ever heard.
The only research you have ever done on Jehovah’s Witnesses is from those who despise us....disgruntled ex’s in particular, out for revenge because they were disciplined for their unrepentant errors. You are misinformed by gross exaggerations and lies told about us. (Matthew 5:11-12) You want to believe them.

No one will ever convince those who are deluded....
Our choices determine our future and since you cannot answer even a simple question about the kingdom from your own faith, how reliable are your accusations when your knowledge about the important things that Jesus taught is so sadly lacking. You simply join the ignorant chorus who all react like trained seals.


How does one encourage study of the Greek NT when English is all they see....do some research on the word “theos” and see that both Jehovah and his son can be identified by this term. The Holy Spirit however is not once called “theos”.....
Satan is identified by this word. For goodness sake....get yourself some decent Bible education.

Believe whatever you wish......you appear to be on some kind of a vendetta but it is solely based on wilful ignorance.

“Ignore” might now be in order.

I'm sure those former JW's are all lying about how they were disgusted the JW's teach their members to lie.
Folks leaving your church because they don't believe lying is right. Are the ones lying that your church lies.
Sure

 

[Titus]

Oh please....who on earth has told you this? It’s the greatest load of garbage I have ever heard.
The only research you have ever done on Jehovah’s Witnesses is from those who despise us....disgruntled ex’s in particular, out for revenge because they were disciplined for their unrepentant errors. You are misinformed by gross exaggerations and lies told about us. (Matthew 5:11-12) You want to believe them.

No one will ever convince those who are deluded....
Our choices determine our future and since you cannot answer even a simple question about the kingdom from your own faith, how reliable are your accusations when your knowledge about the important things that Jesus taught is so sadly lacking. You simply join the ignorant chorus who all react like trained seals.


How does one encourage study of the Greek NT when English is all they see....do some research on the word “theos” and see that both Jehovah and his son can be identified by this term. The Holy Spirit however is not once called “theos”.....
Satan is identified by this word. For goodness sake....get yourself some decent Bible education.

Believe whatever you wish......you appear to be on some kind of a vendetta but it is solely based on wilful ignorance.

“Ignore” might now be in order.

Why should I listen to a women tell me what the Greek says, when you are not a greek scholar. I have access to the same Greek scholars as you do. I'll let the Scriptures interpret the bible. Not a women who doesn't no Greek, tell me what the Greek says.
Also, you cannot be trusted because you just lied to me that there is no such thing as Theocratic warfare.

 

[Titus]

Oh please....who on earth has told you this? It’s the greatest load of garbage I have ever heard.
The only research you have ever done on Jehovah’s Witnesses is from those who despise us....disgruntled ex’s in particular, out for revenge because they were disciplined for their unrepentant errors. You are misinformed by gross exaggerations and lies told about us. (Matthew 5:11-12) You want to believe them.

No one will ever convince those who are deluded....
Our choices determine our future and since you cannot answer even a simple question about the kingdom from your own faith, how reliable are your accusations when your knowledge about the important things that Jesus taught is so sadly lacking. You simply join the ignorant chorus who all react like trained seals.


How does one encourage study of the Greek NT when English is all they see....do some research on the word “theos” and see that both Jehovah and his son can be identified by this term. The Holy Spirit however is not once called “theos”.....
Satan is identified by this word. For goodness sake....get yourself some decent Bible education.

Believe whatever you wish......you appear to be on some kind of a vendetta but it is solely based on wilful ignorance.

“Ignore” might now be in order.

You have made the same accusations towards me. I'm ignorant of the scriptures. I dont know Greek words. I don't know what satan, the angels, God is referred to in the greek.
Here is something you need to learn about Bible interpretation. It's called figurative language. You seem to be completely unaware of it.

 

[Illuminator]

Sorry I'm not looking for papal authority. I want to see evidence of the trinity in this earliest evidence from the earliest Christian writer.

You glossed over post #126 because it destroys your false presuppositions.
Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity
not a Catholic source

You are afraid of the truth.

 

[Illuminator]

History certainly has a part to play, but history is also recorded in the Bible which should be our primary source of information. Did Jesus ever say that we needed more than what God’s word says? Are we to add things to it and alter our worship because men said we should? If we follow the traditions of men, instead of following God’s word, we invalidate our worship. (Matthew 15:7-9)

What a joke. You follow the tradition of Arianism.

The early church fathers were used to compile the canon of inspired scripture, but by no means were these men themselves inspired, or were their writings to be considered equal to scripture. God’s word is HIS...it is not a product of any church...it is the product of God’s spirit regardless of who produced the finished product. God can use even his enemies to accomplish his will if he so chooses.....he did so in the past.

Not a single word of scripture was penned by any of those men.

You completely miss the point. The early church fathers had the authority to compile the canon of inspired scripture, which you deny, as if God dropped the Bible from the sky with no need of "men".

It was Jesus who pointed to that situation. His illustration of the “wheat and the weeds” indicated that the devil would sow seeds of a counterfeit form of Christianity that would entangle the “wheat” who were always a despised minority in satan’s world....the ones that “the church” accused of “heresy” because they refused to support its false doctrines.
“The church” had them tortured to force a confession and then executed them because they confessed. Such good Christians! Where do we find Jesus advocating such conduct? “The church” was far from Christian in its teachings or conduct.

A big fat lie. Pagan Romans killed the first 40 popes, (a fact never mentioned in any anti-Catholic web site) it wasn't Catholics killing Catholics.

Ah, but who were “the church”? History reveals that the “wheat” were in the world all through it’s ugly history, growing valiantly alongside the “weeds”.....a tiny voice in a thoroughly corrupted empire, drunk with its own power. How can you possibly equate the conduct and teachings of the RCC with the conduct and teachings of Jesus Christ? There is no resemblance.

Again, you have failed to name any early church Christian who upholds your Arian based heresy. "thoroughly corrupted empire" is not history but JW propaganda. A thoroughly corrupted empire could never have survived 3 centuries of intense persecution

The Reformation thankfully broke the power of the Roman church, and placed the Bible back into the hands of the people.....but it did not return to true worship.

Yea, right. Everybody is wrong until until Charles Russel Taze corrected all of Christianity from Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. "placed the Bible back into the hands of the people" is false reformist rhetoric, another lie, yet you support the so called reformation. Your rant is inconsistent.

I believe that you faith is horribly misplaced. “The true church” has survived because they are servants of God and of Jesus Christ, and have taught his truth and carried out his instructions even when it was nigh on to impossible, and the masses were going in the other direction...some paid with their lives......but IMO, obeying Christ is something the RCC has never done.

Another lie.

Are you serious? Is that what you think the Bible writers were? The Bible is “the word of God”, not a product of men...... “the sinners and hypocrites” are all members of the human race.
The RCC continued to add to their adopted doctrines for hundreds of years.

This reveals your ignorance of what a doctrine is, and a denial that it was God using "men" who preserved, canonized, and proclaimed the written and spoken word of God. It was your "men" who perverted the written word of God with a faulty translation.

The adoration of Mary e.g. was not based on scripture, nor was she ever called “mother of God” in any passage of the Bible. Nor was she viewed or called a mediatrix for intercession. The only Mediator is Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:5) It was a continuation of mother goddess worship which was adopted from paganism. Do some research and see that all the titles given to Mary were already the same titles given to these pagan mother goddesses.

More false history.

Where will we find a place called “Purgatory” in the Bible. Or where will I find the words “immortal soul” in a single passage of scripture? How is infant baptism valid when it has to be one’s own decision made when a person was moved from the heart to become a follower of Christ. That is not something that can be done by proxy. It’s not the act of baptism that is important, but the motivation behind it that is important.
Where does it say that priests had to be unmarried and celibate? The early Popes were married and had children.....

You are squirming with this rant of 5 different topics which proves you are incapable of honest discussion.

I am not a Protestant and do not subscribe to any of Christendom’s teachings for the simple reason that all the Protestants did was fracture Christianity into more and more disunited factions all bickering over the “gnats”, while the “camels” were being swallowed wholesale.

Yea right. All of Christianity is wrong until 1870. What a joke.

They simply built another house, but made of the same corrupt materials. All have their foundations in the sand according to my studies. And the “storm” is coming.

The “rock” is Jesus Christ, not Peter, and there was no “Pope” in original Christianity, living in a gold inlaid palace whilst the beggars were starving outside. Jesus instructed his disciples to take care of their own......those who had, were to give to those who did not have.

That's 6 topics. Your "studies" are restricted to the ever changing ramblings of the Watchtower Society.

 

[David in NJ]

Sorry I'm not looking for papal authority. I want to see evidence of the trinity in this earliest evidence from the earliest Christian writer.

Why not go straight to the Source of Truth?

 

[Marymog]

What did he write concerning the identity of God and Jesus? If there is real evidence in the Bible of a trinity, or even a binity, surely Clement would reflect that.

Hey tigger,

Not sure why it is so important to you that Clement would need to comment on the Trinity for you to accept the Trinity doctrine of Christianity but here is what he said that alludes to it: Why is it that you harbor strife, bad temper, dissention, schism, and quarreling? Do we not have one God, one Christ, one Spirit of grace which was poured out on us? “For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives and the Holy Spirit (on whom the elect believe and hope) . . . ”

Reflect on that....One mans reflections doesn't make Church doctrine.

 

[Marymog]

..................................
What do you believe Clement of Rome wrote?

I don't understand your question. It is not a matter of what I believe but a matter of what he actually wrote: First Clement: Clement of Rome (earlychristianwritings.com)

 

[Illuminator]

The Watch Tower Society maintains that it is God's reliable mouthpiece to the nations, and it claims to be God's inspired prophet (WT, 4-1-1972, 197) and yet its prophecies have repeatedly proven to be false. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the WTS is to be rejected as a false prophet.

Among other things, the WTS predicted the following:
1889 "The battle of the great day of God almighty (Rev 16:14) which will end in AD 1914 . . . " (Studies, Vol. 2, 1908 edition, 101).
1891 "With the end of AD 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown from prophecy" (Studies, Vol. 3, 153).
1894 "The end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble" (WT Reprints, 1-1-1894, 1605 and 1677).
1897 "Our Lord is now present, since October 1874 AD" (Studies, Vol. 4, 1897 edition, 621).
1916 "The six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th day, the 1000 years of Christ’s reign began in 1873" (Studies, Vol. 2, p. 2 of foreword).
1917 "Scriptures . . . prove that the Lord's Second Advent occurred in the fall of 1874" (Studies, Vol. 7, 68).
1918 "Therefore, we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old" (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 89).
1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the scriptures than 1914" (WT, 9-1-1922, 262).
1923 "1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge" (WT, 4-1-1923, 106).
1925 "The year of 1925 is here. . . . Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year" (WT, 1-1-1925, 3).
1931 "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the dates 1914, 1918, & 1925 . . . and they also learned to quit fixing dates" (Vindication, 388, 389).
1939 "The disaster of Armageddon is just ahead" (Salvation, 361).
1941 "Armageddon is surely near . . . soon . . . within a few years" (Children, 10).
1946 "Armageddon . . . should come sometime before 1972" (They Have Found a Faith, 44).
1966 "Six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E" (Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, 29).
1968 "The end of the six thousand years of man’s history in the fall of 1975 is not tentative, but is accepted as a certain date" (WT, 1-1-1968, 271).

Besides false prophesies, the WTS has misled its members through countless changes in doctrine and practice:

"To worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong ... " (WT, 3-1880, 83).
"It is unscriptural for worshippers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ" (WT, 11-1-1964, 671).

The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT, 7-1879, 7-8).
The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT, 6-1-1952, 338).
The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT 8-1-1965, 479).
The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT 6-1-1988, 31).
The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Live Forever, early ed., 179).
The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Live Forever, later ed., 179).
The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 985).
The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand! 273).

"There could be nothing against our consciences in going into the army" (WT, 4-15-1903, 120).
Due to conscience, Jehovah's Witnesses must refuse military service (WT, 2-1-1951, 73).

"We may as well join in with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event [Christmas] . . . " (WT Reprints, 12-1-1904, 3468).
"Christmas and its music are not from Jehovah . . . What is their source? . . . Satan the devil" (WT, 12-15-1983, 7).

"Everyone in America should take pleasure in displaying the American flag" (WT Reprints, 5-15-1917, 6068).
The flag is "an idolatrous symbol" (Awake!, 9-8-71, 14).

A much longer list of such contradictions and doctrinal twists by the WTS could be formed, but this suffices to remove any reason one might have to believe that "It is through the columns of The Watchtower that Jehovah provides direction and constant scriptural counsel to his people . . . " (WT, 5-1-1964, 277). If that is the case, who is to say what will be taught tomorrow?

 

[tigger 2]

You glossed over post #126 because it destroys your false presuppositions.
Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity
not a Catholic source

You are afraid of the truth.

I glossed over your link. Haven't you glossed over my links to my personal studies?

I have beside me at my computer the set of Ante-Nicene Fathers. I also have further translations by Dr. Sparks and by Lightfoot and Harmer (which includes the Greek text). I have even done a personal study on them and the earliest baptismal questions and creeds.

If you would actually extend a tiny bit of effort and quote for me a FEW trinitarian (or binitarian) examples from the earliest Ante-Nicene Fathers, I will reply to them. It would be nice of you (I guess that's out of the question) if you started with the earliest and most important of them: 1 Clement.