What's in a name?

I began with Church history, Christian Scripture and Hebrew Scripture and found continuity, plus and contemporaneously the writing of Ignatius around the year 112-120 A.D.

Click to expand...

So church history didn't give you some indication that Christianity changed a great deal in the first few centuries?
Perhaps it was what you were taught.....the sanitized version?

But what really happened?
Less than 20 years after Jesus’ death, the apostle Paul indicated that efforts of Satan to cause division and turn men away from the true faith were “already at work.” (2 Thessalonians 2:7) As early as about 49 C.E., in a letter sent out to the congregations concerning some who were causing divisions....it was noted: “We have heard that some from among us have caused you trouble with speeches, trying to subvert your souls, although we did not give them any instructions.” (Acts 15:24) So running away with ideas that had no approval from the Apostles was already happening.

As the first century progressed, divisive thinking spread like the "weeds" that Jesus had predicted.....for over 60 years, the apostles had ‘acted as a restraint,’ endeavoring to hold back the tide of apostasy. (2 Thessalonians 2:7; 2 John 9-10) But as the Christian congregation was about to enter the second century, the last surviving apostle, John, died, after penning his final contributions to Christian scripture. (about 98C.E.) The apostasy that had begun to creep into the congregation was now unrestrained, with devastating organizational and doctrinal repercussions, as the following centuries of church history reveal.

There was no clergy class within Christian congregations of the first century. As spirit-anointed brothers of Christ, all the early Christians had the prospect of being heavenly priests with Christ. (1 Peter 1:3-4; 1 Peter 2:5, 9)

Organizationally, each congregation was supervised by a body of overseers, or spiritual elders. All the elders had equal authority, and not one of them was authorized to ‘lord it over’ the flock in their care. (Acts 20:17; Philippians 2:1; 1 Peter 5:2-3) As the apostasy unfolded, things began to change—quite rapidly.
What kind of an influence then were the ones who were involved in the foretold apostasy?

Just a decade or so after the death of the apostle John, Ignatius, “bishop” of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, wrote: “See that you all follow the bishop [overseer], as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery [body of elders] as if it were the Apostles.” So Ignatius advocated that each congregation be supervised by one bishop, or overseer, who was to be recognized as distinct from, and having greater authority than, the presbyters, or older men....and so the changes were implemented and added to over time until the instituting of Roman Catholicism....and there we see what resulted....



Where do you see Christ in these pictures, or anything resembling what Jesus started?

So, converting to Roman Catholicism meant adopting all those doctrines that the Reformers, including your former church, threw out as being completely unscriptural?

You believe what they believe about Mary being “the mother of God” and a mediatrix (1 Timothy 2:5) and what it means to be a “saint” and the place called “purgatory”....and a Pope who bears the pagan Roman title of “Pontifex Maximus, decked out in his finery as one who was way above the members of his "church"?

He lives in a gold inlaid palace with servants.....



Can you picture Jesus here? I can't.....how is any of that a reflection of what Jesus taught? I simply cannot comprehend that level of spiritual blindness....

pearl said:

I do not agree that you have a sound scriptural education. You're group doesn't seem to allow any questioning of its interpretation whereas the Church has defined only a very few passages out of the entire Bible being open to possible interpretations as we move forward in understanding how Scripture has meaning for life in the Church today for how we relate to all peoples. The Bible is a magnificent work of literature that cannot be closed off.

Click to expand...

Who told you that? We are free to question whatever we like, as you are in the Catholic church no doubt....but will the church change its teachings to suit you if you disagree, or will you have to accept that what they teach is what is held to be truth by those who lead the church? Who will care what you think besides yourself?

Very few of Jehovah's Witnesses leave because of doctrinal issues.....most simply want to do their own thing and believe what they want to believe...they are then free to go as we will not tolerated those who are only there to undermine the faith of others. This is where a sound knowledge of scripture come in.....every one of our teachings is based on God's word, either directly or in principle....can you say the same about Catholic beliefs? If they did not come from the Bible, then they came from men who claimed to have been guided by God's spirit......so how can you tell? Jesus gave us the answer...he said we would recognize his true disciples "by their fruits"...or the kind of people they produce.
Do we see Catholic people avoiding violence?....refusing to shed blood in wars?...being honest in their dealings with others?....refraining from accumulating riches but using precious resources to help the needy among them, and to educate its people in the word of God as Jesus did?

Did you know that the Catholic church has a collection of artworks that would be worth billions of dollars if they were sold and the money given to the Catholic poor among society?
"Though no official number is publicly confirmed, financial institutions the world over estimate the Vatican's wealth to be between $10 and $15 billion, making it one of the richest, tax-exempt organizations on the planet."

Who is benefiting from all that wealth? How many Catholics are living in abject poverty in poorer nations when there are resources available that could make a difference in their lives? (Matthew 6:24) Would Jesus sit on wealth and see his brothers go hungry?

pearl said:

Encounter by encounter. Because we have no say as to the completion of the Kingdom, does not mean we're are not to live up to the Kingdom ideals.

Click to expand...

In what ways do you see the church "living up to Kingdom ideals......? I am curious.
What is "the completion of the Kingdom"? Can you tell me.....what is the Kingdom?

pearl said:

The term Hellenism refers to Greek speaking Jews. And yes, there is a difference between the Jewish mindset and Greek philosophy.

Click to expand...

When Alexander the Great overthrew the Persian Empire and set about conquering more of the world. In order to unify his diverse conquests, he and the kings who succeeded him encouraged “Hellenization,” that is, the adoption of the Greek language and way of life. Into this stream of Hellenistic culture the Jews were drawn, slowly and with reluctance, but it was inevitable. At first, Jewish religious fervor resisted the threat of paganism that accompanied the influx of Greek thought, but eventually many areas of Jewish life were affected. After all, the small Jewish territory was surrounded on almost all sides by Hellenistic regions with which, for the sake of trade, had to be in constant contact.

Given the religious and moral standards of people of the nations, some early Jewish Christians were at first hesitant about opening the Christian congregation to Gentile converts.....but God's spirit was behind the move and Gentiles were encouraged to leave their religious beliefs and practices behind them. But true to Jesus prophetic words, Christianity inevitably fell away to false religious teachings, as Judaism had done before it.

pearl said:

I do not cherry pick to try and prove a point. Each verse, in order to be properly understood, must be interpreted as it relates to the whole. The Bible is truth only in its wholeness, not in an individual pericope alone.

Click to expand...

I have not noticed a single belief of the church backed up by the Bible thus far. You have been given so many opportunities, but have not used even a "periscope" which would have been something....a lot better than nothing.

pearl said:

Were the guards to keep others out or yours in?

Click to expand...

The guards were to keep intruders out and to alert the city of anything that was approaching....friend or foe. If an important visitor was expected the watchmen heralded their approach, but if it was an enemy, they made themselves ready for battle.

pearl said:

We wait for the completion of what began with Jesus, the Reign/Rule of God

Click to expand...

What are you waiting for exactly? What did Jesus begin that you see your church engaging in?

pearl said:

Your 'evidence' is nothing more than gossip from the uninformed who lives like a fish in a bowl with no knowledge of the ocean.

Click to expand...

I'm just going to leave that comment there for posterity.....as I am sure some will get the humor of it...

Hockeycowboy said:

You mean, in the Bible? No, there was no (recognizable) English language back then .

There was no ‘Jesus’ back then either, for that matter.

Click to expand...

The name is YHWH.

In the Bible.


And we don’t know how to pronounce it.



Because it’s sacred.


Biblically, Jesus’ name is Iesous.

Deeje said:

Who told you that? We are free to question whatever we like, as you are in the Catholic church no doubt....but will the church change its teachings to suit you if you disagree, or will you have to accept that what they teach is what is held to be truth by those who lead the church? Who will care what you think besides yourself?

Click to expand...

Altar servers have historically ben men, boys by tradition. The question as to why arose from a local parish, why not allow girls to serve. In 1994 the answer was why not and girls were allowed to serve, but not the right, leaving it up to the local bishop as to allow or not. This originated from the grass roots up. Petitioning for a change in the order of the Sacraments the Church in the United States was granted permission to delay the Sacrament of Reconciliation until the 5th grade as opposed to the mandatory reception of this Sacrament prior to receiving Eucharist. In my opinion it was unfortunate that on May 23, 1973, the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments with the approval of Pope Paul VI declared that “these experiments … should cease and that everybody everywhere should conform to the decree Quam singulari.”
But the point is that, yes, questions are allowed. And questioning is a constant and arise from the Church's own scholars and theologians.

Deeje said:

Very few of Jehovah's Witnesses leave because of doctrinal issues.....most simply want to do their own thing and believe what they want to believe.

Click to expand...

And what is 'their own thing'? What about those you're group shuns, kicks out?

Deeje said:

Did you know that the Catholic church has a collection of artworks that would be worth billions of dollars if they were sold and the money given to the Catholic poor among society?

Click to expand...

And then what?
The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me. Mt 26:11
The land will never lack for needy persons; that is why I command you: “Open your hand freely to your poor and to your needy kin in your land. Deut. 15:11
Its not the amassing of wealth alone, but whether there is a social conscience, for many there is.
Top 10 philanthropic foundations: A primer | Devex

Deeje said:

What are you waiting for exactly? What did Jesus begin that you see your church engaging in?

Click to expand...

While you see destruction, I see transformation when God rules.

Deeje said:

I'm just going to leave that comment there for posterity.....as I am sure some will get the humor of it...

Click to expand...

Do you always see humor in something pitiful?

Deeje said:

So church history didn't give you some indication that Christianity changed a great deal in the first few centuries?

Click to expand...

Of course it did, as the church spread from being a Jewish sect into the Hellenistic world and began to include Gentiles, and as the church progressed from being persecuted to being accepted. You expected some other outcome?

Deeje said:

So running away with ideas that had no approval from the Apostles was already happening

Click to expand...

See below for your own refutation to this idea.

Deeje said:

But as the Christian congregation was about to enter the second century, the last surviving apostle, John, died, after penning his final contributions to Christian scripture

Click to expand...

1) The Apostles (as they died) began to appoint successors, as with Judas’ replacement.
2) There is no biblical evidence to support that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle, and therefore (according to you), the idea must be rejected.

Deeje said:

There was no clergy class within Christian congregations of the first century

Click to expand...

The Apostles were the clergy. As you mention above, they had ecclesial control of the churches. As the church began to spread to the point that it became impossible for the Apostles to oversee each congregation, they appointed a presbyterate to hep them. But the presbyters were accountable to their Apostle — their overseer — the episkopoi. To this day, the episkopoi are the clergy, just as their predecessors, the Apostles.

Deeje said:

Organizationally, each congregation was supervised by a body of overseers, or spiritual elders

Click to expand...

Those would be Apostles, or episkopoi, mentioned above.

Deeje said:

All the elders had equal authority, and not one of them was authorized to ‘lord it over’ the flock in their care

Click to expand...

Correct. All episkopoi were co-equal.

Deeje said:

Just a decade or so after the death of the apostle John, Ignatius, “bishop” of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, wrote: “See that you all follow the bishop [overseer], as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery [body of elders] as if it were the Apostles.” So Ignatius advocated that each congregation be supervised by one bishop, or overseer, who was to be recognized as distinct from, and having greater authority than, the presbyters, or older men

Click to expand...

Yo have it wrong. The episkopoi were the elders; that’s what the word means. Here, Ignatius is asking the church to remain faithful to the “apostles’ teaching,” as Acts records.

Deeje said:

and a Pope who bears the pagan Roman title of “Pontifex Maximus, decked out in his finery as one who was way above the members of his "church

Click to expand...

Actually, the pontiff is regarded as the servant of the church. That’s why he wears a stole, reminiscent of the towel Jesus wrapped around him when he washed the disciples’ feet. he also carries a crozier, to signify that he is the shepherd — the one who cares for the flock, as does every overseer, or episkopoi, or apostle of the church.

But you go ahead and drink the kool-aid if you want...

Hockeycowboy said:

You mean, in the Bible? No, there was no (recognizable) English language back then .

There was no ‘Jesus’ back then either, for that matter.

Click to expand...

And "God" and "Jesus" are in English today as well.

sojourner said:

Biblically, Jesus’ name is Iesous.

Click to expand...

That depends on your language, so thanks for confirming what we have said all along.....I·e·sousʹ is Jesus’ name in Greek.....but he was a Jew, so his Hebrew name was....Ye·shuʹaʽ or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ which means “Yahweh Is Salvation”......

God’s name in other languages varies....

Italian - Geova

Japanese - Ehoba

Maori - Ihowa

Portuguese - Jeová

Romanian - Iehova

Samoan - Ieova

Tahitian - Iehova

Tagalog - Jehova

Tongan - Jihova

Why stumble over God’s name in English? He knows who is speaking to him in all languages......because he created those languages....and the Jews have no excuse for allowing God’s name to be lost to human speech. Nowhere does their scripture say that God’s name is too sacred to be uttered.....so perhaps there were reasons why God did not permit them to retain it?

After the Jews orchestrated the death of Jesus, Acts 15:14 says that God took out of the nations “a people for his name”.....those “people” address their God by his name in their own language, and are known the world over as his Witnesses....the only ones who obey Christ’s command in Matthew 28:19-20. (Matthew 10:11-14) It requires “searching” for worthy ones, like Jesus’ disciples were instructed to do....that was not sitting in an ornate building, wearing distinctive clothing and waiting for those “worthy ones” to wander in....

These ones would learn to be Christ-like in their behavior, changing their personality to rid themselves of unchristian thinking and conduct, becoming honest, hard working and trustworthy in all their dealings. In a dishonest world, these ones would have a reputation for these qualities....so much so that our HQ gets constant requests for JW employees. And we don’t celebrate pagan or nationalistic holidays so they know we will work those days as they are meaningless to us.

We refuse to be part of the world and its corrupt politics and bloodshed, choosing jail (and often ill treatment) as conscientious objectors in all nations where conscription is/was mandatory. That is why I chose to become one of them.....who else is fulfilling all of that, and the commission to preach as Jesus commanded? It can only be done by those whom Jesus promised to support in that work.

Please tell me why the churches of Christendom as a collective are MIA in the great commission....?

Deeje said:

That depends on your language

Click to expand...

It doesn’t depend on your language. Please note that I said “biblically.” In the Bible, only the name Iesous appears. All other names are not biblical. Same with YHWH. You seem to be all about “what the Bible says” rather than “what men say.”


Except for this.

Deeje said:

Please tell me why the churches of Christendom as a collective are MIA in the great commission....?

Click to expand...

The Great Commission is to break down barriers between people’s and create oneness. That’s the whole thrust of Matthew. Referring to your post here, it looks as though you’ve abdicated that commission yourselves. People who live in glass houses...

Deeje said:

These ones would learn to be Christ-like in their behavior, changing their personality to rid themselves of unchristian thinking and conduct, becoming honest, hard working and trustworthy in all their dealings. In a dishonest world, these ones would have a reputation for these qualities....so much so that our HQ gets constant requests for JW employees. And we don’t celebrate pagan or nationalistic holidays so they know we will work those days as they are meaningless to us.

Click to expand...

How precious... Entitled preciousness.

pearl said:

Altar servers have historically ben men, boys by tradition. The question as to why arose from a local parish, why not allow girls to serve. In 1994 the answer was why not and girls were allowed to serve, but not the right, leaving it up to the local bishop as to allow or not. This originated from the grass roots up. Petitioning for a change in the order of the Sacraments the Church in the United States was granted permission to delay the Sacrament of Reconciliation until the 5th grade as opposed to the mandatory reception of this Sacrament prior to receiving Eucharist. In my opinion it was unfortunate that on May 23, 1973, the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments with the approval of Pope Paul VI declared that “these experiments … should cease and that everybody everywhere should conform to the decree Quam singulari.”
But the point is that, yes, questions are allowed. And questioning is a constant and arise from the Church's own scholars and theologians.

Click to expand...

Is this an example of your church solving a 'scriptural' dilemma? Or is it more of a “church” dilemma because of something the church has added from outside of what the scriptures teach, and people see that teaching or tradition as unfair? Whatever Christ taught is NEVER unfair to begin with.....we never need to change what the scriptures say because they are from a God who never changes, regardless of the fluctuations of worldly standards.

Please tell me where an 'alter' is ever mentioned in the Christian scriptures that pertains to an earthly setting, as in a Christian church....? Let alone “alter boys” who, it seems were regular targets of pedophile priests for many decades....perhaps even centuries?
Tell me please where the scriptures mention Nuns, a Mother Superior, Monks.....or advocates a Monastic life and vows of silence?




Where will I find rosary beads used by any Christians in order to recite repetitious prayers?
Who else uses prayer beads......Hindus and Buddhists, but no other Christians. Can you explain?



You seem to accept all these things like they weren't later introductions with no authorization from the Apostles for any of them....and far from anything Jesus ever taught or advocated.

Genuine Christians do not need to petition their church, their God or secular authorities for change unless there is a lawful reason to do so because an injustice has taken place....e.g. where a law of the land has contravened God’s laws or commands.

For us, there is scripture...period......which becomes the arbiter of all we believe. If something is out of order and it has been shown to be unscriptural, then we know that Christ will see to it that “at the proper time” that issue will be resolved with no effort on our part. Christ is in full control of his “Church” and he has supported his own as only he can. He has been with the “wheat” in spite of the interference of the “weeds” through all these centuries. (Acts 20:29-30)

pearl said:

And what is 'their own thing'? What about those you're group shuns, kicks out?

Click to expand...

The only ones who are disfellowshipped are those who have broken God's law and are unrepentant....or those who want to bring their own ideas into the congregation and create arguments or divisions. We do not tolerate either one. They are no longer considered to be part of our brotherhood. But disfellowshipping is entirely biblical (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) and it has prompted many to return, just like the Prodigal Son. It accomplishes one of two things....it either makes them arrogant or humble....the humble ones come back, chastened...the proud often go on a vendetta to justify themselves. We will leave them for Jesus to sort out.

pearl said:

And then what?
The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me. Mt 26:11
The land will never lack for needy persons; that is why I command you: “Open your hand freely to your poor and to your needy kin in your land. Deut. 15:11
Its not the amassing of wealth alone, but whether there is a social conscience, for many there is.

Click to expand...

James 2:15-18...
"15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith" (NRSVCE)

There it is.....if you know the need and fail to fill it, your faith is dead.
What is the point of your Pope sitting on his golden throne in his richly decorated palace, knowing that the church has a vast fortune, and praying for the poor.....?" That is a sick joke IMO.
Sure we will always have the poor with us but what are we doing to aid our brothers and sisters in the faith?

pearl said:

While you see destruction, I see transformation when God rules.

Click to expand...

That cancels out a lot of scripture...but that is not surprising as we continue this exchange.
What is Armageddon to a Catholic? What is the "great tribulation" that Jesus warned about in connection with his second coming? (Revelation 16:14, 16; Matthew 24:21) The destruction is what creates a clean slate for the transformation.....

pearl said:

Do you always see humor in something pitiful?

Click to expand...

Well, I see something more pitiful.....denial is always sad to me.....

sojourner said:

Of course it did, as the church spread from being a Jewish sect into the Hellenistic world and began to include Gentiles, and as the church progressed from being persecuted to being accepted. You expected some other outcome?

Click to expand...

Would you like to tell us what precipitated the acceptance?
Since Jesus had warned that his disciples would hated and persecuted, I don’t seem to be able to find any verse which tells us that acceptance would come.....?

But looking at the history of “the church”, I can see that she curried favor with the world’s rulers when Jesus told his disciples not to be part of the world.....that “friendship with the world” was “enmity with God” (James 4:4)....so it appears to me that according to scripture, the only way to become “accepted” by the world was to compromise with it.....to treat it like a friend....like sleeping with the enemy.

John 15:19, JB: “[Jesus Christ said:] If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you do not belong to the world, because my choice withdrew you from the world, therefore the world hates you.”

sojourner said:

1) The Apostles (as they died) began to appoint successors, as with Judas’ replacement.

Click to expand...

I believe that you have misunderstood something important here....there was only one man chosen when Judas defected and betrayed his Master. He was not a successor however......Matthias was a replacement.
Paul was an Apostle by special assignment, but he was not one of the twelve. He was not a successor of anyone, nor is there any indication of apostolic succession at all in the Bible.
Jesus was also called an Apostle. (Hebrews 3:1) The meaning of the Greek word a·poʹsto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stelʹlo, meaning simply “send forth (or off)”

2) There is no biblical evidence to support that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle, and therefore (according to you), the idea must be rejected.

Click to expand...

Actually, none of the Gospel writers identify themselves as such in their accounts, and titles are apparently not part of the original text. In some manuscripts of John’s Gospel, the title appears as Eu·ag·geʹli·on Ka·taʹ I·o·an’nen (“Good News [or, “Gospel”] According to John”), whereas in others a shorter title, Ka·taʹ I·o·an’nen (“According to John”), is used.

sojourner said:

Correct. All episkopoi were co-equal.

Click to expand...

That is not what Ignatius said though is it? For his part, Ignatius envisioned a new organization of the Christian congregation, with just one bishop presiding “in the place of God.” This bishop would hold authority over many priests. Such inventions opened the way for further waves of unscriptural teaching.

Deeje said:

Is this an example of your church solving a 'scriptural' dilemma?

Click to expand...

You asked and I answered, yes we may question and yes we are heard. You simply cannot accept the answer. Furthermore, you confuse the unchangeable 'deposit of faith' with what is changeable, known as disciplines. I keep repeating you know nothing about the Church and you foolishly pretend you do.

I guess your group has had its own actual Scriptural dilemma
Jehovah's Witness historical worship of Jesus until 1954 (jwfacts.com)

Deeje said:

The only ones who are disfellowshipped are those who have broken God's law and are unrepentant....or those who want to bring their own ideas into the congregation and create arguments or divisions. We do not tolerate either one.

Click to expand...

IOW there is no toleration for questioning. Just admit it.

Deeje said:

There it is.....if you know the need and fail to fill it, your faith is dead.

Click to expand...

And here it Catholic charities - Wikipedia

Deeje said:

Would you like to tell us what precipitated the acceptance?
Since Jesus had warned that his disciples would hated and persecuted, I don’t seem to be able to find any verse which tells us that acceptance would come.....?

But looking at the history of “the church”, I can see that she curried favor with the world’s rulers when Jesus told his disciples not to be part of the world.....that “friendship with the world” was “enmity with God” (James 4:4)....so it appears to me that according to scripture, the only way to become “accepted” by the world was to compromise with it.....to treat it like a friend....like sleeping with the enemy.

John 15:19, JB: “[Jesus Christ said:] If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you do not belong to the world, because my choice withdrew you from the world, therefore the world hates you.”



I believe that you have misunderstood something important here....there was only one man chosen when Judas defected and betrayed his Master. He was not a successor however......Matthias was a replacement.
Paul was an Apostle by special assignment, but he was not one of the twelve. He was not a successor of anyone, nor is there any indication of apostolic succession at all in the Bible.
Jesus was also called an Apostle. (Hebrews 3:1) The meaning of the Greek word a·poʹsto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stelʹlo, meaning simply “send forth (or off)”


Actually, none of the Gospel writers identify themselves as such in their accounts, and titles are apparently not part of the original text. In some manuscripts of John’s Gospel, the title appears as Eu·ag·geʹli·on Ka·taʹ I·o·an’nen (“Good News [or, “Gospel”] According to John”), whereas in others a shorter title, Ka·taʹ I·o·an’nen (“According to John”), is used.


That is not what Ignatius said though is it? For his part, Ignatius envisioned a new organization of the Christian congregation, with just one bishop presiding “in the place of God.” This bishop would hold authority over many priests. Such inventions opened the way for further waves of unscriptural teaching.

Click to expand...

Your posts spout an awful lot of venom for something you clearly misunderstand, both historically and theologically. You cry “foul” when the church operates “unscripturally,” as in your final paragraph (even though it is not unscriptural), yet you blithely justify the use of the abominably cobbled moniker for God, (which is clearly unscriptural). These sorts of posts represent unclear thinking, and hide a lack of understanding behind a facade of “I’ve done my homework.” No one’s fooled by these theatrics.

Deeje said:

we never need to change what the scriptures say

Click to expand...

Except, apparently, for changing YHWH to “Jehovah...” Or Iesous to “Jesus.”

Deeje said:

Please tell me where an 'alter' is ever mentioned in the Christian scriptures that pertains to an earthly setting, as in a Christian church

Click to expand...

It’s implied. The lamb was sacrificed on the altar as an expiation for sin. John calls Jesus ‘the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” Jesus speaks of his own “sin sacrifice,” and during the last supper makes a libation of his spilt blood. Clearly this equates Jesus’ sacrifice with that of the lamb on the altar. Therefore, when that one sacrifice is recalled (anamnesis — a biblical term), it is recalled at the altar, where the lamb was slaughtered.

Deeje said:

Tell me please where the scriptures mention Nuns

Click to expand...

the term “nun” comes from the Latin Nonna, a term of endearment for a grandmother — an elder woman who teaches. In the Bible, virgins and widows are set apart (see 1 Cor and 1 Tim) for certain kinds of church work. And, as you should know, the church is called to care for the widows. These women were pulled out of the world and lived together, where they could be cared for by the church. Their ministry became primarily a teaching and compassion ministry.

Deeje said:

Monks.....or advocates a Monastic life and vows of silence?

Click to expand...

Does the Bible not call Christians to be not “of the world?” Monks are cloistered — “out of the world,” as you’ve claimed yourselves to be.

Deeje said:

For us, there is scripture...period

Click to expand...

See above. Except that you disparage practices that are clearly biblical.

Deeje said:

He has been with the “wheat” in spite of the interference of the “weeds” through all these centuries. (Acts 20:29-30)

Click to expand...

“Wheat and weeds” never appears in Acts 20. Methinks Someone doesn’t know the Bible as well as she professes?

pearl said:

You asked and I answered, yes we may question and yes we are heard. You simply cannot accept the answer. Furthermore, you confuse the unchangeable 'deposit of faith' with what is changeable, known as disciplines. I keep repeating you know nothing about the Church and you foolishly pretend you do.

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea of how many points I have raised so that you could defend and explain your church’s position on things that were clearly NOT part of any teaching of Jesus or his apostles......and what did we hear?.....crickets.

I know enough about your church from my own research, from the teachings of my own former church, and from the mouths of the many Catholic people I have spoken to personally, so I don’t pretend to know.....I see very clearly from your own silence that the issues I have raised with you are met with a familiar kind of denial that other readers here will see clearly.

I guess your group has had its own actual Scriptural dilemma

Click to expand...

What dilemma?
In the book of Daniel, in describing the situation during “the time of the end”, he foretold that God would produce a people who were “purified, cleansed, and refined” during this period.
“He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are to remain secret and sealed until the time of the end. Many shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.” (Daniel 12:9-10 NRSVCE)

We all know that each of those things (purification, cleansing and refining) are processes, so as time elapsed, and the scriptures were examined and it’s truths were gradually better understood, so adjustments to our understanding progressed with that knowledge. One important clarification was the meaning of the word “worship”. Coming to that understanding, it became clear that our worship was only to God, through Jesus Christ, and that his “divinity” merited our honor and respect, but not our worship.

The Greek word pro·sky·neʹo corresponds closely to the Hebrew term hish·ta·chawahʹ in expressing the thought of obeisance and, at times, worship.

The term pro·sky·neʹo is used in connection with a slave’s doing obeisance to a king (Matthew 8:26) as well as the act Satan stipulated when he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (Matthew 4:8-9) Had he done obeisance to the Devil, Jesus would thereby have signified submission to Satan and made himself the Devil’s servant. But Jesus refused, saying: “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Matthew 4:8-10 NRSVCE)
He was quoting Deuteronomy 5:9 and 6:13, where “the Lord your God” was “Yahweh”. So worship is for God alone....Yahweh......Jesus is not Yahweh. (John 17:3)

In accord with Proverbs 4:18 the closer we get to the end, the more clarity we receive. But at least we responded to the scriptural promptings to “make sure of all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and adjusted our understanding, because as Daniel said, the wicked (disobedient ones like the Pharisees) would understand nothing at all. I think we know who is stuck in a scripturally unsupportable rut.

Regardless of how much clarity has been made available by linguistic experts and Bible scholars that clearly show how far Catholicism has strayed from what Christ taught, there is no discernible change in doctrines.....and a Pharisaical stubbornness against any kind of correction. We know where that led those who refused correction in the first century. Again history is repeating, but only the enlightened “few” can see it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The “lost sheep” have left your fold because they could not in all conscience continue, but as it was in the first century, the majority stay under the control of their religious leaders, relying on tradition rather than God’s word. That is their choice and they have every right to make it. We are all making choices right now about where our loyalties lie.....but just keep Matthew 7:21-23 in mind, as we all must. Every choice we make about our worship will have everlasting consequences.

IOW there is no toleration for questioning. Just admit it.

Click to expand...

Well, that was an obvious bit of desperation. You have to resort to these tactics to prove your point? There is always room for questioning but there is no room for rebellion or those who want to cause division or contention. Nor will we tolerate those who want to break God’s laws whilst still wanting to pretend that they are “Christians”. (1 Corinthians 5:13-15)

And here it Catholic charities - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Charities? That’s your idea of Christianity? How did Jesus help the people he came into contact with? He had the means to help all those who came to him, he fed thousands of people on two occasions.....but when they returned, he questioned their motives, asking if they only came back for the free food? You see, hand-to-mouth charity is not what Jesus advocated. Rather than ‘giving a man a fish’, he advocated the necessary care to ‘teach the man to fish’, helping people individually to become self-sufficient disciples who in turn then, help others.

We operate no “charities” as such.....our ‘charitable’ works are carried out by each of us on an individual needs basis. The last thing Jesus wanted to create was the “rice Christian” mentality.... those who had no intention of allowing Christ to make them better people, but who just want to exploit these charities for a free handout. We all know how that this is not what Jesus advocated.

sojourner said:

It’s implied. The lamb was sacrificed on the altar as an expiation for sin. John calls Jesus ‘the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” Jesus speaks of his own “sin sacrifice,” and during the last supper makes a libation of his spilt blood. Clearly this equates Jesus’ sacrifice with that of the lamb on the altar. Therefore, when that one sacrifice is recalled (anamnesis — a biblical term), it is recalled at the altar, where the lamb was slaughtered.

Click to expand...

Where did Jesus present the value of his sacrifice sojourner? Where was the alter?

“It is necessary therefore that the patterns of heavenly things should be cleansed with these: but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Jesus is not entered into the holies made with hands, the patterns of the true: but into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us.” (Hebrews 9:23-24 Douay)
Again you betray a complete lack of knowledge of the scriptures.

The alter was not on earth. It was in heaven. The priesthood was also to be served in heaven, at a future time, not on earth back then either. There is no reference to an earthly priesthood in Christianity. (Revelation 20:6) Those chosen to rule with Christ in heaven were to be ‘kings and priests’ in the heavenly arrangement, not the earthly one. These had to die and be resurrected in order to serve in the heavenly kingdom, and only after Jesus returned.
John 14:2-3...
"In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also." (NRSVCE)

Has Jesus "come again"? What does the church have to say about that?

sojourner said:

the term “nun” comes from the Latin Nonna, a term of endearment for a grandmother — an elder woman who teaches. In the Bible, virgins and widows are set apart (see 1 Cor and 1 Tim) for certain kinds of church work. And, as you should know, the church is called to care for the widows. These women were pulled out of the world and lived together, where they could be cared for by the church. Their ministry became primarily a teaching and compassion ministry.

Click to expand...

That is a complete twisting of scripture and any reader will know that nuns were never a part of first century Christianity and neither were monks or monasteries. The commission for all Christians was to preach.....to go out to the people and make more disciples. How does cloistering yourself away from everyone fit that model?
The "virginity" of the nuns as well as the priests is forced, not voluntary.

1 Timothy 4:1-3...
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 3 They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." (NRSVCE)
Who fits that description, I wonder? Did the Catholic church deliberately set out to fulfill these scriptures?

sojourner said:

Does the Bible not call Christians to be not “of the world?” Monks are cloistered — “out of the world,” as you’ve claimed yourselves to be.

Click to expand...

Is that the model Jesus set? How was Jesus "no part of the world"? Did he say that there should be monks who cloister themselves away from the world to take vows of silence? Seriously?
1 John 2:15-17 is the description of what he meant....you should try reading the Bible...you might just learn something....
"15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world; 16 for all that is in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live for ever."

Did you note the part that says "the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches"......I wonder who that could be talking about?

I have a friend whose husband was on the board of the Catholic Church's oversight of funds collected in our local area. He had to resign because he was absolutely disgusted that the biggest money makers for the church was a private Catholic school and a Catholic Nursing Home. There was so much that the excess funds could have accomplished, especially in the Nursing Home with more staff, better care, and better food, but all of the funds went to the church. If that is Catholic charity, then I can't imagine why funds collected locally cant be used for the benefit of Catholic people, not just lining the pockets of the fat cats who get paid to spend it elsewhere.

sojourner said:

you disparage practices that are clearly biblical.

Click to expand...

You support the practices that are clearly NOT biblical. You have to twist and ignore a lot of scripture to maintain your position....but that is your choice to make.

sojourner said:

“Wheat and weeds” never appears in Acts 20. Methinks Someone doesn’t know the Bible as well as she professes?

Click to expand...

LOL....my goodness you say the strangest things sometimes.....as if Acts needs to mention "weeds" in order to teach what the Master taught. Methinks you have not the slightest clue about what the Bible teaches because you never use it.

"Babylon the great" is going to soon be destroyed by the very ones she treats as her lovers.....that harlot will be completely eliminated from existence because she sees her spiritually immoral relationships as some kind of insurance that she will never be under threat.....but God has news for her....(Revelation 17:3-5)

The symbolic woman bearing the name "Babylon the Great" is “the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth,” a kingdom that allows her, in effect, to sit on “peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.” (Revelation 17:1,15, 18) A 'kingdom over other kingdoms and nations' is what is defined as an “empire.” Babylon the Great places herself above earthly kings, exercising power and influence over them. She rides the symbolic seven-headed beast, beasts being used elsewhere in the Bible as symbols of political world powers.

Some scholars assume that Babylon the Great is a political empire, either Babylon or Rome but, Babylon as a political empire had long since ceased to exist when John received his prophetic vision. As to Rome, the nature of its political rule does not harmonize with the description of Babylon the Great’s course and her methods of dominating. She is a harlot, committing 'fornication' with the kings of the earth, making them drunk with the wine of her fornication, misleading the nations by her “spiritistic practice.” (Revelation 18:3, 23)

Rome’s dominion, by contrast, was gained and maintained by its iron-like military might and its firm application of Roman law among its provinces and colonies. Rome was the dominator, but Babylon the great was said to have a Kingdom over the kings of the earth".

She is a spiritual adulteress and God will soon give her what is coming to her.
Revelation 18:2-5...
"At the top of his voice he shouted, 'Babylon has fallen, Babylon the Great has fallen, and has become the haunt of devils and a lodging for every foul spirit and dirty, loathsome bird.
All the nations have drunk deep of the wine of her prostitution; every king on the earth has prostituted himself with her, and every merchant grown rich through her debauchery.'
Another voice spoke from heaven; I heard it say, 'Come out, my people, away from her, so that you do not share in her crimes and have the same plagues to bear.
God has her crimes in mind: treat her as she has treated others." (JB)

It won't be pretty but it will be deserved.

Now I have to mention as a side comment that the Jerusalem Bible's online site has this plea....
"Hi readers, it seems you use Catholic Online a lot; that's great! It's a little awkward to ask, but we need your help. If you have already donated, we sincerely thank you. We're not salespeople, but we depend on donations averaging $14.76 and fewer than 1% of readers give. If you donate just $5.00, the price of your coffee, Catholic Online School could keep thriving. Thank you."

I'll leave that there for you to contemplate how the church supports its own when it is dripping in wealth and assets......there was also a pop-up ad for buying statues of Mary at a discount price.....

sojourner said:

Your posts spout an awful lot of venom for something you clearly misunderstand, both historically and theologically. You cry “foul” when the church operates “unscripturally,” as in your final paragraph (even though it is not unscriptural), yet you blithely justify the use of the abominably cobbled moniker for God, (which is clearly unscriptural). These sorts of posts represent unclear thinking, and hide a lack of understanding behind a facade of “I’ve done my homework.” No one’s fooled by these theatrics.

Click to expand...

I think we know who is using theatrics...since you don't seem to use anything else.....all I see are unfounded criticisms of my faith, which I have defended and explained.....but not a single scripturally justified stance for your own......if your beliefs do not come from the Bible, then where do they come from?

According to the Apostle Paul, we only have two tables at which to feed (1 Corinthians 10:21).....one supplied by the servants of Jesus, and the other supplied by the servants of the devil.....there are no others. So we must all choose wisely because our adversary is a con artist....but you knew that...right?

pearl said:

I had wished for more input from Jews here as to why only this one name was/is held sacred above other names or titles.

Click to expand...

From Gates of Light by Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla:

"The fifth Name from the Holy Names in ascending order is the Name which is known as YHVH, may He be Blessed. Know and understand that the Name YHVH is the pillar to which the upper and lower Spheres cling. They interconnect in ascending order and they are energized in descending order. This is the Name which is likened to the trunk of a tree and all the other Holy Names are like its branches; all are attached to each other from above, below and all sides. It is the One that brings the Spheres together with its letters. So it is with all living creatures, for all upper and lower constellations in the world rely on it and look to it. All the systems of the world, their foundation and structures, rely on it. Nothing exists in any world which does not rely, and is not enriched, with the Name YHVH, Blessed be He."

dybmh
Thankyou so much for this.

Deeje said:

Where did Jesus present the value of his sacrifice sojourner? Where was the alter?

“It is necessary therefore that the patterns of heavenly things should be cleansed with these: but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Jesus is not entered into the holies made with hands, the patterns of the true: but into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us.” (Hebrews 9:23-24 Douay)
Again you betray a complete lack of knowledge of the scriptures.

The alter was not on earth. It was in heaven. The priesthood was also to be served in heaven, at a future time, not on earth back then either. There is no reference to an earthly priesthood in Christianity. (Revelation 20:6) Those chosen to rule with Christ in heaven were to be ‘kings and priests’ in the heavenly arrangement, not the earthly one. These had to die and be resurrected in order to serve in the heavenly kingdom, and only after Jesus returned.
John 14:2-3...
"In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also." (NRSVCE)

Has Jesus "come again"? What does the church have to say about that?


That is a complete twisting of scripture and any reader will know that nuns were never a part of first century Christianity and neither were monks or monasteries. The commission for all Christians was to preach.....to go out to the people and make more disciples. How does cloistering yourself away from everyone fit that model?
The "virginity" of the nuns as well as the priests is forced, not voluntary.

1 Timothy 4:1-3...
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 3 They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." (NRSVCE)
Who fits that description, I wonder? Did the Catholic church deliberately set out to fulfill these scriptures?


Is that the model Jesus set? How was Jesus "no part of the world"? Did he say that there should be monks who cloister themselves away from the world to take vows of silence? Seriously?
1 John 2:15-17 is the description of what he meant....you should try reading the Bible...you might just learn something....
"15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world; 16 for all that is in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live for ever."

Did you note the part that says "the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches"......I wonder who that could be talking about?

I have a friend whose husband was on the board of the Catholic Church's oversight of funds collected in our local area. He had to resign because he was absolutely disgusted that the biggest money makers for the church was a private Catholic school and a Catholic Nursing Home. There was so much that the excess funds could have accomplished, especially in the Nursing Home with more staff, better care, and better food, but all of the funds went to the church. If that is Catholic charity, then I can't imagine why funds collected locally cant be used for the benefit of Catholic people, not just lining the pockets of the fat cats who get paid to spend it elsewhere.


You support the practices that are clearly NOT biblical. You have to twist and ignore a lot of scripture to maintain your position....but that is your choice to make.


LOL....my goodness you say the strangest things sometimes.....as if Acts needs to mention "weeds" in order to teach what the Master taught. Methinks you have not the slightest clue about what the Bible teaches because you never use it.

"Babylon the great" is going to soon be destroyed by the very ones she treats as her lovers.....that harlot will be completely eliminated from existence because she sees her spiritually immoral relationships as some kind of insurance that she will never be under threat.....but God has news for her....(Revelation 17:3-5)

The symbolic woman bearing the name "Babylon the Great" is “the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth,” a kingdom that allows her, in effect, to sit on “peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.” (Revelation 17:1,15, 18) A 'kingdom over other kingdoms and nations' is what is defined as an “empire.” Babylon the Great places herself above earthly kings, exercising power and influence over them. She rides the symbolic seven-headed beast, beasts being used elsewhere in the Bible as symbols of political world powers.

Some scholars assume that Babylon the Great is a political empire, either Babylon or Rome but, Babylon as a political empire had long since ceased to exist when John received his prophetic vision. As to Rome, the nature of its political rule does not harmonize with the description of Babylon the Great’s course and her methods of dominating. She is a harlot, committing 'fornication' with the kings of the earth, making them drunk with the wine of her fornication, misleading the nations by her “spiritistic practice.” (Revelation 18:3, 23)

Rome’s dominion, by contrast, was gained and maintained by its iron-like military might and its firm application of Roman law among its provinces and colonies. Rome was the dominator, but Babylon the great was said to have a Kingdom over the kings of the earth".

She is a spiritual adulteress and God will soon give her what is coming to her.
Revelation 18:2-5...
"At the top of his voice he shouted, 'Babylon has fallen, Babylon the Great has fallen, and has become the haunt of devils and a lodging for every foul spirit and dirty, loathsome bird.
All the nations have drunk deep of the wine of her prostitution; every king on the earth has prostituted himself with her, and every merchant grown rich through her debauchery.'
Another voice spoke from heaven; I heard it say, 'Come out, my people, away from her, so that you do not share in her crimes and have the same plagues to bear.
God has her crimes in mind: treat her as she has treated others." (JB)

It won't be pretty but it will be deserved.

Now I have to mention as a side comment that the Jerusalem Bible's online site has this plea....
"Hi readers, it seems you use Catholic Online a lot; that's great! It's a little awkward to ask, but we need your help. If you have already donated, we sincerely thank you. We're not salespeople, but we depend on donations averaging $14.76 and fewer than 1% of readers give. If you donate just $5.00, the price of your coffee, Catholic Online School could keep thriving. Thank you."

I'll leave that there for you to contemplate how the church supports its own when it is dripping in wealth and assets......there was also a pop-up ad for buying statues of Mary at a discount price.....



I think we know who is using theatrics...since you don't seem to use anything else.....all I see are unfounded criticisms of my faith, which I have defended and explained.....but not a single scripturally justified stance for your own......if your beliefs do not come from the Bible, then where do they come from?

According to the Apostle Paul, we only have two tables at which to feed (1 Corinthians 10:21).....one supplied by the servants of Jesus, and the other supplied by the servants of the devil.....there are no others. So we must all choose wisely because our adversary is a con artist....but you knew that...right?

Click to expand...

Fine. Drink the Kool-Aid.

A tactic used by a couple of JW's here is to take a simple question put forth to them and respond with a word--salad essay that rambles on and on and on, which makes it almost impossible to deal with without writing numerous essays back.