<This is not a concession...I wouldn't need to write so much if you engaged in good faith. But when you write stuff like <concession-post> it seems necessary to explain things that I assumed were obvious. >

Rather sloppy on my part. I wasn't using the phrase "concession-post". You'll notice a hyphen after "future". I was trying to make a hyphenated phrase beginning with the word "future" and ending with the word "concession". I should have started it after the word "post". So...

Warning - not PC.

Lin Wood
@LLinWood
· 4h The price for speaking TRUTH can be high. Ultimately, one’s life & the lives of his or her family members & friends can be at risk or lost.

I ask for your prayers that Almighty God cover me, my family members & close friends with Psalms 91 protection.

I have shared with several individuals the TRUTH I will be speaking to you. Killing me will NOT prevent the TRUTH from being revealed - it will only trigger its release by many others.

I ask @realDonaldTrump
to immediately appoint an honest special prosecutor to pursue justice

I believe Chief Justice John Roberts & a multitude of powerful individuals worldwide are being blackmailed in a horrendous scheme involving rape & murder of children captured on videotape.

I have the key to the files containing the videos. I have also shared this information.

This blackmail scheme is conducted by members of 10 of world’s most well-known & “elite” intelligence agencies.

One of those groups was hacked by a group known as Lizard Squad. The blackmail files of rape & murder were obtained by this group & copy was provided to Isaac Kappy.

The blackmail targets are approached with a gun, a child, & a camera. The target is ordered to rape the child on video. The target is then ordered to shoot the child on video. The target is then owned & controlled by the blackmailers until blackmail evidence loses its value.

After Kappy received the hacked files from member of Lizard Squad, he gave files to one friend and the encryption key to another friend. He provided this information to his friends shortly before he was murdered in May 13, 2019. Members of Lizard Squad were jailed for hacking.

Jeffrey Epstein used this same blackmail scheme of child rape & child murder to either further his own interests or those of any intelligence agency with whom he worked.

ALL who flew on his private jet or visited his island must be IMMEDIATELY interrogated & brought to justice.

I decided to post this truth on Twitter & Parler as wall exists around @realDonaldTrump that may have prevented me from getting this evidence to him.

Kappy tried to deliver info to President but was then murdered. I do not know who Kappy gave it to for delivery to the President.

I have concerns that information from Kappy was not delivered to @realDonaldTrump & his effort to get it to President may have caused his death.

I am aware that my life is now at great risk. But I put my faith in God. I prayed before I made the decision. I had to reveal TRUTH.

Now you have greater context for the message I tweeted below on January 1.

I had hoped that this revelation would trigger resignations & confessions. Unsure of that result, I had to reveal full extent of my knowledge. I am doing so now.

This tweet was an insurance policy. The evil forces behind this blackmail scheme of child rape & murder need to know that others have encryption key. I have procedure in place if I die in near term or any member of my family is harmed or threatened, key will be released by many.

I would never make an accusation without having reliable source for it. Stakes are too high. So I did due diligence to validate the accuracy of the shocking information I am revealing tonight. I am entirely comfortable that you are learning the truth. A truth that explains much.

The 10 intelligence agencies who have members employing this blackmail scheme include CCP, CIA, Mossad, FBI, MI6. The others are easily identifiable.

The agencies do not which of them was hacked by Lizard Squad.

I have no idea extent of blackmail scheme of raping & killing children but given the number of agencies involved, the hundreds of thousands of missing children, & the otherwise inexplicable actions of many powerful officials, celebrities, & business leaders, I fear the worst.

So I have now conveyed the truth as I know it.

There has been a rising chorus of people questioning my sanity in recent days. Now you can understand why. I have no idea what will be done to me or said about me in coming days, but I will rest well tonight for having spoken truth.

Many issues in our world may be tied to blackmail scheme I described tonight, including bizarre behavior of officials & judges in recent election.

@realDonaldTrump
must appoint special prosecutor to thoroughly investigate. We need answers. We must investigate. For the children.

If asked to turn over the encryption key & other information I have to law enforcement, I will only agree to provide it directly to @realDonaldTrump , @GenFlynn
or @SidneyPowell1
.

Yes.

<Now you can understand why. >

Muhammad Ali on integration (1974).>

Notice he never mentioned racism or diversity!

<"I says, ‘Black people should marry their own women.’ I said, ‘Bluebirds with bluebirds. Red birds with red birds. Pigeons with pigeons. Eagles with eagles. God didn’t make no mistake!’ ” —Muhammad Ali>

I wish the folks who say this type of stuff
in the comments:

<46 years later and still so relevant to today. Such a lack of progress in that time it's sad>

<I can remember when i was a kid black people were PROUD to be black!>

would realize, that's the plan!

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5493)

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5278)

<OhioChessFan:

<<<tga: Sola scriptura doctrine does not encompass a great body of oral-only teaching. For example, St. Paul the Apostle taught the church at Thessaloniki for over a year. Yet his canonized writings to them consist of only 2 books, 8 chapters. So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?->>>

Yes. How are we to <know> what his oral teachings were? Oh yeah, the Orthodox will tell us. >

2 Thes. 2:15 says (writing to the entire <church> of the Thessalonians) "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Wow! The written epistle doesn't cover everything the church is to hold to!

So yes, canonical written scripture tells the church to hold onto not just written epistles, but the oral teaching and even tradition taught by Paul, Silvanus and Timothy.

That's good enough for me. Sorry, Ohio, you won't ever be getting a concession post from me on the topic of sola scriptura. It is bunk.

As the Orthodox Church explains it in a footnote, <In the NT we read of two types of traditions. (1) The tradition of men is soundly condemned. Jesus describes this as <<<teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Mt. 15:9)>>>.

(2) The tradition of the apostles, or "Holy Tradition", by contrast, is to be preserved by the Church, for God is its source. Holy Tradition is that which Jesus taught to the apostles, and which they in turn taught the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in (a) their instructions as they visited the churches and (b) their writings. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we adhere to Holy Tradition.>

What happens when your party operates at
a HeMateMe intelligence level.

He won the big lawsuit for the Christian kid
against the media liars.

<Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann's attorney is suing CNN for $250 million. Attorney L. Lin Wood announced the lawsuit on Fox News>

And Moses vetted Aaron, who made a golden calf a few days later. I look at your position and think, "Huh. There could never be a heretic with this paradigm. Wonder why the NT warns about them all over the place?"

<4. Over the following 2 millennia, this is how the process worked for each subsequent generation of Bishops, all new Bishops being vetted to ensure they weren't heretics. This highlights the importance of direct succession of authority - it needs to be traced in an unbroken line of bishops, all the way back to the beginning.>

See above. I can't believe you don't see the terrible a priori reasoning involved.

<So there you have it. Using my previous analogy, I can't <know> they aren't heretics by means of making the lunch. I can only know through faith, the evidence of things unseen.>

You could be an LDS saying that. I don't know how much experience you have with them, but that's the kind of answer they give when you question them about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, etc. You are admitting you have no way to make your case except by a blind leap. Just like the LDS.

<And, I will point out, this is the <same way> you <know> scripture is an authority to which you can appeal. If scripture can be an authority, so can councils.>

No, because the word of God was confirmed by the signs of the apostles.

Mark 16:20 NIV Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

2 Cor. 12:12 NIV I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles.

Even Jesus appealed to his miraculous powers to prove he was who he said he was:

John 10:38 NIV But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

As soon as those centuries of Bishops start raising the dead, with contemporaneous witness statements, set forth before the public, then and only then will you be able to say I have no more reason to believe the Scriptures than those men. As soon as the world considers those people worthy of recording to the point we have thousands upon thousands of records of their acts, then you can say I have as much reason to believe them as I do the Bible.

As an example of what people thought of the New Testament, here's a quick Wiki blurb:

<The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.>

<OCF: Because, they base doctrine on what men and councils say instead of the word of God!>

<tga:Wrong! The original protestants INVENTED sola scriptura. >

Sigh. Who says? I appeal to the Bible, first and last. You want to attribute sola scriptura to me. Whatever. If it's in accord with the Bible, I'll go with it. If not, I won't. But you have repeatedly made these unsubstantiated claims, eg, "Wrong!" And when I challenge you on them, you demand I make the case you're not. Talk about insisting on proving a negative! Anyway, I believe that every single point I believe is Scripturally based and was "invented" in the lifetime of Jesus and the apostles. If you want to pick out a specific point of what you deem sola scriptura, bring it forth. But to toss out some phrase I haven't affirmed and insist I own it somehow is poor argumentation.

<You've said before that you don't care about Luther. I believe you, because if you knew anything about Luther, you would know you just embarrassed yourself with a huge error that is the opposite of the truth.>

Blah blah blah. Get specific already. If not, I'll ignore this.

<OCF: I think no. My last answer was given before I read this line, and I'll stick with it.>

<tga Stand by your complete misunderstanding of the Reformation! LOL>

I. Don't. Care. About. The. Reformation. Again, a total lack of specificity of my position, just tossing out code words like sola scriptural and Reformation and I'm supposed to defend every part of them, whatever that may be. Sorry, I'm not playing.

<tga: Why are the Orthodox standing fast with God? Is it because they reject sola scriptura? I think yes.>

<OCF: They are standing fast with God so much as they are standing fast with His word.>

<tga: Including His word that gives us a process for resolving disputes, in Acts 15.>

1. Where does the Bible say that is the norm?
2. Are you sure that wasn't just a narrative account?
3. Can I point to any one time account in the Bible and affirm it holds true 2000 years later?

If you say yes, I have some NT accounts ready.

Anyway, you're assuming your entire conclusion here.

<OCF: I attend a church of Christ. I began going 40 years ago when I started reading the Bible. I quickly realized I had to choose to believe the RCC or the Bible. I chose the Bible.>

<tga: Yes, and the EOC church made the same choice in 1054, walking away from the Latin church.>

Well, so far as the EOC is in accord with God's word, I'm in accord with the EOC.

<OCF: I deny we are Protestant. I deny our roots are in the Reformation.>

My conclusion is, I don't see the need for any additional argumentation on my part. I've made my case and the reader will judge as he pleases.>

Okay.

<Also, <OCF>'s case for sola scriptura is clear, although I deem the doctrine an utter failure at resolving church disputes.>

I've never affirmed a belief in sola scriptura. Unless it merely means that the church should use the Bible as its source of doctrine and practice. That's really not how I understand Protestants to mean the term, but anyway. I think you're tossing a label upon me I haven't agreed to wear. (Unless it merely means that the church should use the Bible as its source of doctrine and practice)

<tga: <OCF>, if you still want to make an attempt at convincing me to concede, it would only take 2 things:

1. Follow your own council and <LOOK TO THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES AND USE THEM> to show where the church was instructed to stop using councils to resolve disputes; i.e., chapter and verse.>

It's right next to the verse that says to keep using them. It's right next to the verse that says that the Acts 15 council is the norm. It's right next to the verse that says when the apostles, the foundation of the church, left the scene, that other people who were not and could not be apostles, who will not judge the world as the apostles will, were just as reliable and trustworthy. If you want me to concede, show me that.

<2. Since you remain skeptical of the historical account of how scriptural canon was established (namely, the 382 AD Council of Rome), give an alternative account of who actually did establish canon, and how. The explanation must be more plausible than the historical explanation, if you wish to convince me.>

If I'm not mistaken, the Old Testament canon was established without any help of the Council of Rome. Did those poor Jews have to suffer hundreds of years not knowing what Scripture was, until the OT was fulfilled and no longer in force? We really aren't given specifics on how the Jews new what the OT was, but they did. With no input from the 4th Century Church. If that could happen, how do you imagine you can insist on a totally different process for the NT?

<If you (OCF) don't want to justify your claim that complete scripture revokes the use of councils, by making a case for these 2 points, then I propose we wrap up the conversation, unless someone else wants to weigh in.>

I will reiterate you're assuming your conclusion. For you to be right, every single one of these things must be true:

The debate has, up until now, been pretty bad, because the points spun out of control and every time the big picture was made clear again, it was quickly lost as this debate spun off the rails. It was very sloppy and barely threated to be profitable at all.

However, I think we've finally come to a turning point. I think <OHIO's> last three posts were very strong. His answers to the specific points were concise and directly engaged with the <central points>. The point about the Mormons, about assuming the conclusion, all of that is what I consider to be sound refutations of <tga's> position, which I find logically weak and not based on sound reason. I also think <Ohio's> tactic of calling on <tga> to contend with his exact statements (the central points) rather than allowing him to generalize about labels (sola scripture, Protestantism) that are supposed to apply to him, was a great way to keep the debate focused on the <central points> while keeping the Straw Man out of it.

I've been following along quietly for some time now, waiting for these refutations, but at the same time, I've been hoping that <TGA> would strengthen his arguments before they were refuted like this, which I think is very convincing on <Ohio's> part.

What I would like to see happen now, is for <TGA> to regroup, reformulate his arguments in a logically sound fashion and present them again for another test. This time they will be stronger and require a more demanding refutation. Thus, we will leave the common area of such arguments behind and delve deeper, close to where insight is found, and that is a rare and fine thing.

On another note:

I think it needs to be said that the canon was determined by God and discovered by man. The church did not create the canon, it simply recognized the letters that were already accepted as Scripture by the first century church. Long before church councils were ever convened, church elders were constantly evaluating and deciding which of the many writings of their day carried apostolic authority. Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18). Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul commanded the Thessalonians to have his letter read to all the brethren (1 Thes. 5:27). John promised a blessing to all those who read the Revelation (Rev. 1:3). To the Colossians Paul wrote "have this letter read in the church of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). As long as the apostles were alive everything could be verified. They were eye witnesses to all that Christ said and did. 

I align with both your position and Sola Scriptura as to my simple mind they appear synonymous? I would also add that the Word of God was above even the apostles.

<Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5395)

< OhioChessFan:

<<<tga: Going back to December 6th, and this post:>>>

Oh. 13 days later, a response. Sure you weren't running, as you accused me of?>

Yes, I was waiting on a book I ordered, so I'd have the information I wanted to use in reply. Waiting and running are different things. I explained the situation:

<tga: I wanted to reply to this, but at the time I didn't have the scripture citations I needed for my reply.

Now I do. >

Moving on...

<OCF:

<<<tga: See, the Nicene creed *is* Orthodox Christianity. Every single sentence fragment that forms a complete idea is based on a minimum of one Bible verse.>>>

If so, just give me the Bible and who needs the Creed? It's superfluous at that point.>

It's not superfluous, as it provides for multiple needs:

1. It is short enough to memorize. The Bible is not.

2. Until the invention of the printing press, all new scripture had to be hand-copied from existing scripture. There were not enough Bibles for every Christian to have one, for about one and a half millennia!

3. Near-universal literacy is a very recent achievement. Up until about 100 years ago, the percentage of illiterate in the world population was significant. The creed enabled illiterate people to memorize a collection of summarized scripture which explains the Christian faith, even though the scriptures are scattered throughout the OT and NT.

4. Once memorized, even an illiterate person could explain the faith to a non-believer. Your approach of rejecting the creed would make for a rather awkward and callous witness to a non-believer. If someone asks you to explain Christianity, you can engage them with the creed. If you just tell them "Pick up a Bible and read it" you sound like a jerk. If you tell them what is in the creed, you sound like you care. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

<OCF:

<<<tga: They are all listed by Father George Grube in his book <The Orthodox Church A to Z>>>

All the Bible is listed by God in His book <The Bible>>

See how snarky that sounds? Does that sound like something that would help draw an unbeliever to the faith? No.

I hope this answers your question:

<OCF:

<<tga: In other words, it is the <tl;dr> version of the Bible.>>

Why not just stick with the Bible then?>

Your final word was <OCF: superfluous.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5505)

Since we've covered most of this ground multiple times, I will only respond to one of your points.

<OhioChessFan: ...

2 Cor. 12:12 NIV I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles.

Even Jesus appealed to his miraculous powers to prove he was who he said he was:

John 10:38 NIV But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

As soon as those centuries of Bishops start raising the dead, with contemporaneous witness statements, set forth before the public, then and only then will you be able to say I have no more reason to believe the Scriptures than those men.>

Done!

There are hundreds of saints, in both the Orthodox tradition, and the RCC tradition. We have the miracles. We have the contemporaneous witnesses. We have the statements set forth before the public.

Which is why, in your construction of Christianity, you not only reject church history, you are required to reject it because it refutes your supposed open-mindedness to accepting the Orthodox faith when Orthodox produce miracles.

Or, more bluntly, you only pretend to be open to consideration, while in reality you are not.

<OCF: As soon as the world considers those people worthy of recording to the point we have thousands upon thousands of records of their acts, then you can say I have as much reason to believe them as I do the Bible.>

<OCF: As an example of what people thought of the New Testament, here's a quick Wiki blurb:

<<<The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.>>>

What have you got for every single one of the Bishops who were necessary for your position?>

Those are not all distinct accounts! How do I know this? Because there are only 27 manuscripts in the entire NT! 27 individual books. So those 25,000 fragments and complete records include multiple records of only 27 books.

Which is why we should study church history. That's how we know the epistles of the apostles, as well as the gospels, were copied and spread around to different geographic regions. Rejecting a study of history leads to making mistakes.

With the invention of the printing press, the Orthodox Church has your criteria met, and beaten, by a country mile.

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5506)

<OhioChessFan:

<<<tga:Wrong! The original protestants INVENTED sola scriptura. >>>

Sigh. Who says?>

Well, let us see... Using <your> criteria of <contemporaneous witness statements, set forth before the public>, the actual reformers themselves, and their contemporaries, as well as those in the RCC resisting them - in other words, all the key players in the reformation - are the ones who say so, <in writing>!

You demanded recorded statements from contemporaneous witnesses, in the post just before this one. I've got that in spades. Which is why you must ignore them, in order to maintain your construction.

You may truly not care about Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwingli, the 95 thesis, their books, their written confessions, and the written counter arguments, but you also cannot accept these people and their written records if you want to maintain your denial.

But they do exists. And they aren't going away just because you won't read them.

<OCF: I. Don't. Care. About. The. Reformation.>

Indeed. You cannot care, or else you will have to abandon your facade. Again, you have no objective standard for accepting historical evidence. When it suits you, you appeal to the written record. When the written record contradicts you, you say "Who says?"

<Anyway, you're assuming your entire conclusion here. >

No more than you. I am still waiting for you to explain who compiled the NT, what was their methodology, and why is it more believable than the 382 AD Council of Rome historical record?

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5507)

Which is the last post in your sequence of 3 from yesterday.

< OhioChessFan:

I've never affirmed a belief in sola scriptura.>

Oh dear. It's <the only thing> you've affirmed in our conversation, going back to early December.

<Unless it merely means that the church should use the Bible as its source of doctrine and practice.>

That almost sums it up. We just need to add 1 more word, and delete 2 other words:

<the church should use <<<only>>> the Bible as its source of doctrine.>

The English word "only" is the translation of "sola". As I understand it, sola was used to specifically deny councils and traditions.

<OCF

<<<tga: <OCF>, if you still want to make an attempt at convincing me to concede, it would only take 2 things:

1. Follow your own council and <LOOK TO THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES AND USE THEM> to show where the church was instructed to stop using councils to resolve disputes; i.e., chapter and verse.>>>

It's right next to the verse that says to keep using them. It's right next to the verse that says that the Acts 15 council is the norm.>

Now you have denied scripture itself, I'm afraid. You've been presented with a NT, scriptural method for the church to resolve disputes. Instead of accepting it, now you say scripture must tell us to keep using councils, or your default position is to reject them!

Since you've gone from <the church should use the Bible as its source of doctrine and practice.> to <scripture has to tell us to keep doing what it told us to do, or else we have to reject that scripture>.

I have won the debate.

<If you want me to concede, show me that.>

I agree. Also, I think <OCF> and I have about wrapped it up, unless he intends to reply to my final post from yesterday, which, in my mind, is the most critical blow to sola scriptura that I've yet presented:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5501)

Why is it the most critical blow? Not because of me, an unprofitable servent of our Lord, but because the Apostle Paul himself, in divinely inspired scripture, refutes sola scriptura categorically and point by point, in verse 2 Thes. 2:15

This is completely wrong. Sola scriptura WAS the central point! It is what the debate was about from the beginning: Is sola scriptura correct or not?

As for assuming the conclusion, accepting Holy Councils, or Holy Tradition by faith meets the exact same criteria applied to accepting Holy Scripture by faith.

If one doctrine assumes the conclusion, then both do. I addressed that multiple times, most recently here:

Seeing as sola scriptura was the central topic from day one, and I consider my last post from yesterday to be the end of the debate, I shall refer you to it:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5501)

<BP: On another note:

Long before church councils were ever convened, church elders were constantly evaluating and deciding which of the many writings of their day carried apostolic authority.>

This is erroneous. The Council of Jerusalem took place before Acts was written. Also, in Galatians chapter 2, Paul discusses a gathering of apostles and elders, where Paul resolved a dispute with Peter face-to-face. So that's another example of a council prior to the writing of scripture.

Without checking beforehand, I'd venture that nearly all of the NT was written after the Council of Jerusalem. Which means all of those scriptural references you cited were recorded decades after the church started convening councils.

<We know the Bible was complete and "once for all delivered to the Saints" in the first century (Jude 3).>

No! You are misquoting Jude: "contend earnestly for the <faith> which was once for all delivered to the saints."

<The Old Testament Canon was closed about 425 years before Christ.>