The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

metis said:

"Cephas" [sounding like "Kayfas"], as it is a play on words in Aramaic as it can be translated into Greek as "Petros" or "petra", both meaning "rock". Since Peter was a man, "Petra" could not be used because it's feminine.

Click to expand...

metis good to meet you..
I reply Jesus spoke Aramaic NOT Greek! Your excuse/explanation does NOT hold water you twisted the logic! Cephas means ROCK! Cephas means PETER not Petros! Peter means ROCK! Jesus changed Simon' name; Jesus named him ROCK! Simons NEW NAME is ROCK!
42 And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

metis I add more scriptures to make the point..
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

God the father personally kept Peter from error! I tell you that you are Peter, Do you see it..? YOU ARE ROCK!
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Clearly (verse 19) Jesus is talking directly to Peter! Peter alone is the Key holder, Peter has the AUTHORITY of God given to him in person by God!
Peter means ROCK! Keys mean AUTHORITY!

Jesus built his Church on ROCK not on sand.. It will never fail it never needs to be Re-Formed formed anew!
Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

To the end of the WORLD... All other churches every single one are made by men, these churches must reject Matthew 28:20 as a lie! To the end of the WORLD

metis said:

"Cephas" [sounding like "Kayfas"], as it is a play on words in Aramaic as it can be translated into Greek as "Petros" or "petra", both meaning "rock". Since Peter was a man, "Petra" could not be used because it's feminine.

Click to expand...

ah, so your going with Peter ?

thomas t said:

thank you for being civil. It's always good to be interacting in a kind manner.

Click to expand...

I usually try to reply in a civil manner, but I don't pull punches if I believe it is necessary to correct statements made about my brotherhood which are in error, or have been presented as a half truth, designed to distort who we are and what we believe. That being said...I will be very civil to those who are civil to me...and try my best to be civil even to those who are obnoxious. But I'm not perfect.

I am about facts, not stories. I am about the truth, not what I want to believe that is convenient to me. I looked for the Christianity that made what God said, more important than what suited me personally.
It is called a "cramped and narrow road" for a reason....(Matthew 7:13-14)

So now, you acknowledge that there can be Christians outside the community of the Jehova Witnesses.

Click to expand...

I believe that there is one truth....that means that there is no room for any other interpretations of that truth. We either believe that truth or we don't. Its black and white...there is no grey.
Practicing bits of Christ's teachings will not qualify anyone to be accepted by Jesus in the judgement, as I believe he made clear in Matthew 7:21-23.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" (NASB)

This isn't about wearing a label...it is about putting our faith into practice, accepting all of Christ's teachings, not just the convenient parts. As one who has come out of Christendom, I saw the way they pick and choose what to obey and what to ignore.....its what they ignore that makes the difference IMO. They don't need me to point out their hypocrisy because there is a long list of the things that they justify doing, that Christ told us NOT to do.

There are many doctrines that were adopted from pagan origins that simply don't belong in Christianity, but they are embraced by the churches nonetheless. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

That's great. From all I can read from this source here (it's on JW.org), however, ... while you do acknowledge that, on the indiviual level, there can be Christians outside JWs... there can't be Christian churches.

Click to expand...

That is a no-brainer to me. There is only one "body" because 'the Christ does not exist divided'.
All Christians must speak the same spiritual "language" which means that regardless of where they live in this world, their common faith unites them in every way. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

You cannot claim to be a Christians unless you ARE a Christian. "Being" a Christian means following in Christ's footsteps, putting into practice all that he commanded. The churches of Christendom clearly do not do that, or I would still be with them.

So, if I understand this source right, Christian churches do not exist unless they are JW.

Click to expand...

I think you need to understand what that actually means....."Jehovah's Witnesses" is not just a label, or what we call ourselves, whilst sitting in a building talking about Jesus but not "doing" what he told us to do. Preaching to the converted is not what Christ commanded.

He said....."Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20 See also Matthew 10:11-14. NASB)

Now compare that to what Jesus said in the scripture above that....what does "doing the will of the Father" entail? Since Jesus said that he would be "with" his disciples in this work, can you tell me why the churches do not engage in it? It was not a recommendation that was optional...it was a command to "preach the good news of the Kingdom in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" before God brings an "end" to this wicked world. (Matthew 24:14)

I imagine that even among our own ranks there are those who are not "doing the will of the father", but they will answer to Christ for their shortcomings. (Hebrews 4:13) I am not exempt from that examination and judgment.

Well, that's kind of arrogant, in my view. Of course there can be Christian communities outside the JWs. Even if you find flaws in them.

in a number of ways, we are different from other religious groups that are called Christian it said in the source linked above. "called Christian" as opposed to simply: Christian....
Maybe you don't find a perfect church, yet many are still Christian. In Revelation 3, even the churches in spiritual trouble were called Christian.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Jesus corrected them...he told them the problem and expected them to act on those corrections. The churches were not separate, but from one body of Christians in different areas...all held to the same beliefs and if they were not upholding the true Christian standard, then Jesus told them so. It was up to them to correct themselves.

e.g to the congregation in Sardis Jesus said...."‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 3 So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you."

But to those in Philadelphia he said...." ‘I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name. 9 Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you. 10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11 I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown."

Those who claim Jesus as their "Lord" will be judged by their actions (deeds) as well as their beliefs. The truth is the truth and lies are lies. The only thing God ever asked of his people was to do as they were instructed...to the letter. (Isaiah 48:17-18, 1 John 5:3; Exodus 12:28) Don't add or subtract, just obey him.

Imagine being on the receiving end of Jesus' judgment, (which is final......no more chances)....and he tells you that he "never knew you"?

he has authority over all who want his authority.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you have to be obedient to all his teachings, which we see that the churches are not.

If you would like to discuss those issues I would be happy to tell you why I left Christendom.

Dogknox20 said:

The ONLY Church Jesus formed is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church!

Click to expand...

If that is your delusion, then what else can be said? I have already outlined all the beliefs that the RCC added to its doctrines that come from sources outside of Christ's teachings, yet you still stick with the same old arguments as if ignoring the truth makes it disappear.........that is your choice...but now at least you cannot claim ignorance. When Jesus said..."I know your deeds"...he means all of them.

Dogknox20 said:

Jehovah Witness are NOT Christian they reject what Christians believe! Historical FACT: The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is the ONLY Church established by Jesus

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on what Jesus applies to the meaning of the word "Christian church"? If it means ignoring most of what Jesus taught, disobeying his commands, and adding so many pagan ideas from Roman sun worship and holding its favorite festivals under a thin disguise, then that is up to you.

Its hard to imagine such 'blindness' but it was prophesied....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

cataway said:

ah, so your going with Peter ?

Click to expand...

Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.

cataway “We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name Cephas is used.
cataway And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
cataway Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith!

Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

John 21:15-17 Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.
cataway Peter the Key Holder is charged with the responsablity of Sheppard of Jesus' flock! Peter is the Chief Apostle.
The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:
Peter is always mentioned first sometimes the scriptures read "Peter and the others"! Peter walked on water, Peters shadow heals all it touches, Peter was first to enter the tomb, Peter is named in the Gosples more then all the Apostles put together! Jesus changes Simons name to ROCK! Peter is the AUTHORITY the key holder. God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus. The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34) Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost. Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church. Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira. Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost. After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle.
Peter streghtens the other Apostles "I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

Deeje said:

If that is your delusion, then what else can be said? I have already outlined all the beliefs that the RCC added to its doctrines that come from sources outside of Christ's teachings, yet you still stick with the same old arguments as if ignoring the truth makes it disappear.........that is your choice...but now at least you cannot claim ignorance. When Jesus said..."I know your deeds"...he means all of them.



I guess that depends on what Jesus applies to the meaning of the word "Christian church"? If it means ignoring most of what Jesus taught, disobeying his commands, and adding so many pagan ideas from Roman sun worship and holding its favorite festivals under a thin disguise, then that is up to you.
Its hard to imagine such 'blindness' but it was prophesied....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Click to expand...

Deeje thank you for your reply.... I point out the Holy Catholic Church uses TRADITION, Scriptures and the Magasterium to arrive at truth!
It was TRADITION that the Holy Catholic Church used to decide what letters were INSPIRED BY GOD and what letters were not! The bible was put together as being INSPIRED by using TRADITIONS of the Fathers!
In 1 Cor 11:2 Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”
In Thess 2:15 Paul said.. “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”.

The teaching of "Scriptures ALONE" is a Protestant TRADITION! It first appered 1500 years after Jesus it was taught by the man LUTHER!
The teaching of saved by "Faith Alone" is another man made TRADITION it also was taught first by Martin Luther!
Do you believe that after the death of the apostles, the Church embarked on a "Great Apostasy"? This is a TRADITION not found in the scriptures!
Do you believ e in "restoration" of original Christianity? If you do it is a JW TRADITION.. It is not found in the bible!
Do you believe the JW claim to be the only true religion? This alsao is a TRADITION it is NOT in the bible!
Do you believe all other religions are part of "Babylon the Great".. This is another TRADITION of your JW church!
Do you base all of your beliefs on the Bible, as interpreted by the Governing Body. Another TRADITION of your JW church!
Do you believe that the WTS errored in timing the end of the world? The date for the end of the world is NOT biblical... It is a TRADITION!
Do you believe personal name of God is regarded as vital for true worship! More TRADITIONS not biblical!
Deeje More TRADITIONS the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society used the Cross and Crown symbol on tombstones, and on its publications until 1931. Since 1936, Jehovah's Witnesses have rejected the idea that Jesus died on a cross ALL BY TRADITION!
Do you believe God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven, established in 1914 MORE TRADITIONS!
Do you believe the soul does not continue to live after one dies.MORE TRADITIONS!
Do you believe the TRADITION that hell (hades or sheol) is not a place of fiery torment, but rather the "common grave of mankind"!
Witnesses teach that wicked angels (demons) sometimes pretend to be spirits of the dead, and that their deception is the basis for many beliefs about ghosts. More TRADITIONS!
Do you believe that exactly 144,000 faithful Christians go to heaven as spirit creatures to rule with Christ. TRADITION!
Do you believe the TRADITION that being "anointed" involves a personal revelation by God's spirit which "gives positive assurance of adoption".
How about denying blood transfusions to little children???
Catholic's use the TRADITIONS of the Church to establish doctrine.... JUST AS THE WTS DOES!
Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).

Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

Deeje It looks like Irenaeus would call the WTS a Heresie

Deeje said:

If that is your delusion, then what else can be said? I have already outlined all the beliefs that the RCC added to its doctrines that come from sources outside of Christ's teachings, yet you still stick with the same old arguments as if ignoring the truth makes it disappear.........that is your choice...but now at least you cannot claim ignorance. When Jesus said..."I know your deeds"...he means all of them.



I guess that depends on what Jesus applies to the meaning of the word "Christian church"? If it means ignoring most of what Jesus taught, disobeying his commands, and adding so many pagan ideas from Roman sun worship and holding its favorite festivals under a thin disguise, then that is up to you.
Its hard to imagine such 'blindness' but it was prophesied....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Click to expand...

Deeje Jesus taught word for word... "I am with you ALWAYS to the end of time"!
Fact Jesus did not start with the JWs so he can not be ALWAYS with JWs! History, Logic and scriptures cannot be denyed!
Jesus said word for word.."My flesh is real food"!
Deeje The Jehovah Witness say.. 52 Then the Jehovah Witness strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Christians believe the words of Jesus, Christians have an almighty God we believe our God can take any form he wants to take; the form of "A man" and yes even trhe form of "Bread"!
Christians have always eaten the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread..
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Ignatius is a Christian he is NOT a Jehovah Witness! Ignatius believe the words of Jesus words found in the bible! You are blind to the scriptures History and LOGIC!

@Dogknox20.....I am not sure whether you are trying to convince me or yourself by regurgitating all this Catholic stuff.....I'm sure it is cut and pasted from your Catholic sources....it's a pity that your sources don't address the shocking history of your church that reaches all the way to the present day.....but you know that Jesus has not forgotten because he observed it all, and things have turned out just as he predicted. The "weeds" surfaced right after the death of the last apostle John, and it was downhill from then on....the formation of the RCC is just a sad episode in the history of apostate Christianity.

You don't seem to understand that its what you ignore that is the problem.....when Jesus says to those who call him "Lord"..."I never knew you"....that means that he has never recognized your church or any who subscribe to 'Catholic' doctrine, as his own. How could he when nothing they teach even resembles what Jesus taught?

I'm sorry but, the minute blood was flowing out of the church, Christ left the building. He has never been the "Lord" of Catholicism because they virtually ignore everything he said and adopting "traditions" instead. That is exactly what Judaism did. (Matthew 15:8-9)

"Thou shalt not kill" seems to have escaped Catholic consciousness down through the ages. Especially when Christ taught us to "love our enemies", not kill them.......(Matthew 5:43-44)

There is no point in continuing..... You will never see what you can't acknowledge.

Deeje said:

@Dogknox20.....I am not sure whether you are trying to convince me or yourself by regurgitating all this Catholic stuff.....I'm sure it is cut and pasted from your Catholic sources....it's a pity that your sources don't address the shocking history of your church that reaches all the way to the present day.....but you know that Jesus has not forgotten because he observed it all, and things have turned out just as he predicted. The "weeds" surfaced right after the death of the last apostle John, and it was downhill from then on....the formation of the RCC is just a sad episode in the history of apostate Christianity.

You don't seem to understand that its what you ignore that is the problem.....when Jesus says to those who call him "Lord"..."I never knew you"....that means that he has never recognized your church or any who subscribe to 'Catholic' doctrine, as his own. How could he when nothing they teach even resembles what Jesus taught?

I'm sorry but, the minute blood was flowing out of the church, Christ left the building. He has never been the "Lord" of Catholicism because they virtually ignore everything he said and adopting "traditions" instead. That is exactly what Judaism did. (Matthew 15:8-9)

"Thou shalt not kill" seems to have escaped Catholic consciousness down through the ages. Especially when Christ taught us to "love our enemies", not kill them.......(Matthew 5:43-44)

There is no point in continuing..... You will never see what you can't acknowledge.

Click to expand...

Deeje Jesus formed a Church Two Thousand years ago.. He is still to this day with his Holy Church today just as the scriptures tell you! You say Do NOT KILL.. How can you say this knowing that your Church KILLED many many people mostly CHILDREN by denying them blood transfusion! The Ten Commandments of God DO NOT KILL! I think you should look at your own church before you start pointing fingers!
To be Christian you must believe what Christians believe; Christian s believe in the Trinity!

Dogknox20 said:

Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.

cataway “We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name Cephas is used.
cataway And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
cataway Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith!

Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

John 21:15-17 Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.
cataway Peter the Key Holder is charged with the responsablity of Sheppard of Jesus' flock! Peter is the Chief Apostle.
The primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:
Peter is always mentioned first sometimes the scriptures read "Peter and the others"! Peter walked on water, Peters shadow heals all it touches, Peter was first to enter the tomb, Peter is named in the Gosples more then all the Apostles put together! Jesus changes Simons name to ROCK! Peter is the AUTHORITY the key holder. God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus. The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34) Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost. Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church. Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira. Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost. After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle.
Peter streghtens the other Apostles "I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

Click to expand...

what you so far have failed to realize ,Jesus is the rock. where Peter is just a stone in the the footing wall . Peter was not appointed as a leader but he was given reasonability's .
Jesus told Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matt. 16:19) What did Jesus mean? His reference to “keys” indicated that Peter would open up knowledge and opportunities for distinct groups to enter the Messianic Kingdom.

Dogknox20 said:

Deeje Jesus formed a Church Two Thousand years ago.. He is still to this day with his Holy Church today just as the scriptures tell you!

Click to expand...

No Dogknox...the Catholic church tells you. Believe them if you wish. I don't believe Christ has ever set foot in the Catholic church. (Isaiah 1:15)

You say Do NOT KILL.. How can you say this knowing that your Church KILLED many many people mostly CHILDREN by denying them blood transfusion!

Click to expand...

I am not surprised that you still hang onto these lies......no one has died from refusing blood transfusions unless medical personnel stood by and ignorantly did nothing. There are so many alternatives to blood transfusion that are safer and more effective. Please do your research.

For Media | National Blood Authority

The Ten Commandments of God DO NOT KILL! I think you should look at your own church before you start pointing fingers!

Click to expand...

I only have to look at all the blood spilled by Catholic Church leaders over many centuries of the Inquisition. If torture and murder are acceptable in your idea of Christianity then that says a lot about you. Never did Christ sanction bloodshed.

To be Christian you must believe what Christians believe; Christian s believe in the Trinity!

Click to expand...

No, sorry....Christians do not believe in the trinity...Christendom does......you don't know the difference?

You cannot provide one single verse in the Bible where Jesus said he was God...or that the holy spirit is God, or that the Father ever acknowledged any other person in existence, that he considered his equal.

Good bye Dogknox...I wish you the truth.....its all I can say to you. This is fruitless.

Deeje said:

I am not surprised that you still hang onto these lies......no one has died from refusing blood transfusions unless medical personnel stood by and ignorantly did nothing. There are so many alternatives to blood transfusion that are safer and more effective. Please do your research.

Click to expand...

No one has died? With all due respect, you are absolutely wrong. Many die everyday. How will a leukaemia patient survive if the blood platelets go too low without transfusion?

This argument of yours is absolutely false. You say "no one". Thats absolutely absurd. Sorry to say this but you are making statements like you are absolutely sure with third party links which you have not studied. There is only one form of leukaemia that some medical experts claim can be treated without blood.

Dogknox20 said:

Historical FACT: The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is the ONLY Church established by Jesus.. ALL...
thomas t all others are started by men! ALL...
thomas t all others must reject the scriptures to reject the Catholic Church! It is just this simple: If you accepted the scriptures you would be Catholic!

Click to expand...

here we disagree.
I consider myself as part of the Christian family.
I'm not a Jehova Witness.
I don't think or teach Jesus failed or that I have to reform anything.
I don't think I reject scripture. I don't think that churches off the Catholic Church are not needed.

But consider also: this thread is about what's the stumper between Johova Witnesses and the rest.
So I will react very shortly here, because it's getting off topic... and even if you reply, I stick to my opinion as outlined above.
I also stick to that it cannot be proven by scripture that the Catholic Church is the only one you can think of. I disagree with you about who or what the rock is that Jesus built his church upon... or how many key holders to the Kingdom can exist simultaneously. This is not the thread to go into great lenghth to discuss if this was Peter or something else, or if scripture says there only can be one single keyholder.
Even if you reply I disagree with you here. But I won't answer any further replies from your part because it's getting off topic here.
You may have the last word.

You did a good job pointing out the flaws in the JW doctrine, though. Go ahead and post more on this.

Deeje said:

There is only one "body" because 'the Christ does not exist divided'.

Click to expand...

1) this doesn't mean the Jehova Witnesses are this body.
2) this doesn't mean that different parts of his body cannot belong to different institutions. Look at people themselves: they can be part of two different groups at the same time. They can be a member of Greenpeace and the Catholic Church, for example. Why shouldn't the body of Chist.
This is just an example. I'm not saying you should be a member of Greenpeace and/or the RCC.

Deeje said:

Yes, but Jesus corrected them...he told them the problem and expected them to act on those corrections.
Yes, but you have to be obedient to all his [which means "Jesus's" here, added mine, although I referred to something else, before. Doesn't matter] teachings, which we see that the churches are not.

Click to expand...

Even if the churches had flaws at that time, and even if churches have flaws as of today... they didn't or don't cease to be Christian just for making mistakes. I'm not saying churches cannot be cut off, though.
But you seeing flaws in them does not autmatically cut them off of anything.

Deeje said:

can you tell me why the churches do not engage in it?

Click to expand...

many churches do.

Deeje said:

I believe that there is one truth....that means that there is no room for any other interpretations of that truth. We either believe that truth or we don't. Its black and white...there is no grey.
Practicing bits of Christ's teachings will not qualify anyone to be accepted by Jesus in the judgement, as I believe he made clear in Matthew 7:21-23.
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" (NASB)

Click to expand...

that does not mean I'm not a Christian.

Deeje said:

This isn't about wearing a label...it is about putting our faith into practice, accepting all of Christ's teachings, not just the convenient parts. As one who has come out of Christendom, I saw the way they pick and choose what to obey and what to ignore.....its what they ignore that makes the difference IMO. They don't need me to point out their hypocrisy because there is a long list of the things that they justify doing, that Christ told us NOT to do.

There are many doctrines that were adopted from pagan origins that simply don't belong in Christianity, but they are embraced by the churches nonetheless. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

[...]
You cannot claim to be a Christians unless you ARE a Christian. "Being" a Christian means following in Christ's footsteps, putting into practice all that he commanded. The churches of Christendom clearly do not do that, or I would still be with them.

Click to expand...

you don't know all of them.

I suggest you may stop being arrogant in pretending you are the only church that exists as a Christian church.

firedragon said:

No one has died? With all due respect, you are absolutely wrong. Many die everyday. How will a leukaemia patient survive if the blood platelets go too low without transfusion?

Click to expand...

I know of quite a few Witness leukemia patients who chose not to prolong their lives when there was no hope. The treatments for leukemia and other forms of cancer are very debilitating. The treatments themselves are often worse than the disease. Chemo destroys what little is left of a weakened immune system. They did not choose to die, but rather to end their suffering. I would do the same. Have you ever lost someone to cancer? If you have then you will know what I mean. If you haven't then please don't judge.

This argument of yours is absolutely false. You say "no one". Thats absolutely absurd. Sorry to say this but you are making statements like you are absolutely sure with third party links which you have not studied. There is only one form of leukaemia that some medical experts claim can be treated without blood.

Click to expand...

I have personally had friends of mine who were told point blank that they would die without blood...not one of them did. They found compassionate physicians who offered them bloodless treatments and all recovered well.

Cancer is quite another topic. Leukemia is a disease with a high rate of recurrence. After several rounds of chemotherapy, many have had enough of the kind of suffering that comes with these treatments. If there is no hope of recovery, they will opt out of all treatments and let nature take its course. There is no law against that.

One site offers hope....

"The treatment of leukemia may be one of the only exceptions to the general rule at USC that all patients can be cared for bloodlessly. The effects of chemotherapy on the bone marrow are such that blood counts almost always plummet, requiring the use of blood products to keep the patient alive.

Although little can be done for leukemia patients who cannot or will not accept blood transfusions, says Alexandra M. Levine, M.D., professor and chief of hematology and medical director of the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital, at USC these patients are allowed to make a choice. And that choice is respected.

“Our view is that if a person for religious or other reasons will not take blood transfusions, and still understands the risk of chemotherapy, then we will be happy to help them,” says Levine. “Some have survived and some have not. But they have the choice here.”

In addition, scientists are continuing to look into ways to turn even this one exception around, to be able to treat leukemia bloodlessly. And they’ve begun to find their way, least in the treatment of one condition called acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL).

“There is a drug called all-transretinoic acid that often can treat APL without the need for a transfusion,” notes Dan Douer, M.D., director of the Bone Marrow Transplant Program at the USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center. “We treated a Jehovah’s Witness patient with APL using an experimental intravenous form of this medication, and she entered into a complete remission for three years before relapsing.”

https://transfusionfree.usc.edu/case-studies/case-study-transfusion-free-leukemia-treatment/

Some choose alternative therapies with good success. It's all about our choices.....for us there are worse things than dying. We don't believe that this life is all there is, and we will not break God's law to prolong a life with treatments that virtually only prolong suffering.

Deeje said:

I know of quite a few Witness leukemia patients who chose not to prolong their lives when there was no hope. The treatments for leukemia and other forms of cancer are very debilitating. The treatments themselves are often worse than the disease. Chemo destroys what little is left of a weakened immune system. They did not choose to die, but rather to end their suffering. I would do the same. Have you ever lost someone to cancer? If you have then you will know what I mean. If you haven't then please don't judge.

Click to expand...

All of this is absolutely irrelevant because you made an absolutely wrong claim. Whether someone close to me died out of cancer is absolutely irrelevant, and is a straw man which honestly I didnt expect from you. Your claim no one dies out of lack of blood transfusion is wrong. Maybe you are not aware so make awareness. This has nothing to do with chemo, so that's another straw man.

By the way, my father died out of leukaemia. Just for your information. Although, it is not relevant.

Deeje said:

I have personally had friends of mine who were told point blank that they would die without blood...not one of them did. They found compassionate physicians who offered them bloodless treatments and all recovered well.

Click to expand...

Thats anecdotal, not scientific so its such an absurd evidence to provide here. Some of your friends?

There are some subject we know very well, some we dont, but the subject of leukaemia I know very well though I am not a doctor and I am uneducated in other diseases. I know this because my dad died out leukaemia, and my niece is living evidence that sometimes you can be cured. But there is no way they will survive without blood transfusion, so please do not make absolutely false claims.

This is the end of that discussion because this argument is an absurdity by foundation.

Deeje said:

In addition, scientists are continuing to look into ways to turn even this one exception around, to be able to treat leukemia bloodlessly. And they’ve begun to find their way, least in the treatment of one condition called acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL).

“There is a drug called all-transretinoic acid that often can treat APL without the need for a transfusion,” notes Dan Douer, M.D., director of the Bone Marrow Transplant Program at the USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center. “We treated a Jehovah’s Witness patient with APL using an experimental intravenous form of this medication, and she entered into a complete remission for three years before relapsing.”

https://transfusionfree.usc.edu/case-studies/case-study-transfusion-free-leukemia-treatment/

Click to expand...

I already told you this. So please Deeje, dont just go searching shallowly and cut and paste simply to prolong your argument. Please dont. Its beneath you.

I told you there is only one form of leukaemia that is now treatable without blood.

All this said and done, maybe one day they will find alternatives to blood transfusion completely. Until then, do not make false claims like "no one died out of not giving blood unless it was a doctors negligence" or something to that nature you said. It was a false claim. Keep your level and dignity sis, be more sophisticated.

Peace.

thomas t said:

1) this doesn't mean the Jehova Witnesses are this body.
2) this doesn't mean that different parts of his body cannot belong to different institutions. Look at people themselves: they can be part of two different groups at the same time.

Click to expand...

Can you show me a time in biblical history where God tolerated any divisions among his worshippers? Israel had one set of laws and any breach carried penalties. For some, the penalty was death.
The Christians too operated as one body. (1 Corinthians 1:10) There was to be no divisions among them either.

They can be a member of Greenpeace and the Catholic Church, for example. Why shouldn't the body of Chist.
This is just an example. I'm not saying you should be a member of Greenpeace and/or the RCC.

Click to expand...

That's not the way God works.....You can't have a foot in two camps. We are all choosing our own destiny, just by the choices we make.

thomas t said:

Even if the churches had flaws at that time, and even if churches have flaws as of today... they didn't or don't cease to be Christian just for making mistakes. I'm not saying churches cannot be cut off, though.
But you seeing flaws in them does not automatically cut them off of anything.

Click to expand...

The problem with these churches is that they aren't making 'mistakes'. If they had no scripture, they could claim ignorance, but the fact that the requirements for being a Christian is fully outlined in the Bible, it gives no one an excuse to fail to do God's will. If you know that something is wrong, and you keep right on doing it, God will not forgive you. (Acts 3:19)

thomas t said:

many churches do.

Click to expand...

Most of them don't. And it was not an assignment given to a few....it was given to all as a command, not an option.

To his prophet Ezekiel God said...."Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman to the house of Israel; and when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them from me. 18 When I say to someone wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ but you do not warn him, and you fail to speak in order to warn the wicked one to turn from his wicked course so that he may stay alive, he will die for his error because he is wicked, but I will ask his blood back from you. 19 But if you warn someone wicked and he does not turn back from his wickedness and from his wicked course, he will die for his error, but you will certainly save your own life." (Ezekiel 3:17-19)

This is why we are all under obligation to witness......lives are at stake.....even our own.

thomas t said:

that does not mean I'm not a Christian.

Click to expand...

The only person who will judge that is Jesus. But unless you understand what Christ taught and what he didn't, you won't even be in the running.

thomas t said:

you don't know all of them.

Click to expand...

I have spent the last 45 years studying the Bible...if I don't know what Christ taught by now, I never will.

I suggest you may stop being arrogant in pretending you are the only church that exists as a Christian church.

Click to expand...

I suggest you concentrate on your own salvation and make sure that you know what is expected of you......Matthew 7:21-23 are words that no one wants to hear.

Please do not confuse confidence with arrogance.

firedragon said:

All of this is absolutely irrelevant because you made an absolutely wrong claim. Whether someone close to me died out of cancer is absolutely irrelevant, and is a straw man which honestly I didnt expect from you. Your claim no one dies out of lack of blood transfusion is wrong. Maybe you are not aware so make awareness. This has nothing to do with chemo, so that's another straw man.

By the way, my father died out of leukaemia. Just for your information. Although, it is not relevant.

Thats anecdotal, not scientific so its such an absurd evidence to provide here. Some of your friends?

There are some subject we know very well, some we dont, but the subject of leukaemia I know very well though I am not a doctor and I am uneducated in other diseases. I know this because my dad died out leukaemia, and my niece is living evidence that sometimes you can be cured. But there is no way they will survive without blood transfusion, so please do not make absolutely false claims.

This is the end of that discussion because this argument is an absurdity by foundation.

Click to expand...

You've done this to me before Firedragon....you misrepresent what I say and come back swinging. Your responses are like your username.
Who made you the authority on what I know?...and what I have experienced?

I do not lie and I am telling you my experience as a first hand witness. I was there with them in the hospital and saw it and heard it myself. A dear friend's daughter was in a car accident and ruptured her spleen and almost bled out....although pressured, she refused blood and they removed her spleen using alternate therapies. Against all the odds, she recovered well.

A brother who was hemorrhaging from the bowel was down to a critical hemoglobin level and doctors would not operate on him without blood....he found a surgeon who was willing to give him a chance and he came through the surgery brilliantly. His blood count was almost normal when he left the hospital.

A sister with an ectopic pregnancy almost bled to death, but refused blood amid dire warnings that she would die without blood. She was the color of her bed sheets, but she would not take blood....she too recovered without blood transfusions...because alternative therapies were applied.....there are many more I could relate. These are not second hand stories...They are my own experiences. Anecdotal? Not scientific? No! these are members of my spiritual family.

Chemo was most decidedly a factor in the choice to give up treatments with those who had leukemia. It was the suffering induced by the chemo that made them choose to stop all treatments. It was the chemo that depleted the ability of the bone marrow to make up red blood cells. That is what creates the necessity for transfusions in the first place.

Read the last paragraph of my last response to you. We have choices......we do not need anyone's permission or judgment to do with our lives as we see fit. OK? You make your own choices for yourself, and we will make our choices for ourselves. That is fair is it not? We do not impose our religious views on your medical choices, so please accord us the same respect.

Deeje said:

You've done this to me before Firedragon....you misrepresent what I say and come back swinging. Your responses are like your username.
Who made you the authority on what I know?...and what I have experienced?

I do not lie and I am telling you my experience as a first hand witness. I was there with them in the hospital and saw it and heard it myself. A dear friend's daughter was in a car accident and ruptured her spleen and almost bled out....although pressured, she refused blood and they removed her spleen using alternate therapies. Against all the odds, she recovered well.

A brother who was hemorrhaging from the bowel was down to a critical hemoglobin level and doctors would not operate on him without blood....he found a surgeon who was willing to give him a chance and he came through the surgery brilliantly. His blood count was almost normal when he left the hospital.

A sister with an ectopic pregnancy almost bled to death, but refused blood amid dire warnings that she would die without blood. She was the color of her bed sheets, but she would not take blood....she too recovered without blood transfusions...because alternative therapies were applied.....there are many more I could relate. These are not second hand stories...They are my own experiences. Anecdotal? Not scientific? No! these are members of my spiritual family.

Chemo was most decidedly a factor in the choice to give up treatments with those who had leukemia. It was the suffering induced by the chemo that made them choose to stop all treatments. It was the chemo that depleted the ability of the bone marrow to make up red blood cells. That is what creates the necessity for transfusions in the first place.

Read the last paragraph of my last response to you. We have choices......we do not need anyone's permission or judgment to do with our lives as we see fit. OK? You make your own choices for yourself, and we will make our choices for ourselves. That is fair is it not? We do not impose our religious views on your medical choices, so please accord us the same respect.

Click to expand...

Cheers.