LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[Peter1000]

dzheremi says:

Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy was true in 451, just like it was at any date before or after that.

OK, tell me what the name of the true church of Jesus Christ was in 450ad, just before the schism?
In an epistle from Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (chapter 8) he refers to the church as the Catholic church. This epistle was written on his way to Rome in the 140's.

So is this the name of the church in the 140's, the Catholic church?

You can't. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist in 451.

Ah, I should have used Catholic church rather than RC. Thank you for that correction.
But the question still stands. Before 451, at least Ignatius in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans called the church the Catholic church and it was, I assume one church without division at that point.

And I assume that it was considered one church up to 451, when the big Chalcedon argument spilled over into schism.

So after 451, there was the Catholic church, and now a second Christian church calling themselves the OO.

The Orthodox Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ our God, so yeah, that's what we are. What's your point, though? The Eastern and Western Chalcedonians also say that of their own churches, so what is that supposed to do?

Again, there can only be 1 true church of Jesus Christ. 1 baptism, 1 communion etc. Which one is the true church. The OO (Oriental Orthodox), the EC (Eastern Orthodox), or WC (Catholic)?

 

[Peter1000]

If God has an "alternative method", why do we even need your God while we are earth today? Of what relevance is your church then?

Here's the dilemma you face -

If mormon theology is correct and Christianity is not, then you're good and we Christians get the opportunity to make it up later in the afterlife.

If Christianity is correct and mormonism is not, then we Christians are good and the mormons will have to take their chances. With Scripture being clear on what happens to false prophets and false teachers, as well as those who claim to do good works in Jesus' name but he doesn't know them, that's an awful big chance to take. Again, if Christianity is correct, mormons will not get a second chance in the afterlife.

Are you willing to take that risk?

You always assume that our apostles and prophets and teachers are false. I do not.

Besides, according to your teachings, anyone can teach and baptise and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved. I believe in Christ, I was baptized in his name and I received the Holy Ghost. I should be OK according to you. For me there is the authority thing, and the keeping of the commandments, and the enduring to the end thing. We go a little deeper to be saved than you do.

If you had a fullness and rejected it and did evil in your life, you will not have a 2nd chance.

If you were given a chance to hear the true gospel and you reject it without a fullness, but stay true to the commandments of Jesus here on earth, God will be the judge of how much of a chance you get in the spirit world.

If you never got the opportunity to hear the name of Jesus, then God will give you the chance to learn the truth and have the saving ordinances to be saved in his kingdom.

So the church on earth is to give everyone the possibility to hear the gospel and accept or reject whether you are alive or dead. The church must be here to administer the truth and the ordinances for the living and the dead. It is as good for us who are teaching as for those that are learning. It helps us stay on the right path, as we show the right path to others.

 

[He is the way]

That makes John the oldest human by about a thousand years.

Elijah was translated before John.

 

[Peter1000]

He abandoned them to abomination, if you prefer to use this definition. Given teh ascendancy of Nicene Christianity how can you describe it as anything else? I'll also note that while they might be saved (everyone is saved in Mormonism) most Christians have been denied the supposed fullness of the LDS throughout history. Missing is a celestial marriage in their lives or Mormon baptism and since you cannot know the names of everyone to baptize for them, how is it unreasonable to conclude that they have been denied the highest celestial reward?

I know Mormons say that God will open up a path for them, but how is that so? Where in the Mormon texts are we told this is the case? If it is the case, why baptize for the dead to begin with? If your marriage ceremony isn't necessary, along with all of the rites and rituals, why go through with them?

The great work for the dead has just really got started, and it will not be done until the end of the thousand years of the millenium. We have to be able to unravel the geneology of all that have been born through Adam. This will only be done when we can meet these people face to face and find out their mother and father etc., etc., etc. It will be one of the great works done in the millenium. Billions of people will be taught the truth and given all of the sacred ordinances, even the sacred marriage covenant for all those who stand up and want to be married for time and all eternity.

Right. So why didn't God provide the necessary authority? You seem to miss this point again and again. It wasn't up to us to provide Apostles and prophets for these things you mention. It was up to God. He failed to provide what could have easily been provided. There were plenty of faithful people, no better or worse than you Mormons today. There were plenty of opportunities in history that your God could have made use of. He didn't.

Again, God did not reject the world, the world rejected him, he decided to not provide any more Apostles because he knew they would just meet their death horribly and so he decided to use an alterative method, which he is doing, very successfully.

Would you say the same of your Church if God made his grace depart from it? That you hadn't been abandoned? No, you would rightfully ask why has he forsaken you.

Yes, but we have been assured because of the short time line to the millenium, the Lord will not allow our leadership to lead us astray. And that it would stand until the second coming. It will be instrumental in many missions to prepare the world for the second coming of Jesus.

You keep reading, most or many and turn it into an inevitability that the apostasy must have happened. Even granting that there is still no reason why a remnant of the faithful could not have persevered. You even grant that there were good Christians whom were faithful and that God will save them in the end. Yet he abandoned those people to abominable teachings. What is abomination to God? It is on the level of Homosexuality, at least going by the Old Testament.

God also left them with the bible to learn his truths from and many good leaders that kept their people from abominable teachings. With that much information a person should be able to steer clear of abominable teachings and stay close to the right path. No, God did not abandon.

I have given you many scriptures from the bible that the people rejected Paul and John. But here are 2: 2 Timothy 1:15 and 3 John 1:9-10.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have given you many scriptures from the bible that the people rejected Paul and John. But here are 2: 2 Timothy 1:15 and 3 John 1:9-10.

You do know that you are trying to go from particulars to a universal, right? And that doesn't actually work logically.

 

[Peter1000]

You do know that you are trying to go from particulars to a universal, right? And that doesn't actually work logically.

When Paul says that "all Asia is turned from me", you would have to admit "all Asia" is a big chunk of the "universe".

When John takes the time to write that there is an area in the church that will not accept him and will throw people out of the church if they do, is there other areas of the church that are doing the same. Remember 3 John is near the end of John's ministry.

When Jesus tells John that 7 churches are having problems and if they do not repent, he will destroy them, you start to get a feeling that all was not well with the first century church by around 100.

There is a certain amount of logic that says just because the bible tells of these problems it does not mean that this was a universal problem, but then, there is another certain logic that says, if these areas of the church are having problems, other areas may be experiencing the same problems. Like I say, "all Asia" is not a small part of the universe of churches.




















says "all Asia is turned away from me

 

[BigDaddy4]

You always assume that our apostles and prophets and teachers are false. I do not.

Of course I do, because they are. Of course you do not, because you are entwined in a false religion that requires you to believe as you do.

Besides, according to your teachings, anyone can teach and baptise and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved. I believe in Christ, I was baptized in his name and I received the Holy Ghost. I should be OK according to you. For me there is the authority thing, and the keeping of the commandments, and the enduring to the end thing. We go a little deeper to be saved than you do.

Jesus knows who is saved and who is not. Granted, some people may go through the motions, but God judges the heart. Jesus even says that, but in the end, he never knew them. Your going "a little deeper" only emphasizes works, which muddies the water of God's grace.

So the church on earth is to give everyone the possibility to hear the gospel and accept or reject whether you are alive or dead. The church must be here to administer the truth and the ordinances for the living and the dead. It is as good for us who are teaching as for those that are learning. It helps us stay on the right path, as we show the right path to others.

Your church clearly preaches a false gospel and if you are teaching it, you are a false teacher. The Bible does not look favorably on such people. The gospel of Jesus Christ existed before any formal church institution was formed, and still exists outside of any such institution. Jesus and his disciples/Apostles preached on a hillside, from a boat, in houses, public areas, etc. Baptisms were done in a river, not a font in a building. Jesus seemed to manage without a church building. Where is your church's restoration to that?

Nowadays, the gospel can be, and is being, preached online without someone ever having to set foot in a physical building. During this pandemic, physical laying on of hands is highly discouraged. Does God's work stop because we can't physically touch someone? I don't think so. You might want to rethink the importance of your church buildings.

 

[dzheremi]

OK, tell me what the name of the true church of Jesus Christ was in 450ad, just before the schism?
In an epistle from Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (chapter 8) he refers to the church as the Catholic church. This epistle was written on his way to Rome in the 140's.

So is this the name of the church in the 140's, the Catholic church?

Catholic is an adjective, just as orthodox is an adjective. They both describe the faith of the Church. It is only much later that they start to be used as a means of distinguishing those belonging to different communions, because (obviously) the phenomenon of having different communions according to who recognizes which bishops is itself a later development. In this way, neither 'the Catholic Church' nor 'the Orthodox Church' existed at such an early date, even though the Church as it was is definitely described as both catholic (whole) and orthodox (right-believing; lit. offering "right praise").

It's not about some kind of proprietary name in a manner analogous to how Mormons are now sticklers (this decade, at least) for having everyone call their religion "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". The Eastern Orthodox Church gives it official name as "The Orthodox Catholic Church", even as those in communion with Rome would disagree that it is Catholic, in a manner analogous to how my own Church's official name is "the Coptic Orthodox Church" even though that same Eastern Orthodox communion would disagree that we are orthodox, just as the Roman Catholic Church officially calls itself "the Catholic Church" even as both communions claiming Orthodoxy disagree that it is catholic.

So in our time a name is probably more likely to tell you who is in agreement or disagreement with who than it can tell you anything about its founding in history. What is not in dispute between any of the three historical communions involved in this discussion is that there are churches founded in the major population centers of the Roman Empire (and beyond...) that stretch back to the first century AD. All disagreements are about which particular church(es) that are extant today are the legitimate successors to those historical churches/their sees.

Ah, I should have used Catholic church rather than RC. Thank you for that correction.
But the question still stands. Before 451, at least Ignatius in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans called the church the Catholic church and it was, I assume one church without division at that point.

Disregarding that there were over 300 years between the epistles of St. Ignatius and Chalcedon, it should be noted there were plenty of schisms before Chalcedon. The aftermath of the Council of Ephesus in 431 saw the Church of the East/Persian Church break communion with the rest of Christianity over the question of the appropriateness of calling St. Mary Theotokos, for instance. That's probably the biggest one that a lot of people forget/don't focus on. There were also earlier schisms involving the dating of Pascha/Easter, and the readmission of those who had renounced their faith during periods of persecution, and of course also those involving the theologies of the parties of Marcion, Arius, and so on.

And I assume that it was considered one church up to 451, when the big Chalcedon argument spilled over into schism.

As I hope I've shown above, it depends on who you ask. To the Chalcedonians, the Church was one until the events of 1054. To us, not so much (or, rather, to be excruciatingly precise about the traditional polemical view, the Church has always been one and remains one, but the Chalcedonians made a new rule of faith that was not acceptable, so they're not a part of it anymore). Similarly, I doubt the Nestorians/Church of the East/Persian Church people would agree with EO, RC, or OO readings of history (though it is a matter of historical fact that they tended to agree with the Christological definition of Chalcedon; hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ).

So after 451, there was the Catholic church, and now a second Christian church calling themselves the OO.

Point of order: We don't call ourselves 'Oriental Orthodox'. Outsiders call us that, and so since there are more of them than there are of us and they largely control the retelling of Christian history (we have our own historians, of course, but they are largely dismissed by others as partisans), we are obliged to use their language in mixed company, and Oriental Orthodox is the least offensive term they've come up with so far. It's far better than some of the other things they call us, anyway!

Again, there can only be 1 true church of Jesus Christ.

Of course.

1 baptism, 1 communion etc.

True.

Which one is the true church. The OO (Oriental Orthodox), the EC (Eastern Orthodox), or WC (Catholic)?

Why would you ask me that as though I might answer something other than my own communion? I didn't wind up here at random. So this is not a very illuminating answer, but I hope at least the rest of the post was helpful in some way.

 

[Peter1000]

He abandoned them to abomination, if you prefer to use this definition. Given teh ascendancy of Nicene Christianity how can you describe it as anything else? I'll also note that while they might be saved (everyone is saved in Mormonism) most Christians have been denied the supposed fullness of the LDS throughout history. Missing is a celestial marriage in their lives or Mormon baptism and since you cannot know the names of everyone to baptize for them, how is it unreasonable to conclude that they have been denied the highest celestial reward?

I know Mormons say that God will open up a path for them, but how is that so? Where in the Mormon texts are we told this is the case? If it is the case, why baptize for the dead to begin with? If your marriage ceremony isn't necessary, along with all of the rites and rituals, why go through with them?

Right. So why didn't God provide the necessary authority? You seem to miss this point again and again. It wasn't up to us to provide Apostles and prophets for these things you mention. It was up to God. He failed to provide what could have easily been provided. There were plenty of faithful people, no better or worse than you Mormons today. There were plenty of opportunities in history that your God could have made use of. He didn't.

Would you say the same of your Church if God made his grace depart from it? That you hadn't been abandoned? No, you would rightfully ask why has he forsaken you.





You keep reading, most or many and turn it into an inevitability that the apostasy must have happened. Even granting that there is still no reason why a remnant of the faithful could not have persevered. You even grant that there were good Christians whom were faithful and that God will save them in the end. Yet he abandoned those people to abominable teachings. What is abomination to God? It is on the level of Homosexuality, at least going by the Old Testament.



They would be killed again based on what? Sure they might be killed but they would live for many years as well, preaching the gospel. If an Apostle can live for ten years to increase the gifts of God to the people isn't that worth his martyrdom?

Where is the evidence that true apostles were rejected the orthodox believers?

Right. So why didn't God provide the necessary authority? You seem to miss this point again and again. It wasn't up to us to provide Apostles and prophets for these things you mention. It was up to God. He failed to provide what could have easily been provided. There were plenty of faithful people, no better or worse than you Mormons today. There were plenty of opportunities in history that your God could have made use of. He didn't.

Jesus gave living apostles for a specific reason:
1) to perfect the saints
2) to do the work of the ministry
3) to edify the people of the church.

IOW with no apostles, we cannot be saved. The work cannot move forward as the Lord wishes, and the preaching of the gospel will not edify the church.

Jesus must have determined that after the apostles were killed, and with the persecution coming on with more intensity, and the 2nd generation was already unstable because the foundation of the house was gone, that it was time to move to his alternative plan, which he did.

In fact when he died and his body was in the tomb for 3 days, his spirit left his body and he went to the spirit world, and opened up missionary work for the spirits in prison. He was putting into affect his alternative plan at that very moment 70 years before the apostles died.

Jesus knew, like he knew Adam would fall, that the church was not going to be able to make it after the apostles died, and so rather than abandon these people to hell, he had a another plan so they could be saved too. It is working today perfectly, and will expand 1000 fold when he comes in the millenium to reign.

 

[BigDaddy4]

IOW with no apostles, we cannot be saved.

Wow, I thought I only needed Jesus to be saved. Now I need the Apostles, too?? Definitely need some Scripture to back that up!

 

[Peter1000]

Fixed public revelation is fixed because we have a faith delivered by Jesus to the apostles. It is the opposite of a problem.

OK let me give you a problem. For centuries the Israelites were taught not to eat pork. Peter adhered to this strenuously. Then one day as he slept, he had a dream in which God came to him with forbidden foods in a blanket and told him to eat. Peter of course would not eat, and basically told God he would not eat. God then said an interesting thing: What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. IOW even though I God have for centuries called this pork unclean/commom and thou shalt surely not eat, but now I God call it clean, are you still going to call it unclean?

Now Peter has a real problem, does he not do what God is telling him because for centuries it has been a bulwark doctrine/ a fixed, public revelation to not eat pork, or does he follow the new commandment God is asking himi to do now, a new thing?

Does he go into an unclean house and teach a gentile, which for centuries was not to be done according to the fixed, public revelation, or does he follow God's new command, and go into a clean gentiles house and teach and baptize him?

If Peter studied this out in the text, he would end up not going into that house, no matter what God said, the fixed public revelation in our bible stands, I will not go in.

Just for fun, what if God commanded your leaders in your church to start practicing plural marriage? Would you follow this new commandment of God? Or would you get into the bible and find that in the NT God did not command plural marriage and our fixed, public revelation says no, so I will not do what the Lord has commanded.

It's more the interpretation of the content of revelation that is the problem.

Is that why there are thousands of Christian churches. Is it they cannot agree on what is the true public revelation? Yes that is the problem. That is why Jesus gave us living apostles, to keep us in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:13) Since the Christan church does no long have Apostles the interpretation of the bible is all over the place. The true church would be unified, with the same baptism, the same priesthood, the same sacraments. But Christendom is not.

 

[Peter1000]

Wow, I thought I only needed Jesus to be saved. Now I need the Apostles, too?? Definitely need some Scripture to back that up!

Look at Ephesians 4:12. Jesus said, he gave apostles and others for:
1) the perfecting of the saints (saving the saints), 2) the work of the ministry, and 3: the edifying of the body of Christ, it means just that. Without living apostles you cannot be perfected/saved. You cannot do authorized ministerial work, you cannot edify the congregation, because there is truth mixed with error.

Yes Jesus does the saving, but he has commanded certain things to be done, and it takes men on earth with the proper authority / keys of the kingdom of heaven, to do these saving ordinances along the way to perfect you so that you can be saved.

 

[Peter1000]

Wow, I thought I only needed Jesus to be saved. Now I need the Apostles, too?? Definitely need some Scripture to back that up!

This was the same dilemma that your hero Martin Luther had to get over when he defrocked himself from the Catholic priesthood, and finally after wrestling with this problem of authority, proclaimed that he had the right to access God without having the priesthood. So he solved his problem by denying the priesthood/priests/apostles were necessary to be saved. According to the bible, he was wrong, and his reformation churches have denied the priesthood ever since that great proclamation.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes Jesus does the saving, but he has commanded certain things to be done, and it takes men on earth with the proper authority / keys of the kingdom of heaven, to do these saving ordinances along the way to perfect you so that you can be saved.

If this is so, then why do we not see in the scriptures the apostles performing any distinctly Mormon 'ordinances'? Even in the verse that Mormons apparently think establishes baptism for the dead as an apostolic practice (it doesn't), 1 Corinthians 15:29, it is St. Paul asking a question (Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all?), not saying "And remember how I baptized you in the name of a list of dead people" or whatever.

 

[chevyontheriver]

When Paul says that "all Asia is turned from me", you would have to admit "all Asia" is a big chunk of the "universe".

...

There is a certain amount of logic that says just because the bible tells of these problems it does not mean that this was a universal problem, but then, there is another certain logic that says, if these areas of the church are having problems, other areas may be experiencing the same problems. Like I say, "all Asia" is not a small part of the universe of churches.

Problem is you have universalized from particulars. It's simply not a logical possibility to do that. Don't try to make it sound logical because it is actually illogical. That's just logic. You may not be well studied in formal logic. But formal logic continues to matter. OK maybe not for the 'woke'.

The term 'all Asia' refers to what is now Turkey, not including Syria and definitely not including India and China in that calculation. Considering what we know of Asia now we would be very anachronistic to consider the whole land mass of Asia to have gone apostate. The exceedingly vast portion of Asia had not been visited by evangelists, let alone Paul, yet to have gone apostate. In fact, if you know your Homer, it is more likely to be the area right around the river Cayster. Not a big apostasy. Not stretching even to Ephesus, also in modern day Turkey, which is Asia Minor on some maps.

When Jesus tells John that 7 churches are having problems and if they do not repent, he will destroy them, you start to get a feeling that all was not well with the first century church by around 100.

I think you mean the beginning of the Apocalypse, the first seven chapters. But if you read these it is not doom and gloom for each of the seven particular local Churches. I don't know where you get it that all seven stand doomed.

I think you are trying still to get a universal from particulars. Doesn't work unless you have EVERY particular. Which you don't. Not even close.

 

[chevyontheriver]

OK let me give you a problem. For centuries the Israelites were taught not to eat pork. Peter adhered to this strenuously. Then one day as he slept, he had a dream in which God came to him with forbidden foods in a blanket and told him to eat. Peter of course would not eat, and basically told God he would not eat. God then said an interesting thing: What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. IOW even though I God have for centuries called this pork unclean/commom and thou shalt surely not eat, but now I God call it clean, are you still going to call it unclean?

Now Peter has a real problem, does he not do what God is telling him because for centuries it has been a bulwark doctrine/ a fixed, public revelation to not eat pork, or does he follow the new commandment God is asking himi to do now, a new thing?

Does he go into an unclean house and teach a gentile, which for centuries was not to be done according to the fixed, public revelation, or does he follow God's new command, and go into a clean gentiles house and teach and baptize him?

If Peter studied this out in the text, he would end up not going into that house, no matter what God said, the fixed public revelation in our bible stands, I will not go in.

Just for fun, what if God commanded your leaders in your church to start practicing plural marriage? Would you follow this new commandment of God? Or would you get into the bible and find that in the NT God did not command plural marriage and our fixed, public revelation says no, so I will not do what the Lord has commanded.

It's simple. Peter doesn't eat the pork. Of course not. He is a Jew. But he does talk with Gentiles, which was the whole point of his vision. But it was the whole purpose of Israel anyway, to bring God to the world. A thoughtful Jew could come to that conclusion, overcoming custom, without a vision. And don't worry about the leaders of the Catholic Church starting to teach that polygamy is OK. They would choke to death or stroke out before they could even announce such a change.

Is that why there are thousands of Christian churches. Is it they cannot agree on what is the true public revelation? Yes that is the problem. That is why Jesus gave us living apostles, to keep us in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:13) Since the Christan church does no long have Apostles the interpretation of the bible is all over the place. The true church would be unified, with the same baptism, the same priesthood, the same sacraments. But Christendom is not.

Which is why the Orthodox and the Catholics are so close. we have the same canon of Scripture. We are not hampered by the un-Scriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and we accept Holy Tradition as found in the Fathers of the Church. Which is why we have the same sacraments. And we have the continued apostolic and prophetic functions in the bishops who have been appointed in line from the apostles. If you were apostolic, your teaching would be more like ours, somewhere between Catholic and Orthodox perhaps. Instead it is WILDLY divergent. It doesn't track with anything in any part of the history of Christianity. You would think it would track with the first century and the early second century. But it doesn't.

 

[BigDaddy4]

This was the same dilemma that your hero Martin Luther had to get over when he defrocked himself from the Catholic priesthood, and finally after wrestling with this problem of authority, proclaimed that he had the right to access God without having the priesthood. So he solved his problem by denying the priesthood/priests/apostles were necessary to be saved. According to the bible, he was wrong, and his reformation churches have denied the priesthood ever since that great proclamation.

When you make baseless statements like "your hero Martin Luther", your credibility for sound debating diminishes. It diminishes further when you try to debate Christian history with those that are more versed in it than you. Then you cap it off with saying that "priesthood/priests/apostles were necessary to be saved." That's not the gospel Jesus taught. You're not in a very good place, scripturally or spiritually.

 

[Peter1000]

Problem is you have universalized from particulars. It's simply not a logical possibility to do that. Don't try to make it sound logical because it is actually illogical. That's just logic. You may not be well studied in formal logic. But formal logic continues to matter. OK maybe not for the 'woke'.

The term 'all Asia' refers to what is now Turkey, not including Syria and definitely not including India and China in that calculation. Considering what we know of Asia now we would be very anachronistic to consider the whole land mass of Asia to have gone apostate. The exceedingly vast portion of Asia had not been visited by evangelists, let alone Paul, yet to have gone apostate. In fact, if you know your Homer, it is more likely to be the area right around the river Cayster. Not a big apostasy. Not stretching even to Ephesus, also in modern day Turkey, which is Asia Minor on some maps.

I think you mean the beginning of the Apocalypse, the first seven chapters. But if you read these it is not doom and gloom for each of the seven particular local Churches. I don't know where you get it that all seven stand doomed.

I think you are trying still to get a universal from particulars. Doesn't work unless you have EVERY particular. Which you don't. Not even close.

The logic that every particular in 120 was apostate is not logical, but that a good % of the universe was apostate or starting to go apostate is logical given the biblical scriptures. So around 120 there were some particulars of the universe already gone apostate. By 200 more of the particulars had gone apostate, by 325, the universe had pretty much gone apostate.

That scenerio is a logical sequence. If by 325 a non-Chiristian emperor had to bring a carload of bishops from around the Christian world to come to a council to debate what the Christian God was made of, you know that it was gone by then. And subsequent councils to debate the Christology of Jesus, which tended to divide rather than unify is a pure sign of apostasy.

Remember Ephesians 4:13, Jesus gave apostles and prophets and others (but does not mention bishops) until we all come into a unity of the faith. It is because the apostles are gone that we are ot in a unity of the faith, and by 325 they didn't even know the true nature of the Godhead and the nature of Jesus Christ any more. They had to debate the issue. And remember too, that it was not the Holy Spirit that guided, it was that faction withing the church whose bishops got to the council first that made the decisions. Pure apostasy.

So the particulars, slowly gave way to the universe. But the scriptures I gave you were just the start of the apostasy. It is all very logical.

 

[Peter1000]

When you make baseless statements like "your hero Martin Luther", your credibility for sound debating diminishes. It diminishes further when you try to debate Christian history with those that are more versed in it than you. Then you cap it off with saying that "priesthood/priests/apostles were necessary to be saved." That's not the gospel Jesus taught. You're not in a very good place, scripturally or spiritually.

Did Jesus not need apostles/preists and priesthood?

And if he did need them, why, since to your logic, he is the only one that was needed to save people. Why did Jesus need apostles, or anybody like bishops and the like? Why didn't Jesus just send the Holy Spirit to baptize a person in the Holy Spirit that showed interest? And that be it?

Isn't that all you think is needed? God inspires a person to believe in Jesus, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to baptize that person by fire and the Holy Spirit, and then Jesus saves them in the kingdom of
God. Why does Jesus need a church or apostles or anybody? Sound pretty automatic to me.

 

[Peter1000]

When you make baseless statements like "your hero Martin Luther", your credibility for sound debating diminishes. It diminishes further when you try to debate Christian history with those that are more versed in it than you. Then you cap it off with saying that "priesthood/priests/apostles were necessary to be saved." That's not the gospel Jesus taught. You're not in a very good place, scripturally or spiritually.

If you are not of protestant persuasion, I apologize. If you are, then you have to acknowledge the great contribution of Martin Luther, the father /hero of the reformation.