The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel

[Arsenios]

Okay, I know this is scripture in isolation, but it is both simple and original -

"Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized..." (Acts 2:37b - 41a).

As for the "many other words" included, Luke either was not made aware of them, or chose to be concise - emphasizing the essential point. Whatever the words, those present were obedient to the message and followed Peter's instruction. We can use this as a starting point, perhaps, to dig further into the 'Gospel'

Great post...

We are indeed baptized into Christ's Death for the remission of sins...

Pedrito was astonished that I should suggest that had Adam not sinned, Christ would still have incarnated to give us Life...

But that we should not then need to be baptized into His Death...

Because He died for our sins...

And had Adam not sinned, He would not have been crucified...

Baptism now completes our response of repentance when we respond to the Call of the Gospel of Christ...

If we do not repent on hearing this Call of God, we will not be Baptized into Christ...

And apart from Christ there is no salvation...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

I'm STILL not sure what the point of this thread it (perhaps it can be explained).....


This concept that the 12/13 Apostles taught a BUNCH of dogmas that the Holy Spirit in His divine wisdom chose not to include in His Holy Scriptures to the church (a foundational point of the RCC and LDS among others) is one that has always troubled me.


TRUE - there is a verse that indicates that the Holy Spirit would lead US into "all truth" but the "us" does not refer to Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy or Pope Alexander VI or Martin Luther - it refers to US. And there's no reason to believe that this "teaching" would involve on-going revelation.

TRUE - there is a verse that says that Jesus DID many things not recorded within the words of the Gospel of St. John, but that's no indication that He TAUGHT dogmas recorded NO WHERE in the Bible. Or that suddenly, Joseph Smith or Pope Pius X would suddenly be made aware of these "lost dogma."


TRUE - most accept that for the 10-50 years after Pentecost (often called "The Apostolic Age"), the time in which the New Testament was written, there was an ORAL corpus of teachings from the Apostles (and those very closely associated with them). In theology and church history, this is called "The Kerygma" We have no objective, knowable record of what exactly this was simply because it was ORAL. It is reasonable to conclude this was what eventually was recorded in the Four Gospels and what we find in the other NT books was in conformity with this.... why these 27 books get accepted; they conform to the Kergyma. But there is NO indication - AT ALL - of any "lost dogmas of Jesus" in orthodox Christianity, THAT concept is what lead to an early heretical split off - Gnosticism. Ironically, centuries later, Catholicism would pick up on this same idea. And later, virtually all "cults." And a few best-selling books. I find NO reason to believe there were or all "Lost dogmas." Much less that many centuries later, some dude would suddenly "learn" of this.





.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm STILL not sure what the point of this thread is... (perhaps it can be explained).....


This concept that the 12/13 Apostles taught a BUNCH of dogmas that the Holy Spirit in His divine wisdom chose not to include in His Holy Scriptures to the church (a foundational point of the RCC and LDS among others) is one that has always troubled me.


TRUE - there is a verse that indicates that the Holy Spirit would lead US into "all truth" but the "us" does not refer to Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy or Pope Alexander VI or Martin Luther - it refers to US. And there's no reason to believe that this "teaching" would involve on-going revelation.

TRUE - there is a verse that says that Jesus DID many things not recorded within the words of the Gospel of St. John, but that's no indication that He TAUGHT dogmas recorded NO WHERE in the Bible. Or that suddenly, Joseph Smith or Pope Pius X would suddenly be made aware of these "lost dogma."


TRUE - most accept that for the 10-50 years after Pentecost (often called "The Apostolic Age"), the time in which the New Testament was written, there was an ORAL corpus of teachings from the Apostles (and those very closely associated with them). In theology and church history, this is called "The Kerygma" We have no objective, knowable record of what exactly this was simply because it was ORAL. It is reasonable to conclude this was what eventually was recorded in the Four Gospels and what we find in the other NT books was in conformity with this.... why these 27 books get accepted; they conform to the Kergyma. But there is NO indication - AT ALL - of any "lost dogmas of Jesus" in orthodox Christianity, THAT concept is what lead to an early heretical split off - Gnosticism. Ironically, centuries later, Catholicism would pick up on this same idea. And later, virtually all "cults." And a few best-selling books. I find NO reason to believe there were or all "Lost dogmas." Much less that many centuries later, some dude would suddenly "learn" of this.

Perhaps we can start with the fact that the Gospel is not for the Living but is instead for the dead?

eg That Christ did not come to Call the righteous, but sinners to repentance?


Arsenios

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I'm STILL not sure what the point of this thread it (perhaps it can be explained).....

Well, a challenge was extended to 'Pedrito' to explain the "Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" (his words) in another thread. There's a link to the other thread in the OP of this one for context. Pedrito suggested, instead, that scripture be offered to support what is believed to be the "Simple Original Apostolic Gospel", from which these 'proofs' could then be examined. So this could be a rather lengthy thread, or it could be resolved in a matter of a few pages.

Hopefully I've presented a concise synopsis of the purpose of the thread. Pedrito can correct me if I've misrepresented how it came to be.

 

[TurtleHare]

==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel​

==============================================================================================

General​

MoreCoffee’s offering of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 in Post 3, was definitely a good suggestion with respect to a broad base from which to work.

We learn from that passage:
- The Gospel saves people, and its component teachings are:
– Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
– He was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
– Heaps of people saw Him, and thus His resurrection was confirmed.

==============================================================================================

But I suspect that some CH Readers would like a little more information. That cannot be the whole story.

My repeated mention of The Original Apostolic Gospel, was designed to help people identify what God has revealed through the Bible when it is read as it was written – without the filters of denominationalism. That would reveal with certainty exactly which Church (if any) is faithfully teaching the original Gospel. That investigation involves comparison – it is a natural outcome – it cannot be avoided.

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel was (and still is) “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). It was complete. It needed no addition or modification. So perhaps we should ask MoreCoffee to reveal for us some more aspects of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, as well as why it was felt necessary to modify that original Gospel significantly by additions that now make that original Gospel unrecognisable.

Those additions include:
- The “True Church” being led by a strict hierarchical priesthood based in Rome;
- Confession of sins to that hierarchical priesthood being a preparation for participation in the “Eucharist” ritual;
- The term “Father” being employed when addressing members of that priesthood (apparently contradicting Jesus’ direct command);
- Believers being in danger of spending time in a detrimental place labelled “Purgatory”;
- Other doctrines that have been adopted progressively over the centuries:
-- Including the mother of Jesus being co-Mediatrix;
– And in case the official title co-Redemptrix is ultimately adopted, that too.

So, I hereby request that information. Wouldn't some Readers find that differentiation helpful?

==============================================================================================

Might I ask you what you have faith in then after reading your response that the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel (or SOAG if you will) is Jude 1:3 and a reason I am asking is because you've been around on boards long enough to know that Christians define faith so differently. How's about you define faith then for us?

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel​

==============================================================================================

General​

Post #22 (Josiah):

I'm STILL not sure what the point of this thread it (perhaps it can be explained).....

The point is very simple really.

1. Jesus and the Apostles brought a simple but absolutely wonderful message from God to the world.
2. That simple but absolutely wonderful message has been distorted in many ways, leading to the denominationalism (plethora of denominations) we see today.
3. Only one of those denominations can truly be honouring God by teaching His Wonderful Truth. The rest are dishonouring Him to a greater or lesser degree.
4. The way to find out which one is honouring God, is to identify the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel as originally taught.
5. We are doing that by determining the scripturality of individual church doctrines.
6. Churches that, and individuals who, continue to embrace beliefs identified as clearly unscriptural, are open to having their true loyalty to God questioned.
7. One doctrine, for which both a multiplicity of Scripture, and pointed occurrences of Scripture, were claimed, has been shown to not have that claimed support.
8. Therefore, that belief at least, was not part of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel.

However, will that particular doctrine (the existence of a conscious “soul” that survives human death) be acknowledged as unscriptural – will it be acknowledged as unscriptural by those who claim “Sola Scriptura” (either overtly or covertly) for their beliefs, yet who want to remain clinging to it?

If it is not so acknowledged, there seems to be little point in identifying the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel any further. The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel is clearly unacceptable to Christendom as it has become.

What if more teachings of current Christendom are shown to lack Scriptural support, and that lack of support is not acknowledged? What will be the status of people who continue to cling to those unscriptural beliefs – and who thereby reject that Original Apostolic Gospel as it is being revealed? Won’t the status of those people, in God's eyes, end up being worse than it was before they became aware?

==============================================================================================

 

[Josiah]

==============================================================================================

The Simple Original Apostolic Gospel​

==============================================================================================

General​

Post #22 (Josiah):


The point is very simple really.

1. Jesus and the Apostles brought a simple but absolutely wonderful message from God to the world.
2. That simple but absolutely wonderful message has been distorted in many ways, leading to the denominationalism (plethora of denominations) we see today.

Okay.

Then it's easy.

Just verbatim quote any or all of the 13 Apostles.
Quote verbatim dogmatic statements of denominations.
Show how they are in clear opposition, stating the opposite.

Easy.

Why not do that?

I haven't seen you do that at all; not so far. I guess that's why it's unclear what your point is.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #27 (Josiah) [blank lines removed to conserve space]:

Okay.
Then it's easy.
Just verbatim quote any or all of the 13 Apostles.
Quote verbatim dogmatic statements of denominations.
Show how they are in clear opposition, stating the opposite.
Easy.
Why not do that?
I haven't seen you do that at all; not so far. I guess that's why it's unclear what your point is.

Now that would be a clever way of steering the thread away from the penetrating approach of putting current beliefs of Christendom under the microscope of Holy Scripture. Wouldn’t it? (But that penetrating approach actually goes a long way towards definitively identifying the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel. And identifying departures from it.)

How dangerous that sensible method must seem to be (actually checking individual beliefs by seeing what the Bible really says about them). Apparently dangerous, for good reason.

Already one “central” teaching (which was brought to attention by someone other than me) has been shown to not have the Scriptural support that was claimed for it. That’s right. The claimed Biblical support for the existence of a conscious “soul” that survives human death, does not actually exist.

And no-one has yet been honest enough to admit its lack of Biblical basis, and to recant with respect to it. Possibly because for some people, that would also be an admission that the churches they are loyal to, have seriously departed from the Original Gospel taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

==============================================================================================

And I guess that’s why Josiah has displayed the need to employ the repetitive denial technique with respect to the point of the thread. (Readers can look at both Post #22 and the last line of the quote above.)

==============================================================================================

 

[Lamb]

You claim that a conscious soul does not exist after death. What is your definition of soul?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You claim that a conscious soul does not exist after death. What is your definition of soul?

Soul sleep & Annihilation of the soul either at death or after the last judgement are doctrines taught in books like The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers by Leroy Edwin Froom and also in What Does The Bible Really Teach by anonymous. An increasing number of professing Christians have adopted this kind of view because it makes eternal punishment into a metaphor. Some Christians like it that way. It means that God is not guilty of anything remotely like vengeance and vindictiveness from the perspective of those who adopt it and who think that Hell Fire is unfair and very cruel.,

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

This is starting to become fun here, too. (As it was in one or more other threads.)

Anything it seems, to draw attention away from Holy Scripture – away from God’s Inspired Revelation to us – away from the Bible and what God has revealed in it – and just as importantly, away from identifying the teachings of Christendom that are foreign to it.

Lämmchen to me (Post #29):

You claim that a conscious soul does not exist after death.

On the contrary, the claims that God’s Holy Bible has a large number of general verses that teach the presence of a conscious “soul” that exists after human death, have shown themselves to be false. As have two more specifically nominated sources. (The claims are reproduced at the bottom of this Post, to preclude any denial that the claims were made.)

The claims are false because repeated requests for the verses they refer to, to be presented for us to review, have been ignored. Had those verses existed, there would have been a rush to present them.

So instead of “You claim that a conscious soul does not exist after death” when all I’m doing is reporting that the stated Bible support does not exist,

the correct statement is “Christian Churches claim that a conscious ‘soul’ survives after human death” when the claimed Scriptural support for that assertion has been shown to not exist.

==============================================================================================

Ibid.

What is your definition of soul?

Once again, the question should be “Where did General Christendom obtain its common definition of the 'soul', when that definition did not originate in the Bible?”

All that promoters of that “surviving soul” concept have to do, is produce the supporting Bible statements as claimed below.

==============================================================================================

Mennesota in Post #2 in Annihilationism 01-17-2018: Annihilationism is best known in Jehovah's Witness and Mormon beliefs. Like free-will, it is developed by misapplying a couple verses while ignoring the forest of verses that make it untenable.

Albion in Post #19 in Annihilationism 01-18-2018: Were you to quote or paraphrase every NT verse that teaches the life of the soul after physical death [[implying significant multiplicity (Pedrito insertion for clarity)]], the conclusion would be quite different. And unavoidable.

Mennosota Post #31 in Thoughts on the Annihilationism Thread 03-02-2018: Ezekiel shares a number of verses where the dead Kings of earlier Kingdoms wonder when Babylon, Tyre and Egypt will be punished. These souls are in the "pit" and very much conscious.

Atpollard Post #45 in Thoughts on the Annihilationism Thread 03-30-2018: Actually, references to the afterlife are found throughout Job and seldom tied to the word 'sheol' [which does mean 'grave' rather than 'Hell' in Job.]

[[Pedrito: Job has 43 chapters. “Throughout Job” could reasonably be expected to mean an average of one verse per chapter. But being conservative, let’s say around one verse per two chapters. We end up in the vicinity of to two dozen again. Let’s aim for that number of verses as a reasonable request for verifying the “throughout Job” claim.]]

 

[Lamb]

So instead of “You claim that a conscious soul does not exist after death” when all I’m doing is reporting that the stated Bible support does not exist,

the correct statement is “Christian Churches claim that a conscious ‘soul’ survives after human death” when the claimed Scriptural support for that assertion has been shown to not exist.

You didn't answer concerning what YOU believe concerning the soul. Instead you wrote what others believe. Why not simply state what you believe is the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel in your own words and not state what others believe that you feel go against it?

 

[Albion]

It is probably easier just to deny that Scripture says X than to prove that the verses which affirm X do not exist.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Anything it seems, to draw attention away from Holy Scripture – away from God’s Inspired Revelation to us – away from the Bible and what God has revealed in it – and just as importantly, away from identifying the teachings of Christendom that are foreign to it.

Of which you also engage in this thread. I'll remind you that the initial challenge was to you.

Once again, the question should be “Where did General Christendom obtain its common definition of the 'soul', when that definition did not originate in the Bible?”

However, this wasn't the question. The question to you was "What is your definition of 'soul'". Words have significant meaning and power. Unless we consider the term as understood by you, no biblical evidence for/against can be presented. However (again) I'll remind you that the original challenge was to you to present the "Original Apostolic Gospel", not to others to present for you to affirm/deny. Shall we get on with it?

 

[psalms 91]

I see the title ofg this thread and think the good news but it seems that it has been made so complicated that Jesus Himself would cry at this and as for thiose it is supposed to reach how could they begin to understand all this? It seems to me that the simple gospel is that Christy died for you and that all are sinners but Christ paid the price and we can be saved by confessing with our mouth and believing in our heart that Jesus is the son of God and that He died for us and rose the third day. That is the simple gospel and all else is to learn and grow into. Lets not complicate it for the unbeliever.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

The fun continues.

Post #29 opened the way for the request to be made yet again, that the claimed Bible support for the teaching that a conscious “soul” survives after human death, be presented for us to review.

Once again, the references that were claimed to exist, could not be presented, proving yet again that the claimed Biblical support for that particular doctrine within Christendom, does not exist.

Yet instead of simply admitting that that teaching does not exist in the Bible, and therefore was not part of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, attention continues to be deliberately drawn away from the truth – necessarily drawn away from the Bible itself and what God’s Holy Word actually teaches.

(And that technique also delays the threatening identification of other beliefs that are already known (by some) to be unscriptural.)

Consider for instance, as an example of attention shifting, what we find in Post #32 [[emphasis added]:[/u]

You didn't answer concerning what YOU believe concerning the soul. Instead you wrote what others believe. Why not simply state what you believe is the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel in your own words and not state what others believe that you feel go against it?

==============================================================================================

OK. Let’s look at what I believe, And why. We’ll start with the soul.

I refer Readers to the definitions for “soul” in Lexicons (translation dictionaries), below. Have a look. Have a good look. See the range of meanings the words had in their original languages. Realise that the Greek meanings naturally included concepts found within the Greeks’ pagan religion.

So, what do I believe regarding the word “soul” in English as translated from the Hebrew and Greek in the Bible? Exactly what the Lexicons (translation dictionaries) document as general meanings in those languages and cultures, as actually found in Holy Scripture.

Note that the idea of an ongoing conscious “soul” that survives human death has been shown exceedingly well by others to lack the Biblical support that has been claimed for it. That particular meaning demonstrably had its origin in Pagan cultures, one of which was the Greek. That is why the claimed support verses can never ever be presented. So it is clear that Jesus and the Apostles did not believe that an ongoing conscious “soul” survives human death. I consider it wise to believe as they believed.

==============================================================================================
==============================================================================================

There are three words in Hebrew that are translated “soul” in English, and one in Greek. Linguistically, i.e. within their native cultures, they can be translated thus:

H5315 – Strong’s – (properly) a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental)
H5315 – BDB – soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion; that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man, living being, living being (with life in the blood), the man himself, self, person or individual, seat of the appetites, seat of emotions and passions, activity of mind (dubious), activity of the will (dubious), activity of the character (dubious)
H5082 – Strong’s – (properly) nobility, i.e. reputation
H5082 – BDB – nobility, nobleness, noble deeds, nobility (of rank), honour, noble things
H5397 – Strong’s – a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal
H5397 – BDB – breath, spirit, breath (of God), breath (of man), every breathing thing, spirit (of man)
G5590 – Strong’s – soul, inner being or life, (literally) breath, (figuratively) the heart's desire, the drive or passion of one's soul (i.e. that which brings satisfaction to one's being)
G5590 – Thayer – breath: the breath of life, the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing, of animals, of men, life, that in which there is life, a living being, a living soul, the soul, the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.), the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life, the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body).

So we see that in both Hebrew and Greek, there is a broad range of meanings behind the words translated as “soul”. But note that any meaning indicating that an ongoing conscious “soul” survives human death, has been consistently demonstrated by others to not exist within God’s Holy Bible.

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Still avoiding the initial challenge.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

ImaginaryDay2 in Post #37:

Still avoiding the initial challenge.

Maybe not quite so.

==============================================================================================

Readers consider:
- Claims have been made that a significant amount of Holy Scripture supports the idea of a conscious “soul” that survives human death;
- Claims have been made that specific identifiable verses in nominated Bible books, support the idea of a conscious “soul” that survives human death;
- Those claims have been shown to be false – all of them – false, because the supporting Scriptures claimed to exists, simply do not;
- Now, neither those people who made the (now proven) false claims, nor people like Imaginaryday2, are willing to admit that those claimed verses don’t exist;
- The paramount priority is thus shown to be the defence of unscriptural beliefs that are considered important.

==============================================================================================

On the basis of that, what could be (would be) or could have been (would have been) the result of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel being laid out before people who would not want to believe it? What would have happened had that Simple Original Apostolic Gospel been spread before people who would not want to believe what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught? Especially if that Simple Original Apostolic Gospel explicitly excluded other emotionally important beliefs that people cling to?

Flat out rejection! Deliberate denial of what Holy Scripture actually teaches (as is being done right now regarding the belief that an ongoing conscious “soul” survives human death).

The excuse would be that what was (is) presented is just Pedrito’s (my) ideas, and can thus be summarily dismissed without serious investigation.

But defining the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, doctrine by doctrine from the Bible itself, cannot be so easily dismissed. That has been, and is being, clearly demonstrated right now. The continuing efforts to cover up the uncripturality of Christendom’s “conscious soul that survives human death” belief, are undeniably revealing.

Is God’s Holy Bible really so threatening? Shouldn’t our loyalty be to God’s Holy Word, as opposed to organisations we belong to and things we want to believe?

==============================================================================================

 

[Lamb]

==============================================================================================

ImaginaryDay2 in Post #37:


Maybe not quite so.

==============================================================================================

Readers consider:
- Claims have been made that a significant amount of Holy Scripture supports the idea of a conscious “soul” that survives human death;
- Claims have been made that specific identifiable verses in nominated Bible books, support the idea of a conscious “soul” that survives human death;
- Those claims have been shown to be false – all of them – false, because the supporting Scriptures claimed to exists, simply do not;
- Now, neither those people who made the (now proven) false claims, nor people like Imaginaryday2, are willing to admit that those claimed verses don’t exist;
- The paramount priority is thus shown to be the defence of unscriptural beliefs that are considered important.

==============================================================================================

On the basis of that, what could be (would be) or could have been (would have been) the result of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel being laid out before people who would not want to believe it? What would have happened had that Simple Original Apostolic Gospel been spread before people who would not want to believe what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught? Especially if that Simple Original Apostolic Gospel explicitly excluded other emotionally important beliefs that people cling to?

Flat out rejection! Deliberate denial of what Holy Scripture actually teaches (as is being done right now regarding the belief that an ongoing conscious “soul” survives human death).

The excuse would be that what was (is) presented is just Pedrito’s (my) ideas, and can thus be summarily dismissed without serious investigation.

But defining the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, doctrine by doctrine from the Bible itself, cannot be so easily dismissed. That has been, and is being, clearly demonstrated right now. The continuing efforts to cover up the uncripturality of Christendom’s “conscious soul that survives human death” belief, are undeniably revealing.

Is God’s Holy Bible really so threatening? Shouldn’t our loyalty be to God’s Holy Word, as opposed to organisations we belong to and things we want to believe?

==============================================================================================

But you haven't told us the clear definition (YOUR clear definition) yet of what the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel is. Please start with that.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...On the basis of that[/u], what could be (would be) or could have been (would have been) the result of the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel being laid out before people who would not want to believe it? What would have happened had that Simple Original Apostolic Gospel been spread before people who would not want to believe what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught? Especially if that Simple Original Apostolic Gospel explicitly excluded other emotionally important beliefs that people cling to?

Okay, some assumptions are being made here as to where dialogue might go should the challenge be answered. First is that certain points are somehow "emotionally important". I would suggest as well this is a poor foundation for one's beliefs. Belief requires intellectual assent and study - not to come to a conclusion or hold onto them based on emotional importance. Oneness Pentecostals have a very emotional attachment to their ideology and will fight to the death to maintain it. Hence, it it correct based on several 'proof-texts' that support the emotional attachment. Looked at from an intellectual standpoint the house of cards falls apart quickly.

Flat out rejection! Deliberate denial of what Holy Scripture actually teaches (as is being done right now regarding the belief that an ongoing conscious “soul” survives human death).

Nothing is being done right now as no-one has responded to your point.

The excuse would be that what was (is) presented is just Pedrito’s (my) ideas, and can thus be summarily dismissed without serious investigation.

Perhaps not your ideas, but learning and knowledge does not happen in a vacuum. No-one can examine another's beliefs without knowing from where they came.

But defining the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel, doctrine by doctrine from the Bible itself, cannot be so easily dismissed. That has been, and is being, clearly demonstrated right now. The continuing efforts to cover up the uncripturality of Christendom’s “conscious soul that survives human death” belief, are undeniably revealing.

Again, nothing is being done right now, at least in this thread.

Is God’s Holy Bible really so threatening?

No

Shouldn’t our loyalty be to God’s Holy Word, as opposed to organisations we belong to

Are the two opposed? Show it.

...and things we want to believe?

Here I agree. What we want to believe (and, perhaps, this would have bearing on the emotional attachment mentioned earlier), and what is shown in scripture - if they are opposed - should be thrown out.
Now, shall we get on with it?